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, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

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

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

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

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

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[1] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS.Magnus Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - as reliable in their political opinions as left-leaning sources like WaPo. We don't consider a source unreliable because we don't agree with their politics. Biased sources are acceptable. But like all online news sources in today's clickbait environment, we should exercise caution and use common sense. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now per MastCell et al, but I would probably say that pre-2017 content might be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: China Daily

Link: [19]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [20]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source and should not be invoked in talk page discussions, it says pretty much nothing of value about the quality of a source. That said I do think a RfC on China Daily is warranted. chinadaily.com.cn   is currently cited in 5,762 articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the usual options. Which of the following best describes the reliability of China Daily?

• 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

--Sunrise (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (China Daily)

* Deprecate - My first impression on looking at it is that it's probably in the same category as RT (TV network) aka "Russia Today" which is already deprecated? Being owned by the "Propaganda Department" of the Chinese government and all... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be deprecating sources so lightly based on a first impression. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: on detailed further review it is owned, operated controlled, and so forth by the same entity that owns and controls China Global Television Network, which is already deprecated for being a propaganda outlet. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer: this block is getting pushback, and not just from User:IHateAccounts. Unclear where it will end up. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation China Daily being owned by the CCP is no more a stopper for me than NBC being owned by Comcast. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that state-owned media in non-western states is somehow inherently less reliable than state- or corporate-owned media in the west (to clarify, that's a general observation I've made of others - not you, and I don't think you're doing that here). Indeed, Bennett's indexing theory - certainly the most influential theory in the last 30 years in media studies - suggests that media in the west are already more or less state-controlled on matters of importance, even if they're not state-owned, the different perception of independence only due to their need to calibrate reporting to the multiple control levers present in multi-party states. I believe China Daily is generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions where its use should be limited to WP:SELFSOURCE. Though, as with all sources, WP:DUE should be considered in every use. I draw this conclusion as follows:

-Media Bias Fact Check is unambiguously unreliable. For the purposes of RSN, I always assume it simply doesn't exist.

-The consensus of scholarship indicates that media in China can, and is, held judicially liable for defamation (e.g. this study by Benjamin L. Liebman[21], among others) and this includes state-controlled media.

-The China Daily has a gatekeeping process.

-The China Daily is sourced to RS which is, ultimately, the only standard we - as Wikipedians - can apply. Provided this is met we can't deprecate a source because we're uncomfortable with the governance or ownership structure. In just the last year its original reporting has been sourced (with attribution, but absent frightening caveats about the CCP owning it) by Science Magazine [22], the BBC [23], Barron's [24], Washington Post [25], NPR [26], and others. USA Today even used it as a corroborating source for one of their fact-checks [27]. If we deprecate China Daily while accepting sources that routinely source the China Daily for their content we're saying we know more about the China Daily than any RS. And if we know more than RS, there's no real reason to keep the WP:OR policy.

Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While I haven’t evaluated this particular source in detail, the above comment contains a number of arguments that are largely invalid or irrelevant. (I will ignore the suggestion that many of our usual RS are effectively state-controlled, as something that shouldn’t require refutation.) Starting with the bullet points, it's true that MBFC is unreliable and should not be considered. However:

• Defamation claims being permitted by a country’s laws is a minimal standard, not an argument in favor of reliability. Furthermore, the article cited is from 2006, before the more recent increases in state control. And even at the time, as acknowledged in the same article, defamation claims were also used as tools of media control.
• Having a gatekeeping process is likewise a minimal requirement. Presumably, one of the concerns in this case includes what type of reporting that gatekeeping process will allow.
• Simply being cited by RS does not make a source reliable. Instead, we want the source to be discussed in RS and to evaluate the contents of those discussions. The Daily Mail is also sometimes cited in RS; this is a common situation in which information from an unreliable source may become usable on Wikipedia because of a better source applying its own editorial processes to the information in question.

Additionally, much of the comment is about Chinese sources in general. While this can certainly inform the evaluation, any such information will be overridden by information about the specific source in question. Checking the WP article shows e.g. China Daily#Editorial control and China Daily#Disinformation allegations, which are issues that would need to be addressed.

It's true that state ownership doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, but it’s still a relevant consideration in countries that use the press for propaganda. (I think that some editors, when they mention state ownership, are using it as a shorthand for this type of argument.) The reason that ownership structure can be overlooked in some cases is not because the owners are unbiased, but because they are more likely to have credible policies about independence in reporting. This is not a “west/east” distinction, or any other system that tries to divide people by nation or culture - it’s a result of applying sourcing guidelines that ignore such things. Furthermore, introducing such distinctions (which are largely arbitrary to begin with) only serves to frame the discussion in terms of geopolitics and makes it harder to evaluate the issue neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: just FYI Liebman appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you say he says. Also making that argument in this explicit context ignores the fact that the CCP is above regular Chinese law, it literally doesn't apply to them as party is above state unlike in those multiparty systems (your argument appears to conflate state owned and party owned media). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that China Daily should be considered "generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions" leaves very little for it to report on, given the CCP's influence over every aspect of China's economy, culture and society. It should be good only for its births and obituaries. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it's generally reliable for non-political stuff (like the manhole story that BBC reported based on a China Daily story) and generally unreliable for everything related to politics, broadly defined (see China_Daily#Controversy). Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation. First, context matters and no context is discussed here, not even one example. Second, being rated as left-biased (or right-biased) by some random organization is irrelevant to deprecation discussions. Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. And finally, as much as ownership structure is now a thing for flagging content on Twitter or Facebook, that's not yet a Wikipedia policy. Ownership is part of what we look at when evaluating sources, but not the only thing at all. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I’m surprised it hasn’t been deprecated already given their explicit existence as a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party and long history of disinformation peddling. We have explicit cases of them spreading disinformation which are covered on their page. They have no respect and little credibility within the traditional media, Reporters Without Borders has condemned them etc. I strongly support deprecation. Nothing I’ve seen suggests its usable outside of about self which I will add given the immense nature of the CCP thats actually a lot of contextually appropriate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. It's a state-owned / operated / supported news service, in essence no different form the BBC or PBS. Non-political news is the product of professional reporters. Any story displaying overt political bias is stating the government's official party line — which is important to know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party not the Chinese state, it is political party-owned not state-owned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a distinction between the Communist Party and the Chinese state. I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have considered the Communist Party's Pravda a useable source for insight into Soviet thinking during the Cold War. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your point about them being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS which are entirely independent of the political parties in their respective states. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: In China's case, the Party is the government. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, since you now agree "In China's case, the Party is the government", that makes this vastly different from the BBC or PBS, which are independent of political party in their countries. It's much more a propaganda rag with little factual reliability, with the best comparisons indeed being the factually deficient Pravda, or Russia Today, or 112 Ukraine (owned by Russian proxies), or Rodong Sinmun from North Korea. There are also precedents from Wikipedia regarding papers similar in ownership structure, if not political leaning, such as An Phoblacht, Anadolu Agency, The Electronic Intifada, HispanTV, or Press TV. See their entries at WP:RSP.

It might be viewed as a source (as you proposed) for occasional insight into official talking points of the Chinese Communist Party, but I would never trust Pravda, or Rodong Sinmun, or China Global Television Network, or "China Daily" for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus, we have literature that indicate the BBC tends to adopt framing in its reporting that mirrors that used by whatever party is in power at the time. (e.g. [28], etc.) We need actual evidence of unreliability, not merely expressions of our personal discomfort with the ownership group. "They're communists" is not a policy-based argument to deprecate a source. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a better argument is conflict of interest in relation to certain topics, meaning it can be determined on a case by case basis... —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your argument about it being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS, if you’re arguing that the entire relationship between party and state is radically different than in a multiparty state like the US or UK then what do you mean by "in essence no different” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Oppose Deprecation: the arguments mentioned by Chetsford, MarioGom and Tenebrae are persuasive. Appropriate attribution should be made for statements related to China Daily's area of bias. Also, this RFC hasn’t been set up in our required neutral format. “Deprecate China Daily” isn’t a suitable heading for an RfC and the introduction is supposed to be neutral. Burrobert (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The fact that they are owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party is reason enough. Just as we treat (say) NewsBusters and CNS News together, because both are owned by the Media Research Center, so it should be with China Daily and the deprecated Global Times. For those who don't think that is sufficient reason, please consider China_Daily#Disinformation_allegations. To take one recent example, China Daily promoted tweets saying that the Hong Kong demonstrators were sponsored by Western interests. It also claimed that they were planning terrorist attacks on September 11, 2019.[29][30]. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation, however I would go with option 2 or 3, depending on the topic. Chinese state media is OK to cite as a WP:RS for non-controversial mainland news (such as China opening whatever high-speed train line or something like that), but for controversial topics such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, they should only be used with attribution to get the PRC's official opinion on such subjects. Félix An (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and treat as we treat other semi-official or official media: somewhere in between options 1 and 2, with good judgement expected from editors as usual. Thanks to Chetsford especially for their careful consideration and comments. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

{u|Darouet} can you give examples of official state media (in particular in single-party non-democratic states) that we place between options 1 and 2? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate and put it in the same category as Global Times and CGTN/CCTV. In my opinion, Xinhua News Agency should also be deprecated. Brady (2015) wrote an excellent review on those so-called "media" as part of Beijing's global propaganda campaign. Despite the subtle and stealthy nature of China's overseas influence operations, there are numerous reports by reliable sources and countries with press freedom regarding Chinese state-controled media including China Daily disseminating false or fabricated information. For example, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. It is truly unbelievable that some editors could turn a blind eye and still promote the false equivalence of state-controlled propaganda organs and private media with editorial independence and well-established fact-checking processes. Normchou ^💬 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Deprecation The fact that they have not failed a fact check speaks strongly in their favour, even if it is obviously the state outlet of the PRC. Certainly however, on topics where the PRC feels strongly about however, it should be used only as a last resort, or in order to back up an official position of the PRC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I think it should be treated similar to CGTN where it should pretty much exclusively be used for statements made by the Chinese government but some other areas unrelated to Chinese interests seem to be okay. Flalf^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose depreciation for the same reasons already pointed out by others. The discussion below is straying far away from WP:RS. Mottezen (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 It should be treated as we treat other state-controlled media in authoritarian single-party states: reliable (typically with attribution) as a source on government/party statements (e.g. as a source for statements from state public health officials as in the most of the uses by other reliable sources cited by Chetsford above), possibly reliable for non-controversial facts (e.g. numbers of stolen manhole covers, as in another of Chestsford's examples), but generally unreliable for anything controversial in which the Chinese state has an interest. Nobody so far has put forward arguments for why it should be treated less cautiously than other such state-controlled media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per MarioGom. China Daily is reliable for various topics, though of course they won't be neutral on politics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: I don't see any convincing arguments for deprecation above. China Daily is an important source for news from inside China. Deprecating it would worsen the already worrying systemic bias with regards to China, in which we increasingly rely on sources outside China that themselves often have ideological biases and questionable accuracy. A brief tangent to illustrate this:

The Wall Street Journal published a news article about Chinese economic policy last month that severely mistranslated a statement by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. The original description of his speech is as follows:

会议要求，国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体。国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值。

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

'State-owned enterprises,' he said, 'must become the competitive core of the market.'

This has a very different meaning from what Liu He said in Chinese, and in context, it's almost a direct inversion of his meaning. This is how DeepL translates his statement into English:

The meeting called for state-owned enterprises to become core competitive market players. State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value.

The point of the statement is that state-owned enterprises must become more market-oriented - something that has typically been viewed as a pro-market policy. The WSJ's mistranslation reverses that, and turns it into a statement about how state-owned enterprises should dominate the market ("core competitive market players" turns into "the competitive core of the market").

This mistranslation was pointed out by a reporter for Xinhua, Zichen Wang. The WSJ has still not issued a correction. The WSJ is considered a highly reliable source, and in most contexts it is, but like all sources, it has biases. Especially in the increasingly nationalist climate, those biases can impact accuracy in reporting about countries that are viewed as "adversaries" (in whatever country the newspaper is operating out of - the US, in the case of the WSJ). That's how we get the WSJ mistranslating a statement by a Chinese official and then failing to issue a correction.

It's important to continue using a mix of sources to cover China, including sources with a good record of factual accuracy from within China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, which may only represent minority viewpoints within the community. Moreover, "systemic ABC" is usually poorly defined and unfalsifiable (see some elaboration here), and one should not invoke it when talking about specific instances of an issue, such as "the reliability of China Daily". If factual evidence still matters—which the editor above seemed to think so given that they listed an example of a purported mistranslation to illustrate their point—then the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information should actually support Option 4: Deprecate. Normchou ^💬 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "purported" mistranslation - it's a black-and-white example of a mistranslation. Anyone who reads both English and Chinese can compare the original Chinese text with the WSJ's English rendering.

I raised this example because it illustrates an important point. All sources have biases, and those biases can affect accuracy. It's no secret that tensions between the US and China have escalated dramatically over the last few years, and that public opinion towards China in the US and a number of other allied countries has become extremely negative in a very short space of time. To think that this wouldn't affect American newspapers as well would be naive. Above, we have an example of a leading American newspaper, a solid RS, blatantly mistranslating a Chinese official, in a way that completely reverses the meaning of the official's statement. Who pointed out the mistranslation? A reporter for Chinese state media - a reporter who is likely much more familiar with the policy positions of Chinese officials than the typical WSJ reporter is. The WSJ has not yet issued a correction (it's had a month to do so), and indeed, correcting this mistranslation would probably require the WSJ to significantly revise its entire article (because the actual quote in Chinese contradicts the basic thesis of the WSJ article).

overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information: This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement. In most areas, for example, I think it's clear that Xinhua is highly reliable. Like any source, we should be aware of its biases. For the most part, it will not report on issues that reflect negatively on the Chinese government. However, it will also accurately report on many issues within China that American newspapers like the NY Times and WSJ will scarcely ever report on (and if they do, their reporting is often not particularly reliable or leaves out important context). Our articles on China will not become more reliable by systematically excluding all Chinese sources. I think editors are capable enough to understand the biases that Chinese state media have, and to use them appropriately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. False equivalence and bothsidesism neither make one's argument more convincing, nor help with reducing bias. All sources have biases by no means implies that all biases from all sources—not to mention false and fabricated information from only certain sources—should be treated in the same way when it comes to their negative effects on the Wikipedia project. Thus far, Thucydides411, the editor above, has only used a single, isolated, purported case to illustrate their point. Yet they do not bother about it while turning a blind eye and throwing out some random cliche like This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement when overwhelming evidence says otherwise: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. By the way, as a native speaker of several Chinese languages, I disagree with that Chinese state media journalist's view that the WSJ's translation is such a big deal; 国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market—where many other players can also exist—with the additional requirement that such SOEs should have core/major competitive advantages. A basic understanding of economics—a quality that most of the readers of the WSJ should have—tells me that a "market", by definition, has more than one player, so the "core" is really just the "core player", because the qualifier "of the market" is already there. Regarding the specific structure of that market, it could be in the form of perfect competition, imperfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, etc. There is no indication in Liu He's speech that he is referring to a perfectly competitive market. Normchou ^💬 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market: That's not what it means. It's absolutely clear in the Chinese original that "core" refers to "competitiveness". Just from the way the sentence is constructed, "core" cannot possibly refer to "market", and the phrase says nothing about SOEs becoming the "core player of the market". An unambiguous English translation would be, "SOEs must become market players with their own core competitiveness". The basic meaning here is that SOEs should be subject to market forces, rather than relying on subsidies. The very next sentence makes this even more explicit: 国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值 (DeepL gives, "State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value", and I agree with DeepL's translation). The reason why this is more than just an innocuous translation error is that it makes it look like Liu He is supporting nearly the exact opposite policy - state support for SOEs. I gave this as just a recent example of inaccurate reporting on China by an otherwise high-quality RS - inaccurate reporting that came to light because it was pointed out by a reporter for Chinese state media. This case isn't isolated.

their negative effects on the Wikipedia project: I haven't seen examples where use of China Daily has harmed Wikipedia. Deprecation is a sledgehammer, and if we use it too broadly, we actually do run the risk of ending up with an encyclopedia that has strong national biases. What we need, instead, is for editors to have a bit of common sense, to understand policies around bias in sources, to know when to attribute statements, and to evaluate reliability in specific contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong. 市场主体 literally means the "market's main body"(most common Chinese definition), so there is no issue with 国有企业要成为...的市场主体 being translated to "SOEs should be the core (player) of the market that ..." if one interprets the phrase this way, given the fact that there can be other "main bodies" in the market. The editor above, Thucydides411, should stop using machine translation to mislead themselves and others in this discussion. The more conducive way would be to first have a good understanding of the Chinese languages and the semantic and syntactic ambiguities specific to them. Normchou ^💬 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your confusion now. You linked to the definition of 主体, which by itself can indeed mean "main body". However, the full phrase 市场主体 is the standard way of referring to any market player, large or small, in Chinese. Even native speakers who are unfamiliar with economics can get this wrong. You can verify that what I'm saying is correct by looking at actual uses of the phrase 市场主体. For example, here's a recent usage:

“前三季度，全国共注吊销市场主体779.7万户，同比下降7.9%。其中，注吊销企业262.6万户，下降10.0%；注吊销个体工商户507.1万户，下降6.9%；注吊销农民专业合作社10.0万户，下降3.3%。”杨红灿说。

The passage refers to 7.797 million 市场主体 being written off in the first three quarters of 2020. There obviously aren't 7.797 million "main bodies" of the market in China - and this is just the number that went under in 2020! And as a second example, here's a Chinese government website with instructions on how to create a 市场主体. They're obviously giving instructions on how to create a market entity, not on how to create the "main body" of the market. For what it's worth, Baidu Baike has a page defining 市场主体, and what it describes is any sort of market player. But really, just search the internet for the exact phrase 市场主体, read what comes up, and you'll very quickly realize that this is standard terminology for any market entity.

Maybe the WSJ made the same mistake, assuming that 市场主体 means the "main body of the market", although that would be surprising, given that you'd expect WSJ to find a translator who's familiar with economics. But whatever the reason, the WSJ did mistranslate this passage and nearly inverted its meaning; the mistranslation came to light because of a Xinhua journalist who noticed it; and the WSJ has yet to issue a correction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm wait, since when have you been fluent in Mandarin? You’ve claimed the opposite in your interactions with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate what you mean by "fluent" into HSK or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages? But in all seriousness, my own exact proficiency level is not at issue here. As we've seen above, even native speakers can make mistakes when dealing with unfamiliar technical jargon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you’re trying to say that a native speaker has made a mistaken then yes your exact proficiency level does actually become an issue. Especially when you’ve never disclosed *any* Mandarin proficiency at all... Let alone the level you would need to correct a native speaker on technical jargon. Much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're venturing into ad hominem here. Do you think that 市场主体 means the market's main body, or do you think that it refers generally to any market entity? There isn't actually any real question about what the correct answer is (it's a technical term that means any sort of "market entity", regardless of size or importance), and personally attacking me does not constitute a convincing linguistic argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly dislike being mislead either by media outlets or wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

市场主体 means market entity,[47] though I think it is a term of art and not all native speakers are familiar with it. Possibly the Wall Street Journal's mistranslation is due to the word 主体, which often means "main part", but in this phrase might be better translated as "agent". See also wikt:主體. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate how poor coverage of China is in otherwise reliable sources, and how systematically deprecating Chinese sources will worsen WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. Again, I use the Wall Street Journal, a source that is generally highly reliable, to illustrate my point. In a news (not opinion) article last June about Huawei and its founder Ren Zhengfei, the WSJ wrote,

Just over a month after his daughter's arrest, Mr. Ren visited a Huawei research-and-development center in Hangzhou, commanding employees to learn from the U.S. tech giant Google and 'surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' according to a transcript confirmed by two Huawei executives.

That sounds pretty terrible, until you realize that the phrase Ren Zhengfei used (杀出一条血路) is a standard idiom in Chinese that is commonly used and not perceived as extreme. Imagine literally translating a violent English idiom ("shooting ducks in a barrel", "kill two birds with one stone", "to go in with guns blazing", "to take a stab at it", etc.) into a foreign language, and presenting it as a direct quote. Again, the person who pointed out this misleading translation was Wang Zichen, a journalist who works for Xinhua. The person who actually translated Ren Zhengfei's speech for the WSJ, Eva Dou, said that WSJ editors had not let her review the draft of the article, and that some of the "nuance & context was lost".

The Times (generally reliable, per WP:RSP) then took this translation and ran with it, in an article titled "Huawei’s founder declares 'war' on West":

Huawei's founder urged workers to crush rivals and 'blaze a trail of blood' in the Chinese telecoms giant's battle for supremacy. Ren Zhengfei ordered staff at Huawei's research and development centre in Hangzhou, eastern China, to learn from Google's unrelenting march. 'Surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' he said a month after the arrest of his daughter in Canada in 2018, according to a transcript seen by The Wall Street Journal.

By the way, the transcript was not just "seen by the Wall Street Journal". It's been online from the beginning. Nobody at Huawei apparently realized that English speakers would be disturbed by a literal translation of a common Chinese idiom. Just to sum up: a Chinese CEO uses a common Chinese idiom, the WSJ translates it too literally into English, and The Times then picks it up and presents it as a blood-curdling declaration of war on the West. Neither the WSJ nor The Times has issued a correction. This is the sort of gross misrepresentation that we deprecate sources for. If we get rid of all Chinese sources, we'll be solely relying on sources like WSJ and The Times to report on China, and that's a bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• *Oppose Deprecation and as usual CONTEXT matters. I see no compelling argument and dislike casually dismissing sources entirely. This seems a major WEIGHT source, widely used outside and in WP articles, so it would be difficult to exclude anyway. With what seems solid editorial control and generally factual content, I don’t see any reason to exclude. Context should always be considered for RS, and even in suspect cases such are potentially useable as a WP:BIASED source, just like material from advocacy groups can be used. It’s not grounds for entire deprecation. Would one use Washington Post for Amazon content ? Probably just seek another source — but that doesn’t exclude WaPo from all articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford and Thucydides411. We cannot discount the biasness of the various so-called English-language WP:RS when they describe or criticize Chinese media in the first place. NoNews! 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Thucydides411 and WP:GLOBAL. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: They have been shown to fabricate information (see previous comments and the discussion below), so we should definitely indicate that. Also, clearly state that it is affiliated with a ruling political party, which needs to be taken into account. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation, support Option 2. This source is widely used both onwiki and offwiki, and fills an important niche (see Thucydides411's comment above, and WP:GLOBAL). However, given its status as party-controlled media, it should probably be treated as a WP:SELFSOURCE for content that directly discusses (for example, and off the top of my head) the CCP, geopolitics, or international relations. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation - A blanket deprecation would not be fair. STSC (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

*Comment It absolutely astounds me that so many editors feel they can trust a "news" outlet that is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. The idea that such an entity has the required editorial independence, fact-checking history, or reputation for accuracy required for WP:NEWSORG is absolutely laughable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 I'm finding it hard to see why we should treat this differently from China Global Television Network. One combats systemic bias by incorporating good information, not by relying upon propaganda. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation unless someone can come up with actual examples of them being cited for garbage claims. Propaganda is, well, fairly ubiquitous in the year 2021. Being operated by a government with a history of execrable acts doesn't seem like a cogent prima facie reason for deprecation: how many articles cite Voice of America? Heck, how many articles cite the BBC? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to cite them for "Communism kicks ass[1]", or "the Xinjiang re-education camps are awesome[6]". However, we also don't cite "Capitalism kicks ass[1]" to the United States government. Propaganda does not mean "every statement made by the organization is the opposite of true"; (RSP entry), for example, is listed in RSP as being "generally reliable for factual reporting". We can use our brains to determine if individual pieces of reporting are trash. jp×g 20:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to compare an owned-and-operated arm of the Chinese government's Propaganda Department to the BBC is so ridiculous, WP:FALSEBALANCE isn't even strong enough to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing and equating are different things. Jimmy Page and Jimmy Hoffa are different in many respects (one is a British guitarist and one was an American labor activist); a proposal to move the latter's article to "James Hoffa", however, would likely (and validly) result in the comparison being drawn. Pointing out that Jimmy Hoffa didn't know how to play the guitar, in this case, would be beside the point.

By the same token, the mere fact of a press outlet being operated by a government does not prima facie make a case for deprecation, even when the government is quite brutal: Commentarii de Bello Gallico, a long piece of brazen political propaganda written by the Emperor of Rome, detailing a litany of what would now be considered war crimes (he slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians after capturing Avaricum), is to this day the main account from which we know the deeds of Vercingetorix. jp×g 02:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI Commentarii de Bello Gallico is generally believed to have been written and published before Julius Caesar became Dictator. Also Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, the first Emperor was Augustus. Accuracy matters, which is why given China Daily’s history of publishing disinformation we should deprecate them. We don’t consider media outlets which purposefully publish false information to be reliable regardless of whether or not they’re operated by a government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, technically technically speaking both Julius Caesar and his adoptive son were both imperator in succession, Augustus was the first augustus (hence the name), neither was a monarch, the word "emperor" is an anachronism, and the Roman state remained a republic for a further fifteen centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about imperator (a concept which spans both time periods), we’re talking about the Roman emperor who was the ruler of the Roman Empire which wasn’t founded until 27 BC after the death of Julius Caesar. You are mistaken, the Roman Republic ended in 27 BC although the Empire would maintain the political trappings of the republic. If you would like to radically alter how wikipedia approaches Roman history be my guest, might I suggest starting with the opening sentence of Augustus? "Caesar Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was the first Roman emperor, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.” seems to be clear enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Wikipedia is not the place for such nuance, anchored as it is in the morass of popular historiographical tradition. Nothing changed in the Roman state's constitution in 27 BC; the heads of state remained the consuls, and Octavian was awarded the title of augustus. The Roman republic was referred to as such, including by the emperors themselves, well into the 15th century. "Emperor", as I have said, is just an anachronistic convention, as is "reign", at least for emperors like Augustus. The emperor Julian counted his distant relative Julius Caesar as an emperor, although he also listed Alexander the Great ... Nevertheless, Wikipedia bows to convention. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously using a discussion about the reliability of China Daily as a venue to push pet theories about the continuity of political structures within the Roman state which aren’t supported by modern historians? Please review WP:FORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I can tell already I know more about what modern historians support on this subject than you do. GPinkerton (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 While I'm not very familiar with China Daily specifically, I am familiar with the general issues with any mainland PRC-based news media. In short, the PRC does not have press freedom or press independence, so comparisons to Western state-owned outlets like the BBC are specious. There are situations where the political/propaganda needs of the Chinese government will cause false or misleading stories to be run. For instance this [48] China Daily story falsely claims that "people's freedom of religious belief in Xinjiang is fully protected" (which is hard to believe with the reporting on Xinjiang re-education camps) and makes claims denying mosque destruction that are directly contradicted by this [49] more convincingly sourced New York Times report. Other examples should not be hard to find by searching for material on other sensitive issues, such as Xinjiang, Tibet Taiwan, or Hong Kong. At a minimum China Daily's WP:RSP entry should have the same kind of warnings attached to it as Xinhua:

“ Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua 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. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; 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 to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua. ”

- GretLomborg (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 for any content related to Chinese politics or any issue where the party control creates a conflict of interest, enough examples of lying have been presented to prove that. It is not possible to achieve NPOV by "balancing" state disinformation with independent journalism or scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. China Daily is to the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party what Ibis is to Accor, or what Hampton Inn brand is to the Hilton Hotels & Resorts, or what Candlewood Suites are to InterContinental Hotels Group. It's their budget brand for the international market. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. As many editors have stated before, the paper is censored when it deals with Chinese politics, and there have been plenty of examples of claim fabrication listed above to support that. This should be treated the same as Xinhua News Agency, as it cannot be trusted to cover subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder both accurately and dispassionately. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. It is indeed unreliable for identifying anything as a fact. This does not mean it is always wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (mundane articles) / Option 3 (controversial, nationalistic, etc. articles) The paper is owned by the Chinese government that is the most important thing to remember when using this source. The Chinese government has no problem making up facts to fit its desired narrative. Therefore, it is unreliable for anything controversial such as internal or external dissent, nationalism, etc. However the newspaper does have mundane content (e.g. culture, sports, technology, travel, etc articles), which is useful for covering this country of 1.4 billion people, for which there are only a limited number of English-language sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record at this point but China Daily is owned by a political party within China not the Chinese state. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford. Couldn't word it better myself. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Deprecate. Admittedly, I've only stumbled upon a few articles but that was enough to know the political bias and/or nationalist bias of the paper. User:Normchou detailed "why" the best. I don't think these kind of very political sources should have any place in the Wikipedia.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 2 The trend towards deprecating Chinese media sources makes it hard to source mundane topics that are not picked up by international news. I think it is generally understood by editors that they have some biases towards political topics, and we should assume that editors will be cautious when using these sources for such topics. We have processes to handle editors who are abusing sources to push a certain view. If consensus does move towards deprecation, I suggest that the deprecations be scoped to only non-mundane political issues (an article talking about the new mayor of Shenzhen would be OK, but an article talking about Hong Kong protests would be not) Jumpytoo Talk 06:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4- Its owned by the Chinese Communist Party, one of the world leaders in propaganda and misinformation.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 based on the evidence presented. Being owned by a political party of a country that is not majority white is not a reason to deprecate, nor is using the unreliable MBFC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why do people always have to bring race into a discussion that has nothing to do with race? It's a shameful tactic. My opposition to this souce is not that its owned by Chinese people, but it is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. I thought pointing out this simple fact would be enough, but I guess some people like you don't know anything about the CCP. Read this BBC story about how the CCP uses China Daily to produce propganda videos for them. Here's the video, according to them the BBC is "fake news". Here's another article from the New York Times. Educate yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know about the CCP. Evidence of them exerting their influence on China Daily to promote "fake news" is need to propose deprecation, not merely establishing connection via ownership. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re mistaken, its China Daily which says the BBC is Fake News not the other way around per the linked report "BBC in Xinjiang: Facts Don't Matter | China Daily visual investigation” Thats pretty clearly pushing disinformation, its irrelevant whether or not the CCP told them to do so. If they had completely independent ownership they would still be deprecatable, the lack of editorial independence is the cherry on top not the sunday. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me provide a transcript of the first 30 seconds of that hard hitting piece of investigative journalism: Reporter 1 “Fake News. The BBC is twisting the facts.” Reporter 2 “What? Did you say BBC is making things up?” Reporter 1 “Yeah, check out this video report on Xinjiang. They obviously didn’t do a complete investigation. I guess the media forums are correct: BBC stands for biased broadcasting corporation. They only report on China where they can make up some controversy especially when it comes to Xinjiang” Still standing by that Option 1?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Agreed with the other editors, being government-owned is not grounds for deprecation. China Daily does factual reporting, and it's entirely relevant for it to report on Chinese government positions. As a rule, sources can be biased, but that does not make them unreliable. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 for every kind of reporting except "politics and controversial events", Option 3 for "politics and controversial events" In some events, the source is known with its fact-checking, however, remembering that it's currently under the control of CCP is important.Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'd ask you to reconsider. The fact it is under control of the CCP cancels out any claim of fact-checking because the facts are whatever the CCP says they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: As far as I see, not always. Yes, there's a censoring~and misrepresentation of information by CCP on some news, however, it's impossible to say "It always generates fabrication for all types of news" for all ordinary news (as opposed to Daily Mail).Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 (for non political news about China), Option 3 (for news about other nations, political news about China) - China daily is essentially state media. For political articles, we can assume there would be a bias towards the Chinese Communist Part's POV which owns it. I would oppose using it for citing any political/non-China related fact in Wikipedia voice. Any citation must explicitly note that it is the view of the Chinese communist party. However, China Daily is generally useful for citing non-controversial facts about China such as geography, transport and administration, so I won't go so far as to deprecate it.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 4: The issue here is they do not stand to any editorial scrutiny, censorship is widespread, there is no de facto opposition media allowed, and the news that does come out is filtered or altered by the government with no independent checks and balances. Their aim is not be a reliable media outlet either, they are basically a press agency for the government. If we compare to lets say US or UK depreciated sources, at least we have a whole array of other media outlets to compare to and that are willing to call out misinformation or controversies regarding their competitors; furthermore in the US or the UK you can always try your case through the courts; I would argue that this is worse as no such thing happens nor is it possible. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate. Apart from all the other examples given at length above, we have a worked example in the discussion: where a sincere Chinese reader, based on what they've read in China Daily, tries to explain to us that the Xinjiang internment camps don't exist. If China Daily leads to beliefs about the world like that, then we absolutely can't risk it being used as a source in Wikipedia, and it needs deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: - it's state-controlled media (China Daily, established in 1981 as the national English-language newspaper) and because of the propaganda and governmental control in a country where they arrest whistleblowers, including journalists, I'd be skeptical about the validity of anything they publish. Sensationalism is one thing, reporting about a fire or weather event is something else, but it's highly unreliable for fact-based material about much else. I suppose we could use it from time to time by prepending any inline attribution with something along the line of "state-controlled China Daily published yada yada"...or something along those lines - if there is no other source to cite. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[50][51]

[52]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [53][54]

In both cases, we have outrageous lies pushed by China Daily. There are more at China Daily. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These are both Facebook posts, not articles published in the China Daily. I don't think we consider any newspaper's social media accounts to be reliable sources. At least, I've never seen someone try to cite the NY Times' Twitter account on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[55]

Missing in China Daily's discussion of the "autonomy" of Uighur women is any mention of the Xinjiang re-education camps. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)7

The last of these articles gained notoriety in the past day after an excerpt from the article was shared on Twitter by the Chinese Embassy in the United States. The excerpt is reproduced below:

Chinese Embassy in US

@ChineseEmbinUS

Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report

January 7, 2021

References

This tweet (and accompanying China Daily article) appears to be a defense of certain elements of the Uyghur genocide, and has received coverage in Ars Technica (RSP entry) and an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Added archive link. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As morally unacceptable as that is, "moral unacceptability" is not part of WP:RS, so I think we should judge based on factual accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at factual accuracy. From the China Daily article:

The research center's report said safe, effective and appropriate contraceptive measures are now available to couples of childbearing age in Xinjiang, and their personal decisions on whether to use those measures — which include tubal ligation and the insertion of intrauterine devices — are fully respected.

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [56][57]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just focussing on factual accuracy almost all of it is false. This is not a study that an independent source or one with basic fact checking abilities would have used. Its almost laughable, lets for instance contrast this statement with the well known second class political status of women in modern China "In the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no long baby-making machines, it said. Women have since been striving to become healthy, confident and independent.” The CCP doesn't promote female emancipation and gender equality even for Han women... Are we really expected to believe they do it for the women of a minority which by all reports they are repressing? I’ve certainly never seen a WP:RS give these sort of bullshit propaganda reports the time of day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this conversation should stick to source analysis, but just as a matter of historical interest, one of the major societal reforms that the Communist Party tried to carry out after coming to power in 1949 was to change the status of women in society (e.g., legalizing divorce, trying to stop forced/arranged marriages). The New Marriage Law was one of the first laws the PRC passed, and it was accompanied by massive propaganda campaigns to get people to accept it. The status of women, more generally, was one of the major issues of contention between the Communists and Nationalists (the latter taking a much more traditional view of women's roles in society). That is to say, while you say it's ridiculous to think that the CPC would ever promote female emancipation, it wouldn't actually be out of line with their history or ideology. This isn't a comment on the specific report that China Daily reported on - I haven't looked into it carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that post-Mao the status of women within the Party and in society in general plummeted, today there are no significant female party leaders and both within and outside the party women have second class status. If you want a better understanding of the modern history may I suggest Judd’s The Chinese Women's Movement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there you have it: government-run press outlets aren't particularly reliable on the subject of whether the government in question is perpretrating something horrific. Everyone knows that. We shouldn't be using those statements to reference statements about that issue. This would be true for any source in any country. For example, the 2021 election in Chad is almost certainly going to be rigged; the article manages to cite statements from the current president about what he said, while also citing statements from RS about whether it's true. What's this got to do with wholesale deprecation? jp×g 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: According to The Guardian (RSP entry), Twitter took down this tweet, having concluded that it breaks its rules. The Guardian highlights the discrepancies between the claims in the China Daily article and the results of the investigation by the Associated Press (RSP entry). Additionally, The Guardian confirms that the Xinjiang Development Research Center study is "unpublished", which makes China Daily the original published source of the claims. — Newslinger talk 11:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily attributes the claims to the report. Unless you're claiming that China Daily fabricated the existence of this report, what is the RS problem here? Are we going to deprecate newspapers that describe the contents of Chinese government reports that editors find objectionable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[58]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily is reporting the claims of a report written by a governmental group. China Daily repeatedly attributes those claims to the report, just as it should do. You're saying that China Daily is not reliable because it does not inject the types of editorial comments you would like it to make. Of course China Daily is going to write about reports created by the Chinese government, but as long as it properly attributes the claims, it's usable. On the other hand, a lot of the claims being made about Xinjiang come from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was created by the US government, and which could just as easily be viewed as a propaganda organization. That doesn't mean that the claims are wrong, but this connection is rarely explained in news articles (including by the AP) about Xinjiang that rely on claims that come from this organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point you’re missing is that a WP:RS would never have taken that report at face value as China Daily does, the claims made in it are absurd (as are most claims China makes about human rights issues within China, remember that according to themselves the Chinese government respects human rights more than literally any other government on earth). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing here that China Daily's article is inaccurate? All I can see is that you're arguing that they do not make an editorial comment that you would like them to make. If one were to note (with attribution, of course) the views of the Chinese government on this issue, then this China Daily article would be a good source, because it explains what the Chinese government report states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the word "research" is inaccurate. The phrase "study shows" is also false. And phrases like these frame the reader's understanding of the entire piece. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The China Daily article does not use the phrase, "study shows". The article also describes the "research report" written by Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (established by the US government). The China Daily article doesn't say that Zenz' claims are wrong, and it doesn't say that the Chinese government's claims are wrong. You're essentially demanding that the article take an editorial stand, but if we want a source that simply describes the claims made by the Chinese government report, I don't see why that's necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[59]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The tweet comes from the Chinese Embassy in the US, not from China Daily, and we're not discussing whether tweets are reliable sources, anyways (we typically wouldn't cite tweets from any news outlet). There is an actual report by a Chinese government agency. China Daily has seen the report and is reporting on its contents. Other news outlets have also reported on the contents of the report, and even interviewed the author. a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows [...]". That would be user error. A better paraphrase would be, "A report written by a Chinese government agency stated, ...". Note the attribution, which makes it clear to readers that we are reporting the views of a third party. Inclusion would be subject to the usual considerations of weight, NPOV, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Firestar464: Could you please revise the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp) to meet WP:RFCBRIEF, which requires the RfC statement to be "neutral and brief"? Specifically, "Media Bias Fact Check classifies it ... 'state propaganda.'" cannot be in the RfC statement since it advocates for a position, but you can move it into either the survey or discussion section. The link to MBFC's rating of China Daily should also be moved or removed from the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firestar464 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment regarding the above: Xinjiang and Tibet (along with HK, Taiwan, the South China Sea) are two controversial areas that we should probably refrain from using Chinese state media in, but for most non-controversial mainland news, it should be WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we can't know in advance what they are going to start lying about. In general, a rule like this would require readers to keep up with a lengthy and continually changing list of areas of concern. For example, prior to December, 2019, there was no reason to suspect their information about coronaviruses. See also Censorship in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems that out of thousands of articles in hundreds of topic areas there are some CCP-sensitive pieces of concern or POV differences. But this is not showing an issue re RS attributes with all content, most content, or even a common occurrence. Got any problem with their topics today of Covid, or Plastics, or Smartphones ? Or is it just China political content ? If there was bad info on in 2019, is that not the same info all papers had at the time and a matter outside them? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government and their media entities spreading covid related disinformation has actually been an acute problem, are you unaware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the unfounded Association fallacy accusation. We are specifically talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. NoNews! 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't talking about separated entities here, such as the Washington Post being owned by the same person that owns Amazon. We're talking about multiple arms of the same cephalopod; China Daily is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it was a wrong use of the term association fallacy. This is not about "ownership" in its usual sense of being a shareholder (which is essentially the residual claimant), but about the direct command and control from the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of editorial independence by design for all Chinese state media. Normchou ^💬 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, there are a lot of editors writing "oppose deprecation," though not everyone is actually saying what option they are in favor of. Options 1, 2, and 3 each do not involve deprecation, so I am not sure where consensus currently is pointing. It looks like the majority of editors have concerns regarding the paper's ability to cover China, so is this something we wind up breaking into multiple categories (such as we do for FOX News and Huffington Post)? Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose Option 2 is a good summary – many editors have raised concerns about political topics, but many have pointed out that China Daily is generally reliable for ordinary news. If we wanted to go the "Fox News" route, maybe Option 1 for most news about China, Option 3 for internationally controversial political issues. As User:Jumpytoo pointed out above, China Daily is generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of out currently deprecated sources, for instance RT, would be generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. That isn't the standard we use, the whole MO of a modern state media source with a penchant for disinformation is to have the disinformation make up only a small fraction of your reporting. Thats why we focus on the small amount of reporting (normally 1-5%) which is problematic and not the 95-99% that isn't. The other big flaw in that argument is that without inside access to the CCP we don’t know what they consider to be controversial or political which renders it at best an entirely unachievable standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,everyone!I am a Wikimedian from Jiangsu China.My English is terrible,so I use Chinese to talk.首先，中国的新闻还算自由（至少和朝鲜民主主义人民共和国相比好多了），第二，由于某些文化差异与政治上的意识形态差异，所以请不要使用西方的思维来思考中国发生的事情。维吾尔人大多生育一人以上的子女，而中国大陆在2015年之前法律规定都倡导生育一个，而大部分维吾尔族人士有“超生”现象，所以绝育是无稽之谈。关于禁止说维语：中国的通用语言是普通话，维吾尔语是少数民族语言，有一说一，目前来看，维语的保护形势比方言好多了，所以某些西方媒体还是关注一下中国的方言吧！此外，新疆的确有宗教极端分子。别一天到晚说那些稍微了解一些中国状况的人都觉得毁三观的“新闻”！关于香港：香港自秦朝以来就属于中国领土的一部分，秦朝时归属南海郡，清朝时归属广东省。我看过VOA关于香港抗议的视频，掐头去尾，只留下容易对港警行为产生歧义的片段。总体上来说，中国日报对于香港的报道比苹果日报以及VOA为首的某些西方媒体好多了。每个人都喜欢另类的东西，比起真正的中国，大部分人更喜欢不一样的中国，所以某些媒体就想方设法的抹黑中国。而且由于中国的意识形态与西方国家存在差异，所以说这种污名化会更加受到欢迎。希望会中文的人士帮我把我的言论翻译一下！谢谢！Jerry (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

有一点忘记说了，补上，省的给我扣帽子：所谓再教育营存在吗？不存在，澳大利亚智库以及BBC的报道中所谓的“再教育营”中，有工厂，刑事羁押机构甚至是学校，我想问一下，各位所在的国家有学校吗？学校里面装监控吗？有刑事羁押机构吗？进去蹲牢的标准是什么？有工厂吗？工厂有监控有围栏吗？我敢说，按照BBC的标准，世界各地都有（包括英国）Jerry (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

[Translation of the above statement] First of all, China has some sort of news freedom (at least, much better than North Korea). Secondly, due to some cutural and ideology differences, please REFRAIN from using western minds to interpret things going on in China. Most Uyghurs raise more than one child. Mainland China advocates that each family should raise only one child by law until 2015. Most Uyghurs fail to meet this requirement (that they should only have one child), therefore, it is TOTAL NONSENSE to say "sterilization". Regarding the ban of the use of the Uyghur language: The general language of China is Putonghua/mandarin Chinese. Frankly speaking, currently, the preservation status of the Uyghur language is much, much better than Chinese dialects. Thus, "some certain western media" (in China environment, the use of "some certain" usually contains sarcasm), focus more on Chinse dialects! There ARE regious extremisms in Xinjiang. DO NEVER report those "news" that even someone with only bare knowledge of China would find them breaking their worldview, philosophy and value! About Hong Kong: IT IS A PART OF CHINA SINCE QIN DYNASTY. During Qin Dynasty, it belongs to "South-sea county"; during Qing Dynasty, it belongs to Guangdong Province. I have seen the VOA video about HK protest. Much shorter, no [video] beginnings or endings, with only the clips that make people easy to misundstand the behaviors of HK police. In a nutshell, China Daily is MUCH BETTER than "those some certain western media led by VOA and Apple Daily". Everyone likes alternate things. Compared to the true China, most people want a different China. Therefore, "some certain media" defame China USING ANY WAY THEY CAN. In addition, because the ideology of China is different from that of western countries, those smears are more welcome. I hope someone [whose native language is English] who know Chinese could translate my statements, thank you! (Yeah, I have done your favor, although I am a Chinese native speaker who know English) [Original statement posted by User:城市酸儒文人挖坑, translated by Milky·Defer 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)]

[Translation of the above statement] I forgot something, and I add it here, so that nobody could accuse me that I am poisoning the well (correction: poison my well). Those so-claimed reeducation camps, do they exist? NO, NEVER! The "reeducation camps" from Australian think tank and BBC reports, contains factories, detention centers, even schools. I may ask, don't you have schools in your country? Don't schools have surveillance cameras? Don't you have detention centers? What's the criteria that make people go into jail? Don't you have factories? Don't them have surveillance cameras and fences? I dare to say, based on the BBC standard, everywhere in the world, including Britain, does (have "reeducation camps"). [Original statement posted by User:城市酸儒文人挖坑, translated by Milky·Defer 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)]

We are talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. --BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The above statement by Jerry, arguing with apparent sincerity that the Xinjiang internment camps do not exist, is an excellent, if inadvertent, illustration of why CCP-led media, including China Daily, need to be deprecated. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

jfc. Yes, if China Daily leads to beliefs about the world like that, it needs deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 由于某些文化差异与政治上的意识形态差异，所以请不要使用西方的思维来思考中国发生的事情 is the exact type of platitude which has been indoctrinated into the Chinese people when it comes to criticisms of the CCP, and which is intended for those in the West who are susceptible to "orientalist" sympathies towards the "other people in the East" to believe. But no, this has little to do with "culture" or "diversity". It is precisely political in nature. Normchou ^💬 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

我声明一点：我弗曾畀洗脑过，如果侬箇佬讲个话，我可弗可以视为箇是弗尊重事实？是对我人格个侮辱？言论自由没有错，但请侬注意一注意侬自由个度！Jerry (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Washington Times

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.

With no new insights being contributed to this discussion recently, I believe it can now be safely closed. Basically, this RfC affirms the existing consensus regarding The Washington Times. Details are as follows:

There is a consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. The Washington Times is generally unsuitable for contentious claims, especially about living persons. Opinion columns are governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. A majority of editors regard the The Washington Times as generally reliable for non-politics, non-science topics. Some editors observed that The Washington Times has a conflict of interest regarding the Unification movement and related topics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times  , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)

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

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Washington Times)

• Option 2.5 It's been cited by reliable sources including PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc. ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]). At the same time, it's also been noted publishing errors or falsehoods; however, in a number of these cases - though prolific - it's also published corrections or removed the offending material (e.g. [66]). Despite the glaring examples of issues with the WT - and there are many - just looking at its website on any single day it's apparent that these are not the paper's grist and, 95% of what is currently on its site as of this datestamp can't be differentiated from wire copy and is fairly straight-laced. My sense is it should not be used as a source for content regarding the Unification Church, nor should it be the only source for extraordinary claims. And, obviously, WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

All the references except NBC Boston's are uncontroversial dates and figures, and about half are on topics they're directly linked to. Naming the source just to be safe isn't necessarily an endorsement for that kind of thing. I also wouldn't say that retracting an article whose central premise is fabricated after the threat of legal action is the kind of correction that indicates editorial oversight. Many "unreliable" sources are at least 95% true (most blogs, Wikipedia, etc), the question is more whether we can be confident the editorial process reliably functions as a barrier to misinformation. From what I've seen, the Times' process pushes writers towards untruths at least as often as it does away. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 Washington Times is a source with a conservative lean that has strong links to the Unification movement. It has had a reputation for being one of the most partisan broadsheet papers in the United States since the 1990s. It may be the case that it generally unreliable for politics and science issues (the entry for The Washington Times document these extensively), as well as issues related to the Unification movement or its founders. However, it does not appear to be generally unreliable for news outside of those areas. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• If you disagree with what's listed at RSP it would be helpful to provide arguments/evidence. If you don't disagree, an RfC isn't necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I agree with Chetsford's "2.5" (which is actually just a specific 2, "additional considerations apply"). I would also point out that the paper and its website are of questionable to low reliability on American politics, for the same reasons as Fox News and New York Post, i.e. a strong right-wing bias. No, not because the opinions are conservative (National Review and Wall Street Journal are much more reliable but even more conservative), but rather because in this era and with this sort of publication it translates into poor fact-checking and even some dissemination of proven falsehoods that are popular among the far-right political base. I have not assessed its science coverage in great detail, though that's always a concern with far-right media (actually far-left, too, which is responsible for a lot of pseudo-medical nonsense). Washington TImes's more rote reportage is probably just as reliable as the average smaller newspaper; it is not quite in the same league of reliability failure as Breitbart News and Newsmax, which exist simply as far-right propaganda farms. Honestly, I would be okay with option 3, but 1 is out of the question, and 4 may be a stretch. Unfortunately for WT as a source here, most of its original reportage, most of what people are apt to try to cite it for, is American politics material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think it is reasonable that it not be used as a source for the Unification movement due to a clear COI, but for all other things it just seems to have a political angle that many news organisations (left and right) all have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for political, social, religious, or other contentious matters; option 3 for other matters. Clearly a very-low quality source. Let's review what our own article notes about them (all well-sourced):

The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, on ozone depletion, and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, and promoting Islamophobia.

References for those interested.
References

In addition to the issues above, the newspaper promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theories (echoing Russian disinformation) in an op-ed column, for which the newspaper issued a lengthy retraction and apology in 2018—after being forced to do so by a lawsuit (cite). Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side:

• In 2001 and 2002, the Washington Times ran a series of stories falsely accusing seven biologists of engaging in fraud to trigger endangered species protections (see here, here).
• During the 2020 campaign, the Washington Times used a quote from a university official in a misleading way (a "dishonest light") to make it appear as if Joe Biden had misstated where he attended college (here, here)
• The Washington Times has published news articles baselessly suggesting that COVID-19 virus was a "biological weapon" (here)
• Just two weeks ago, the Washington Times had to retract a bogus "news" story claiming that a facial recognition company had "identified" perpetrators of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as "antifa" (the riot at the Capitol was, in fact, a far-right attack). The newspaper only retracted the story after the company's lawyers had demanded it do so. here, here

This is an encyclopedia; we should try to use mainstream journalistic sources and academic sources and avoid scraping the bottom of the barrel. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the links. I haven't reviewed all of them, but the Islamophobia one relies on the opinion of the Council on American–Islamic Relations which is itself hardly a reliable source (see here). I'm not sure we can take their characterisation at face value. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4, DEPRECATE. A long history of pushing conspiracy theories, science denialism of various sorts, islamophobia, xenophobia[67], and of course, obvious falsehoods[68]. Recently it was also spreading COVID-19 disinformation [69] and just in the last two weeks it was producing false claims that facial recognition found "antifa infiltrators" within the mob at the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. [70] It didn't earn the nickname "The Moonie Times" without good reason; it simply can't be trusted for honest reporting. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Quite a lot of issues, but it appears that they tend to issue corrections and retract problematic articles (see User:Neutrality's examples above and [71], for example). Many outlets classified as reliable also make mistakes ([72]), so as long as corrections are made I think it should stay 2. Alaexis_¿question? 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is (a) the number of mistakes and (b) the pattern. Washington Times's history is clear that they don't make the initial good faith effort to get the reporting right. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I voted based on the examples provided in the thread and all of them are about specific inaccuracies which seem to be subsequently corrected. They do not support your claim that they make more or graver mistakes. If such evidence is presented I will reconsider my vote. Alaexis_¿question? 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the bias, this study found that "Interestingly, our measure implies that if one spent an equal amount of time reading the Washington Times and Washington Post, he or she would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," so it doesn't appear that it's uniquely biased. The study is from 2005, I haven't been able to find something newer - but then a lot of studies provided to support deprecation are even older. Alaexis_¿question? 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 as per above. I have seen concerns that their near confusion in name with the Wa Post is also of issue which makes them a tad suspect in additional to their conservative bent. They aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies, but they're not anywhere close to a clear reliable source. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually did research before saying things that aren't true, like claiming "they aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies"? SPLC Report: The Washington Times has History of Hyped Stories, Shoddy Reporting and Failing to Correct Errors. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a big different between shoddy/poor reporting and deliberately false reporting as the DM has been proven to do (deliberately changing people's quotes for example). --Masem (t) 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 except for politics and science which they should never be used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2 Generally reliable source. Almost all of (if not all of) the most prolific sources have made errors on occasion. The name obviously comes from the city it was founded in, not an attempt to confuse people it the WaPo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 . . . but we should be specific. I want to draw a contrast between different types of situations. I think they are completely fine in situations where they are reporting on publicly-available primary sources.[73][74]. We should avoid them in situations where the underlying facts are murky.[75]. In reporting on a murder, obviously the whodunit aspect is a matter of great dispute. In their favor, they do have a corrections page.[76] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Neutrality. Their false reporting on environmental issues ([77][78]), the coronavirus ([79][80][81]), the recent election ([82][83][84][85]; they retracted the last one, but, as noted above, only after they were threatened with a lawsuit), the 2016 election ([86][87]) and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory ([88][89]; again, only retracted after they were sued) in particular are concerning because these don't seem to be mere innocent mistakes; they're overtly false stories that serve the purpose of supporting the Times' bias. This covers more examples. See [90] for a paper about how they cover things in a misleading way to support specific biases, or [91][92] here for discussion of how its biases influence its reporting. Simply being WP:BIASED or sometimes getting things wrong aren't, individually, enough to get a source depreciated; but a biased source that repeatedly gets things wrong in the direction of its bias, and which doesn't generally issue a retraction or apology for this unless compelled to by legal threats, ought to be treated as intentionally publishing false or fabricated information ala WP:DUCK. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How is publishing an article that says Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China's biowarfare program in January 2020 (and adding an editor's note in March) different from publishing an article that says that masks will probably make little difference if you’re ... taking a bus in April 2020 (this is just an example from the paper I read regularly)? In hindsight both statements are likely false, but that doesn't mean automatically that it's false reporting. If it were found that they lied about a source of their claim, that would have been false reporting. Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 for American politics, Option 3/4 otherwise: mostly per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. I believe deliberately reporting false information merits deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for American politics and topics that inherit the contentiousness of American politics (e.g., environmental science and climate change, COVID) per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. The examples cited above all seem to pertain to that area, but I am doubtful they are frequently cited for anything else (arts and culture, say). XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The details cited above are adequate for this. When we have good content mixed in with bad content as a regular occurrence, overall the source can't be considered reliable or trusted. Spudlace (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 promotion of voter fraud [93] and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and most recently false flag antifa stories shows that this is an outlet with equivalent reliability to that of Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - fabrication, conspiracy theory advocacy, COVID misinformation push it over the line. This is a source we shouldn't use for anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 I came across a WT article used as a source for Carol Browner: "Obama climate czar has socialist ties." It falsely claimed that Browner was a member of the Socialist International (SI), that the SI called for "global governance" and that it was a radical, anti-American organization. In fact she was invited by the UK PM to speak to a meeting of social democratic leaders about climate change. Juan Guaido, who leads a member party of the SI and is recognized by the U.S. government as Acting President of Venezuela, was invited by Donald Trump to his state of the union address, was praised by Nancy Pelosi for his courage and got a standing ovation from both Democrats and Republicans. In this case WT clearly misleads readers by the selective use of facts and a few false statements thrown in. The article has never been retracted. TFD (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Much as I enjoy phrases like "Telegram’s main rival, Twitter", this is basically the Trumpischer Beobachter now. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I wouldn't use this source, since there are a lot of better sources in the American media market. However, on some occasions, there might be a unique news article that is useful. Articles in such cases would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2.5-3 The problem with deprecating sources like this even if they "deserve it" is that then their content can't be used at all. For example, here is an article of theirs that paint PragerU in a fairly positive light. That article could be a useful source for certain claims in the PragerU article. E.g. that it has some 60 employees. If WT is deprecated, it can't be used at all. ImTheIP (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Chetsford and Masem.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, maybe 3 in some areas Being a politically partisan newspaper doesn't make it unusable per WP:BIASED. While this isn't top quality mainstream media source, it's still a pretty established newspaper that was set up in the early 1980s. Over the years, it indubitably has had a lot of non-controversial information relevant for an encyclopedia. The publication seems to issue corrections. In most disputes, content sourced just to Washington Times would probably most often be removed. Such editorial judgment is always required in all Wikipedia articles.--Pudeo (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Leaving aside the editorial line, no evidence shows that this established newspaper has some uniquely bad record on its standard reporting. As Chetsford shows, its journalism is widely cited by others, so this is not on the level of Infowars or anything like that. It may be somewhere between Washington Post and Daily Mail, but I'm sure we can cite the basic reported facts from the majority of its articles without any problems.Hko2333 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, per a mountain of evidence from Aquillion and Neutrality. The pattern of deliberately misrepresenting quotes, and insider accounts of their editorial process make it impossible to argue that the parade of blatantly false stories is just a large series of oversights. There's a difference between getting details wrong and publishing articles whose central premise is fabricated, and a difference between correcting errors when you notice them and doing so when you're forced to by legal action (or not at all). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Citing by reliable sources does not mean anything. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot. However, if it's been noted publishing errors or falsehoods (as it actually was), that makes it a questionable source. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, Too partisan. Being skewed in favor of one political side is enough to consider it unreliable. Therefore I agree with everyone that found it unreliable although I'm not sure it should be deprecated or not. I understand the opinions of those who want it to be deprecated but it's too harsh in my opinion.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).

• Option 1 or Option 2 Being partisan is not a reason for being unreliable we allow partisan sources --Shrike (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• option 3 for politics, option 1 for other fields Here's the thing: for any kind of political reportage, if I read something in the Wash Times, I would be wary of it unless it were also reported elsewhere, and even then I'd want to compare coverage. I could never be entirely trusting of something only they reported. In other areas, they are a perfectly decent big city newspaper; I don't know how it is now, but back in the day they were the only NE newspaper with decent religion coverage, Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that the editorial page on any paper is only reliable as a primary source for the writer's opinions. People can criticize the op-ed page all they want, but Post or Times, it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be automatically extended to the rest of the paper. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - per WP:USEBYOTHERS mentioned use by "PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc.", and extent of WP acceptance shown by www.washingtontimes.com   5,450 citations to it. And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. I would suggest that any use should as always follow WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. I would note WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG should still apply and any issues about pieces clearly stated as opinion should be mitigated by that. I would also note the ownership may be something to consider on specific topics, as it should be for any media source. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - all news sources should be handled in this manner, no ifs, ands, or buts. The political position of one newspaper is not superior or more trustworthy than another's, and believing that it is would be noncompliant with NPOV. That is not a productive way to view sources because it chips away at WP's claim to NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. It is a misrepresentation to imply that this RfC hinges on the "political position" of the Washington Times. While all sources may have a political position, that doesn't mean that all sources are equally biased. No one would reasonably question, for instance, the reliability of the Wall Street Journal's reporting, despite their conservative editorial line. The issue here is the fact that this particular news source has a demonstrable record of unreliability, as Neutrality and Aquillion have shown above, which makes it quite unlike other sources which are rightly considered reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 Long history of blatant falsehoods on climate change issues, among others. Zaathras (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - Per Neutrality's expert fisking above - a publication which flat-out denies the existence of climate change in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty simply can't be trusted to publish facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Have not seen any convincing evidence that it is unreliable. Neutrality's analysis which many of you are praising is completely invalid. When a source publishes an op-ed with opposing or even unpopular viewpoints, it has absolutely no effect on the source's reliability. Op-eds are opinions that need to be attributed anyway. Saying that a source is unreliable because it presented an opinion article that disagrees with consensus is ridiculous. Unlike some of you diversity of viewpoints is op-eds is something I welcome. A source needs to be evaluated on the quality of its actual reporting, not op-eds. Also, every major newspaper has issued retractions, so I don't see how that counts against them either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see that you're completely ignoring the part of my comment that immediately follows: "Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side..." And issuing retractions is different from retracting an article after the newspaper is sued... Neutrality^talk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the Washington Times did not get sued, a lawyer sent a cease and desist letter (that's not the same thing). Second, if the forced retraction of an entire story is a disqualification, then I guess CNN must be considered unreliable too. A Costly Retraction for CNN and an Opening for Trump- The New York Times--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 The Washington Times is a right-wing rag (to show my own bias), but Wikipedia is not censored. In cases where the topic is not controversial it can be cited. In cases where the topic is controversial, editors might choose to cite it with attribution, acknowledging that it is a biased source. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Darouet, as it happens. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 This source is strongly biased and should generally be avoided - calling them "news" is generous. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Elliot321, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia indeed true in general, but the source's strong bias makes it seem likely to me that they would not have accurate journalism. This has to do with my personal interactions with the source, not a general rule. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 We already have an WP:RSP entry about it that's pretty accurate. I'd even add to those who propose it should be used for sports that if better sources are available they should still be used to avoid promoting suboptimal media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 mainly per users Atsme and Darouet. This is a well-established newspaper. There are partisan bias present, sure, but that applies for virtually all American news outlets.--Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - "additional considerations apply". Yes it is biased, as are most news outlets, but that does not mean it should not be used as a source for most things. That being said, they should not be used for issues of science, due to their history on issues such as climate change and COVID-19.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 They do publish corrections [94] [95]. They do have editorial control. As demonstrated above, they have some WP:USEBYOTHERS. But they have also been too slow to retract some false stories, although they have done so eventually (Seth Rich). Adoring nanny (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I say this for their corrections, and their use by ultra-reliable sources like Reuters. Contrary to what another editor said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a factor we should take into account when assessing a source. The fact that the source is biased does not necessarily mean that they get the facts wrong more than other sources. Editors have made valid points related to specific instances of misinformation, but I do not think they are egregious enough to warrant Option 3. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. As the newspaper that started the COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy [96][97][98], I highly question its reliability and its content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Per documented issues listed in prior discussions on this board, as linked in RSP. If material is sufficiently prominent to appear in reliable sources beyond WT, then they should be used instead. If WT is the only source, then the material is probably undue or fringe anyway. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Washington Times)

• @Buidhe and XOR'easter: Responding to the "per Newslinger" ping. Those words might be a mistake, since I haven't commented in the survey yet. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hey all, I'm looking at probably closing this in a couple of days, assuming no new arguments of significance are raised before then. Everyone seems to agree that with regards to politics and science, they are unreliable, and most people seem to prefer outright deprecation to a Fox News-style "usable within in-line attribution." I would like to solicit some more feedback regarding their non-politics, non-science articles. Some people early on suggested they are probably reliable for other topics, and a quick perusal of their website indicates they cover sports extensively. Could someone who knows more about these topics than I check whether these and any other non-politics, non-science articles seem reliable? In addition, several people have indicated that they consider the source unreliable regarding the Unification movement, but nobody has said whether they think this merits deprecation regarding that movement, use only for attributing opinions, or some other remedy? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We've previously deprecated sources in their entirety for fabrication in politics and conspiracy theory and pseudoscience advocacy - are you proposing a "partial deprecation"? - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Not proposing, just trying to foster discussion. Some people have suggested that Washington Times is worth not completely deprecating because of its content on non-political topics (sports being the most prominent on their website). Others have suggested deprecating the Washington Times because of its political content, which could mean either that they don't see the non-political content as meriting any distinct treatment (and thus said nothing about it) or that they simply hadn't considered that aspect when voicing their opinions. I'd like a better idea of what people are thinking. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• • That would be option 2 additional considerations apply. I am still against this "deprecation" system though at the moment. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Emir - and also with Jimbo relative to what he said to an editor about the Daily Mail being deprecated. See Jimbo's response. Atsme 💬 📧 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC: Asian News International (ANI)

Asian News International (ANI) is a news agency used as a news feed by several publication in India and is directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . There is a dispute regarding its reliability on Talk:2021 Farmers' Republic day parade § ANI is not reliable source.

Which option best describes the reliability of Asian News International (ANI)?

• 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.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Asian News International)

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. ANI has been documented by multiple sources including the non-governmental organisation EU DisinfoLab among others that found ANI peddling fake news and disinformation, to help the ruling party BJP in India. --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Has functioned as major conduit for fake news via Indian Chronicles disinformation campaign. Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 based on their track record and reputation. In the specific context given I don’t think theres any possible debate about them being a reliable source, if they are reliable for anything it won’t be Indian politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Considering the extraordinary number of citations from ANI by other media organization. And also the reliability issue of the sources quoted above. ANI can be considered generally reilable. DavidWood11 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS because it is regularly used as a source by high-quality reliable news platforms such as The Daily Guardian, BBC News, Scroll.in, Times Now, Hindustan Times and many more so their reliability should be gauged by who reuse on their data. GSS ^💬 04:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, this is largely inaccurate. The Daily Guardian doesn't use it, BBC News does not use it as an agency feed and quotes it with in-text attribution within articles (For context, BBC quotes Chinese state media in a similar manner), Scroll.in uses it in the same manner as well. Times Now is also not a high quality reliable sources, being a publisher of conspiracy theories itself.

  It's also not used as an agency feed by Indian newspaper which are considered to be generally reliable such as The Indian Express (RSP entry) or The Hindu (RSP entry); see [99] and [100]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: In that case we have The Siasat Daily [101], Lokmat [102], Telangana Today [103] and The New Indian Express [104] (maybe more) they all use ANI as an agency feed. GSS ^💬 06:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, you can probably find more, simply because there isn't a lack of news outlets in India. In this particular case these are all mostly regional newspapers, some of which are problematic in their own right. Being a large news agency, ANI is used by a number of newspapers but that doesn't translate to use by high quality sources. Many newspapers also tend to subscribe to all four news agencies with a national reach; Press Trust of India, Indo-Asian News Service and United News of India being the others, not because of any consideration for either of their reliability which WP:UBO presumes.

  For instance, The New Indian Express possibly has issues with undisclosed advertisments and paid news, while Telangana Today is owned by the K. Chandrashekar Rao and is criticised for partisan coverage and censorship in Telangana. I don't think these would have high standards for fact checking. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. There are extensive and documented instances of active misinformation by ANI. It should not be relied on, particularly as it has the practice of simply deleting stories subsequently, and not formally withdrawing/apologizing for false claims. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Given its track record on publishing misinformation [105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] and its habit of publishing pro-government propaganda [115][116][117], it must be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting. SUN EYE 1 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: per WP:USEBYOTHERS tied to BBC et al, and extent of WP acceptance directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. That altnews.in sometimes disagrees shown above seems a minor item. I would suggest that any use should, as always follow CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to describe ANI withdrawing stories after an IFCN accredited fact-checker like Altnews (or for that matter Boomlive) point out that those stories contain falsities or disinformation, as a "sometimes disagree" situation. I've listed some examples in the discussion section. Based on the multiple criticism of ANI for recorded and documented misinformation, reducing it to ANI vs another website is in itself misleading. - Naushervan (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that was a reflection of WP:USEBYOTHERS "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." The variety and standing of multiple media venues (BBC, Reuters, et al) having accepted and used ANI demonstrates general respect; so does the many WP usages. The reputation, WEIGHT, and substance seems clear. I'm thinking it it vastly outweighs where above Altnews had criticisms of inaccuracy in some tweets. Not that altnews is without credit, though it also has detractors, but those cites just don't seem substantive enough for RS criticisms and tweets do not reflect all venues of ANI reporting. Option 2 -- it seems obviously reputable in the industry but as always consider in context of the specific piece and usage for the cite. I would always caution on opinion pieces or first-tweets and caution for ANI over BJP or pieces -- just as I would caution using Altnews.in and their criticisms or ideological differences with ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Markbassett, can I ask you how did you come to the conclusion that it is used by the sources you are referring to here; "BBC, Reuter, et al"?

For instance, of the thousands of articles that can be found on the BBC News website, there are four reports which mention Asian News International, none of which are based on ANI's reporting itself and its most prominent appearance is in a reports on ANI's role in the disinformation campaign. That is neither use, let alone widespread and in addition constitutes negative coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate The USEBYOTHERS criteria for RS was pointed to by GSS, and I note their link to Reuters prominent is in their article and mentioned online and the BBC mention of them as India's largest wire service. I did see BBC usage attribute parts of stories to ANI at a couple [118], e.g. here, and here although usually BBC has its own reporters and uses Getty images. You can also google other newspaper online sites make what seems similar usage at NY Times, Washington Post The Sun, The London Times, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Australian, USA Today, and so forth as one might expect from a wire service covering India. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I would like to point out a few things though. Reuters itself provides a disclaimer that it has no involvement in ANI's editorial operation. BBC has a fairly large coverage and audience in India, and does use local news services, it has hundreds of reports which make use of Press Trust of India, as opposed to around 3 reports with barebones use of ANI within them. The overall usage in the rest of the sources is also similar "once in a blue moon", that too seems to be mostly for quoting officials.

WP:UBO states that "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Here we do have doubts on its reliability which are published in the very same sources and are its most prominent appearances in those sources. But if you still think that it fulfills UBO, then I wouldn't argue further and leave it at this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: ANI articles are often quoted/republished by other reliable sources. It is sometimes a bit biased but nevertheless it can be used for facts.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: ANI is one of the largest news agencies in Asia, and a reputed one at that with scores of subscribers both within the country (India) and outside thereof. So much so that the very thought of certifying it as otherwise is beyond me and totally uncalled for. One or two instances, if any, of erroneous reporting prove nothing. One could find the same for even the renowned New York Times, but that wouldn't make it unreliable. Like the below section would show and as I said on the talk page of the article in question too, the very portals being used to disparage and descredit this reputed agency (the likes of wire, quint et alia) have a poor standing, and have often been deemed ideologically biased and unreliable on RSN itself in the past.[119] Regards, MBlaze Lightning 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  MBlaze Lightning, there have been no significant discussions on the reliability of The Wire or The Quint on this noticeboard nor have their reporting been used to make claim about the reliability of Asian News International. The link you provided constitutes a singular opinion on The Wire and The Quint where an editor claims that they are reliable but biased. The Quint article cited to here refers to a report of EU DisinfoLab, which is the same as the one referred to in the BBC News article.

  On a side note, Webqoof, the fact checking division of The Quint is affiliated to the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) for which there is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact checking organisations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Entirely reliable source. Very few instances highlighted by newly born rivaling media outlets are irrelevant. Meanwhile, the long established worldwide media outlets treat ANI as a very reliable source. You can find petty criticism about just any media. NavjotSR (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I repeat WalrusJi. BBC and Caravan are not newly born. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, leaning towards the latter. Fact checking organisations have already documented frequent instances of fabricated stories, its independence is compromised due to its close association with the Indian government in a country where freedom of press is at a critical situation (it ranks #142, below Myanmar and not far from Russia) and add to it the EU DisinfoLab report's implication that it is a conduit for amplifying disinformation from fake news outlets of the Srivastava Group. There are instances where it has gone as far as to re-published op-eds from outlets that don't exist, attributed to people who deny having written them.

Frankly, having observed the various arguments till now, I couldn't see anything convincing that suggests it is reliable other than what I presume to be attempts at disregarding its coverage in reliable sources? They are apparently very reputed internationally, yet search results tied to major international news publication don't yield much. One of the predominant results is in fact, coverage of the EU DisinfoLab findings framed as revelations by said international news publications, which refer to "its content [being] reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 1 per above and WP:USEBYOTHERS. A very credible news agency in India whose articles are being used by reliable newspapers as pointed out by some users above. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 The evidence presented above such as the BBC article means that it is clearly not a reliable source on anything to do with Pakistan. Arguments presented in favour of its reliability are not convincing, and rely on appeals to authority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. (a) I am not swayed by the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. The other venues that are "using" ANI don't know any better. ANI is a newsfeed that the lesser papers without their own repoters are compelled to use so that they can fill pages and keep up with their competition. These lesser papers are not high-quality sources for us anyway. And, there is no dearth of high-quality sources in India, like The Hindu, The Statesman etc. There is no harm in forcing the editors to go out and look for them instead of picking the first thing that pops up on a Google search. (b) The biggest problem with the Indian news media right now is the huge government propaganda machinery, coupled with threats, intimidation, arm-twisting, imprisonment, lawsuits etc. etc. In this context, a source that has a proven track record of peddling government point of view should be avoided at all costs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I haven't seen any argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS so far. It is clearly much more credible and reliable than the petty critics cited here. "BBC" is certainly criticized so much in the last 30 years that ANI does not even come close to that criticism. It will require broad agreement within WP:RS that the source isn't reliable if we are going to select any other option than resorting to cherrypicking from partisan sources. Azuredivay (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS is that it isn’t. WP:RS simply don’t seem to use them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 - according to the BBC, a network unrelated to ANI was set up as an information operation. The BBC continues, "There is no evidence the network is linked to India's government, but it relies heavily on amplifying content produced on fake media outlets with the help of Asian News International (ANI) - India's largest wire service and a key focus of the investigation." ANI is an aggregator, and its services may be misused, but the problem is not with ANI itself, and instead with materials that were posted to it. You can't take down the largest news aggregator from a country of a billion people because articles that ended up being posted there were part of an information operation. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, I am swayed by the argument of Walrus Ji, it is clear to me that this source deliberately publishes false information, and functions more as a propaganda sheet that an actual news source, and as such it should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 It's certainly one of the largest news agencies in Asia as MBlaze said, and no plausible argument, having a basis in policy, has been put forward against WP:USEBYOTHERS for consideration. ANI's reach isn't limited to India or for that matter Asia, it "provides footage and editorial content to foreign news channels and agencies,...and is often the only source of footage and news from India's neighbours... Indian channels also rely on ANI feeds for the domestic stories that they are unable to cover, thereby making it the single largest source of news footage for an Indian channel. In fact, a major proportion of subcontinental footage telecast on foreign news channels such as the BBC, CNN, CNBC, NHK, etc. is provided by ANI, which also provides complete daily news bulletins and current affairs programmes to various ethnic channels operating in Europe, the US and other countries where the South Asian diaspora is present".[120] Such a high quality agency simply cannot be deemed unreliable by any stretch of the imagination under WP:RS. Also, what Darouet said. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Asian News International)

ANI has been documented by multiple international sources peddling fake news . Searching for ANI in RSN search box gives tonnes of results with links of Administrator Noticeboard Incidents, and those results are useless.--Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• A number of the sources listed here are themselves questionable with respect to reliability. Are there reputable international news sources that discuss ANI? Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have added BBC to the list above. You can also refer to these links [121] and the thread of RS links [122] --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• EU Disinfo has a fairly detailed report on ANI's role in targeting international institutions with disinformation. Within the Indian context, Caravan has a detailed report on indications of pro-government bias by ANI. IFCN accredited fact checkers like AltNews and Boomlive have extensive instances of ANI circulating fake news in the Indian context: see. e.g, fake news about the Balakot airstrike, misinformation on Covid-19 protocols that was refuted publicly by the Noida Police, fake news about a train accident, used to target political opposition, and a Livemint report on ANI's repeated fake news regarding Indian military operations, resulting in veterans' associations publicly denouncing ANI, ANI using its own employees for staged interviews on demonetisation. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• The list above seems not really serious RS criticisms, and mostly repeats of just two incidents. That (1) is about a first-report tweet quoted an eyewitness and later had to correct that it was a spokesperson... is demonstrating responsible journalism. The (2) is about India Chronicles - not ANI - but says ANI was pro-Indian (no surprise) and repeated the unstated material - and (3), (5), and (7) are same story ? Then Tablighi Jamaat (4) that someone complained ANI first tweet had misquoted them so ANI removed the tweet and corrected it, again seems decent response - and (6) that twitter then roasted them over it is no surprise; and (8) notes that retraction occurrred. That out of thousands of stories so few and minor are the issues held up as wrong speaks favorably of ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the exhaustive discussion above and taking into account of few instances of accusations of various sources whose own reliability comes under questioning at various occasions, as few instances highlighted by newly born rivalling media outlets are irrelevant.. And also considering high number of citations of ANI by other media houses against WP:USEBYOTHERS. ANI is generally reliable to use as [WP:RS]] DavidWood11 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC : The American Conservative

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The American Conservative?

• 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

John Cummings (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (The American Conservative)

• Option 4: The American Conservative has published several articles which include largely fabricated or false information on trans people. Articles include; Trans conspiracy theories: The Insanity Of Transgenderism,When They Come For Your Kid, Not Just A Tattoo: Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, A Pro-Trans, Anti-Parent Conspiracy, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, Leaving The Trans Cult. These articles also appear to fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. Jewish conspiracy theories Does George Soros Want Revolution In Europe?, Beware Of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors. Climate change conspiracy theories: On Wildfires And Climate Change, ‘The Science’ Got In The Way Of The Science John Cummings (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I fail to see what's anti-Semitic about either of those Soros articles. Just mentioning his name? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• We've already had an RfC on this last September, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RfC:_The_American_Conservative which was well attended and never closed. Please check the archives before opening RfC's. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, I did check the archives and somehow missed it. What is the process for this since it was closed with no decision being made? Does that mean I can continue the discussion here? Should I transclude the previous discussion into this one? John Cummings (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I think the best thing to do is close this RfC and place a closure request for the previous RfC at WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, do you think there is enough discussion there to make a decision? I would be very happy to spend time encouraging people to take part in the discussion however its archived and cannot be edited. Is it alllowed in the rules that additional discussion take place here and the two be considered together? This one as a continuation of the other. John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note that TAC is already listed at WP:RSP (the perennial sources list)... it is deemed OK to cite for attributed statements of opinion, but not OK for unattributed statements of fact. We can discuss CHANGING that designation if you want, but you might run into NOTCENSORED resistance. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Looking at your last example [123] - could you explain which statements in that article you regard as "Climate change conspiracy theories", and why? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Regarding Jewish conspiracy theories, how does a criticism of Soros automatically become a conspiracy theory? Alaexis_¿question? 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is George Soros undermining European national sovereignty and "Activists like Soros—whose organizations share part of the blame for encouraging migrants to come to Europe and lobby Europeans to regard borders and sovereignty as things of the past—are trying to rip off our birth right to sovereignty and stigmatize people by accusing them of upholding an outmoded Christian identity." are almost word-for-word the conspiracy theories described [here] - the idea that he is somehow funding and causing immigration in an effort to undermine white western Christendom. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. The TAC article doesn't mention Soros's ethnicity and criticises his support of migration. Soros himself said that "[his foundation's] plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle" ([124]), so what exactly is inaccurate there? Alaexis_¿question? 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Secret option 5 Why would you use it? It has a strong self-declared political bias and consists of opinion and news-pinion. The news-pinion will be covered with an attempt at neutrality elsewhere, so AC should not be used for that. Its opinion pieces might be ok for the opinion of the writer, but the writers are not particularly notable, so probably not useful. If Henry Kissinger writes a piece for them entitled "Why I love my Throne of Skulls" it could possibly have a place on the throne of skulls or Henry Kissinger articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. We already limit the use of TAC to situations where we are discussing a contributor’s opinion, and there are limited situations where discussing a contributor’s opinion would be appropriate. However, IN those rare situations, it is absolutely ok to cite TAC to support a statement as to what those opinions actually are. We would be using TAC as a primary source for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. I would also say that (IMO) we should not consider being published in TAC as rendering an opinion notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. The writer should be already notable for some other reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 4 or 5 per John Cummings and Boynamedsue. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source, WP:NOTCENSORED. Whether they're due is none of the business of this noticeboard since WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV and since every article has a talk page where editors may discuss in context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are two steps here, but it does publish news articles from a conservative perspective like this one. Therefore the RfC is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious... Why do you classify that as a news article and not an opinion piece? It reads like an opinion piece to me. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source. This is completely untrue and I'm baffled that editors keep thinking it is - review WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Citing an opinion to, for example, a Reddit thread or a Twitter post by someone who is not a verified subject-matter expert would generally be unacceptable; beyond that, the wording of RSOPINION makes it clear that opinion reliability is a separate standard of reliability that has its own requirements, not a universal license to use any opinion from anywhere. Anything cited via RSOPINION must still meet the basic WP:RS requirements for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial controls; the requirements are looser in that case, not nonexistent. WP:SELFPUB stuff is not normally usable even via RSOPINION - some degree of fact-checking, accuracy, and reputation is still required. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ted Koppel explains it well...there's a big question mark about objectivity in journalism today. Atsme 💬 📧 23:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote is correct. It is required by the policy I cited, it is not refuted by the guideline that Aquillion points at, it is extremely common to cite blogs tweets etc. without pretence that they must be reliable for facts when they're not stating facts. Of course there is no universal licence to use any opinion from anywhere, nor did anyone say so, because any edit must meet other guidelines and policies, but desire to suppress a publication is not a guideline or policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because due weight depends on reliability, it is still necessary to assess the reliability of sources when evaluating due weight. This noticeboard is the appropriate venue for assessing reliability. WP:NOTCENSORED states, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies", and both WP:V and WP:DUE are policies that enforce reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you missed that WP:RS is not a policy so it can't trump policy (nor can essay-class pages), and maybe you didn't click the link in what you referred to which says the appropriateness of any source depends on the context and "Other reliable sources include: ... magazines", maybe you can't understand that when we say Sam-said-X we're not saying X is fact, and maybe you've forgotten how you repeatedly insisted that Daily Mail opinions were unacceptable, until a closer of the relevant RfC shot that down. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability, due weight, and consensus are all policies. Invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is not going to justify the inclusion of material that is unverifiable, undue, or against consensus. No idea what the Daily Mail (RSP entry) has to do with this. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 / Option 1 with the reminder that we can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the above; publishes false or fabricated information intended to advance conspiracy theories. Not usable under RSOPINION (outside of the standard WP:SELFPUB exceptions that would allow someone to be cited anywhere, eg. treat it like a Reddit post) since its efforts to push fact-free conspiracy theories show a lack of editorial control even there and fail the standard that RSOPINION requires. Opinions from it should be cited only via a secondary source and never solely by a cite to it directly. Fact-free conspiratorial red-meat websites aren't usable as sources in any context - as others have said, how is this different than eg. Occupy Democrats? How does the fact that the American Ideas Institute created a magazine and website to pour their opinions into automatically make them more noteworthy than if they were posting them on Facebook or in the comments section of YouTube videos? As WP:RS says, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert; there's plenty of reason above to consider them useless as a source, and I'm not seeing any reason they'd be usable beyond "they call themselves a magazine". --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Option 2, it is obviously a conservative source, the articles you linked are opinionated giving an argument. See what NewsGuardTech browser extension says. Aasim (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC was closed because the previous RfC was not, which seems like an odd reason. There are contributions in the previous RfC which might justly be copied here, or the authors pinged, but there is also new information linked above. It seems to me to be prudent to finisah this RfC so we have a definitive result. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Option 4. In general I would go with "option 3" for opinion-only sources, but in this case TAC is beyond just opinion-only. This isn't about a "crony capitalism" section that studiously avoids criticising any Republican until they speak out against Donald Trump, it's about systematic factual and intellectual dishonesty. There are dozens of stories peddling the Big Lie ([125]). Last time TAC was discussed we did not have such a convenient litmus test for politically motivated dishonesty - now we do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm amazed how deprecation is slowly but surely turning from a sensible policy of excluding a few sources peddling lies intentionally to silencing everyone who deviates from the current mainstream - whether to the left or to the right. Surely, a lot of sources are flawed, but what about relying on editors to make decisions for a given source in a given context?

Speaking of TAC, the current consensus at WP:RSP is to use it for attributed opinions. No examples of problems caused by this policy have been provided, so it's not clear why policy change is needed. Having different opinions about Soros or trans people is not a sufficient reason. Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee, Emir of Wikipedia etc from the previous discussion. It is a useful source. Common sense should be used to decide what use to make of it on a case by case basis. Burrobert (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 known for conspiracy theories, as I stated earlier. When it is pushing the baseless election fraud claims it should be clear that the outlet isn't interested in coverage consistent with facts or reality. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 given the points raised by the nominator, Aquillion and Guy. Yes, we're probably having to deprecate more than we thought we would years ago, but that's just a consequence of the modern media landscape. What matters is whether deprecation makes sense on a case-by-case basis, and it does here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - conspiracy theories and fabrication. If people feel too many deprecations are happening, the cure is for people to use less sewer-quality sources in Wikipedia; until then, we have to actually say "no, you can't use sewer-quality sources" - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - this is not a proper RfC as it was not setup correctly. Additionally, what has changed since the last time this topic was discussed? Has something new happened that makes the previous RfC (something like 6 months back?) invalid? If not, why haven't previous participants been notified? Springee (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Clearly usable with attribution per WP:RSOPINION. This is just the latest attempt by certain editors to ban sources that express opinions that either make them feel uncomfortable or they just don't like. It is more than okay to present an alternative viewpoint on "climate change". I'm sick of people here making the argument that you can't say that because there is a "consensus", so if you go against consensus then you spreading misinformation or a conspiracy theory. Anyone who says that doesn't understand what a consensus is, consensus is not unanimous or even near unanimous agreement. Here's an interesting "fact check" on climate change consensus [126] And labeling criticism of George Soros as "Jewish conspiracy theories" just because he happens to be Jewish is disingenuous. And I'm not even going to weigh in on the transgender issues debate, other than to say its very controversial.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  As per WP:RSP unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The article is written by Earl J. Ritchie whose bio appears at the end of the article. He is more than qualified to speak on the subject both due to his job experience and the fact that he teaches at the third largest university in Texas.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, "Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management".

  So, not a subject matter expert. And no, it is not OK to present as fact an alternative to the scientific consensus view on climate change. The "two sides" are not science and the politically motivated anti-science bullshit of climate change dneialism. The scientific consensus, by definition, encompasses all legitimate evidence-based perspectives, and any "balance" to that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, as I am sure you understand. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He is also a geophysicist, but you conveniently left that out. You seem to have no concept of what a "consensus" is. I not going to debate someone as close-minded as yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Looks like a source that is largely analysis and opinion. That means most of the time it probably won't get cited or would have to be attributed. Option 2 doesn't establish that the source would have weight one way or the other on any topic. Running contrarian opinion articles doesn't mean the source should be excluded from use. We really need to spend less time looking at the source in general and more time asking if a particular article is appropriate for supporting a particular claim/statement in a wikipedia article. We should do less of this generalization stuff.

Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Options 3-4 Confirmed to have pushed baseless conspiracy theories that were already debunked by mainstream media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I don't even think this one needs explaining. Even the internal wiki article The_American_Conservative gives the sole needed reason for why this should be deprecated. In an ideal world, at least 95% of the opinions should lean towards option 4 here.Magnus Dominus (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 3 (actually none of the options, this is an opinion magazine) The RFC doesn't apply here. The American Conservative is very clearly an opinion magazine publishing the views of contributors. It does not claim to be a news source. There are many such opinion magazines (Jacobin for example, or the Forbes contributors) and we never use them to cite facts. It can be useful if we want to cite the opinion of a particular author and attribute it to them, so I would oppose deprecating it. However, it should never be used as a news source.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3+. This is used as a source nearly 400 times on Wikipedia.[127] As an opinion publication, it should only be used for opinions where they are due. As a fringe publication, it would rarely be considered due. As a source for facts, it should be actively discouraged as it has a track record of conspiracy theories and denialist positions. Because it has a few notable contributors whose opinions might occassionally be due, I would not vote for deprecation, although I am almost tempted to because it is used too many times on Wikipedia as a source for facts (on topics as varied as Anabaptism, John Rawls and ) Calvin and Hobbes) because of the superficial sheen of respectability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The American Conservative doesn't attempt to hide its political bias, but that doesn't mean that we should deprecate it. It looks reliable enough to include in articles (as attributed opinions), and I don't see any sort of allegations that the magazine is fabricating what it attempts to present as objective news. The articles that John Cummings present are clearly opinion pieces, and I don't think any of us would reason that their having a belief that transgender medical interventions in children is suboptimal is a reason for us to deprecate the source as we have done to the Daily Mail. We certainly should not use this source as if it are presenting objective, disinterested coverage of topics, and this source should not be used for sourcing extraordinary claims, but I don't see anything wrong with using this for attributed per WP:RSOPINION given that the magazine really isn't fabricating facts and it doesn't appear to teeter on the edge of doing that. Claiming that a particular set of mechanisms for supporting transgender children is bad on moral/philosophical grounds (especially in the case of Rod Dreher) can't be considered a "fabrication" or the production of "false information" unless we are going to extend our notions thereof to moral claims altogether, which is something we generally avoid doing on wikipedia due to WP:NPOV.

I believe a brief description of the contents of a few of the articles listed by John Cummings might help to shed a little more light on this. The first article, The Insanity Of Transgenderism, is an opinion piece by Rod Dreher that basically breaks down to a criticism of political correctness in a particular pro-LGBT group's report (Dreher writes, "So, 'human rights' now entails referring to a woman’s genitalia as a 'front hole.' The 'vagina' is the result of having your penis amputated".) The second article, When They Come For Your Kid, is a piece by Dreher that expresses discontent with the widespread acceptance of the use of puberty blockers in children. In the third article, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, is a piece by another author that argues that too many young girls are receiving puberty blockers and that this is being facilitated by public policy (particularly education policies in California) and social media. In the fourth piece, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, Dreher (gushingly) profiles the work and beliefs of the Kelsey Coalition and states his belief that gender transition discussions have become a sort of "third rail" in American policits. In the fifth article, Dreher (starting to notice a pattern here) highlights a particular school district's policies that make it very difficult for parents to find out that their children are considering a transition or report symptoms gender dysphoria to the school. (Dreher does allege conspiracy, though it's literally because he's alleging that the school district is setting up a system to obscure information from parents, and it appears to actually have some factual basis). I could go through more, but it would take a lot of time. The headlines are edgy, but the content of these sorts of articles doesn't actually reflect any sort of effort to fabricate false information and publish it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: "trans totalitarianism" is particularly crazy, and the Soros stuff is noxious as well. Clearly pushes unbalanced conspiracy theories. Noteduck (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: On the rare occassion that I read something on that site, it's nearly always by Jim Bovard and it's quite good: [128] [129]. The Shooting of Duncan Lemp page would be much better off with his articles. I can't speak for the other stuff. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The American Conservative)

• See for example Voter Fraud Happened, But This Fight Is Over, published Jan 6. "Evidence abounds that the game was rigged, and the courts clearly failed us". That is wilfully dishonest, as anyone who has read the court filings will be aware. "The woke media—a media too corrupt to print, during the presidential campaign, stories of the Biden family’s years of corruption—was oh, so uninterested in the statistical disparities in voting that clearly indicated election fraud". See also Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The "statistical disparities" which "clearly indicated voter fraud" have been analysed in detail and are down to obvious errors like assuming that each incoming set of ballot declarations will be statistically identical, when we knew months in advance that in-person and absentee ballots would represent very different demographics. Put simply, supporting the Big Lie is prima facie evidence of disqualifying bias-based unreliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• See also The Battle for France and Denmark’s Intifada, two article by Paul Belien supporting the Eurabia conspiracy-theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we ALREADY say that TAC is not reliable for fact, how do these examples change anything? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• To give an example of content from TAC that might be useful for Wikipedia: [130]. Its author (Roger Scruton) is notable and his opinion provides a valuable perspective. I don't see why it should not be used in Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In what article might you use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Skyline or Roof pitch probably. Alaexis_¿question? 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, not really, no. He wasn't an architect, so his opinions on architecture and urban planning would only be valid if he was noted as a commentator on those (as was, for example, John Betjemen, founding author of Private Eye's "Nooks And Corners"). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He's sufficiently notable as a commentator of urban planning to be written about by The National Review [131], Spectator [132] and criticised by The Guardian [133]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we ban this highly questionable source?

• Source: A Social History of India by S. N. Sadasivan

• Used in: several Wikipedia articles
• Reason:
  • Author is not a reputed or mainstream south Indian historian
  • Serious factual accuracy issues
  • Book is full of conspiracy theories or misleading claims (promoting conspiracy theories)
  • General lack of inline citation in the book
  • Book is never cited by any of the other mainstream scholars.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removing RfC tag due to lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. In fact, according to Google Scholar it is cited 62 times[134] (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Could you give a little more detail please Ouṃkāra? Has the text been criticised by other scholars? What do you feel to be the conspiracy theories and factual inaccuracies? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that none of the major scholars even refer this book! Note the general lack of inline citation in the book.

The book is never cited any of the reputed/mainstream south Indian historians. However, you can find many references to this book in hundreds of sub-standard entries in Google Scholar!

Since its not been cited, no criticism by any reputed or mainstream south Indian historians exist.

Please read any part of the book, and you can see. Just see the title of first chapter "The Aryan Invasion of India"!. Can any scholar even imagine putting up a title like that ??

Do you want exact quotes from the book ??

Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, a few concrete examples would be useful. The lack of inline citation would not necessarily render it unusable, though if it is saying really weird things it is a serious worry. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You see can see casual langauge used by the author (who is not a professional historian)

Lets take, page 120

"the irrefutable testimony to the fact that Buddhism was popular and common religion of Kerala"

or page 113

"The thousands of groves called in vernacular kavus spread even now all over Kerala were once used as sangharams and viharas by the Buddhists"

or page 124

"an altruist, Ayyappa was cast in the mould of Bodhisatva"

or page 128

"the practise continued for centuries till the Buddhists were massacred and the temple had been seized"

These are just some them. I can give more if you need!

Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is this S. N. Sadasivan I can see some issues, but I need to see some RS criticising this work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything there that should lead us to deprecate or declare the book not to be RS, unless you can find an RS that suggests it to be completely inaccurate. Being occasionally wrong is not a criteria to deprecate a history book, or else there would be no RS at all. Some of the stuff you quote is valid historical opinion that might be true or false, some seems plausible, some is probably wrong. There is widespread RS coverage of persecution of Buddhists in southern India during the period, and Buddhism clearly was very popular in that area in the past. Reuse of religious sites is common the world over. I think that you are better challenging individual claims you feel to be inaccurate on the talk pages of the specific articles, providing contradictory sources and demonstrating undue weight. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please bring in any subject expert (and let him/her decide,please!).
• I was just showing some random quotes. There are more!
• Why there are no reliable sources criticising this work - none of reliable authors do not even read this !
• None of the claims are made by me, but by professional historians
• I can give reliable sources to refute all the claims (given the book+given above)
• Individual claims - this will lead to end-less discussions on multiple talk pages

Please involve subject expert TOPIC - India - History - South India - Kerala (other than me!).

So please deprecate or declare the book not to be a RS.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I can do a modus tollens for all above points if you guys need them. But I think any scholar of south Indian history can see problems at first sight !!!

Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• • We need RS saying it is in error.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• ::Ok, is it being used to support specific claims you disagree with? Take it to those talk pages and demonstrate the false information, or that it is undue weight on this one source. For example, if it is the only source supporting an extraordinary claim, then show what other sources say regarding the issue and see what other users think. It is also worth checking out the publisher, if it is not a reputable publishing house then perhaps it is not RS. But as it stands, it is a published work by an individual who seems to have had many books published and is quite widely cited, even though they are not an academic.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposed Book Ban: per Boynamedsue. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close: Unless if you can link to evidence to show that the book you are mentioning is an unreliable source (probably third-party sources as we cannot view content behind paywalls unfortunately), I do not think this is a meaningful discussion. Plus, it is up to editor discretion to decide whether a source is reliable for a published topic or not, and if an editor ends up inserting claims backed by an unreliable source, the onus is on them to fix it. WP:RSPS only exists because of the number of editors that fall for otherwise unreliable sources, so we maintain that list so they don't. Aasim (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC - ourcampaigns.com

This website has been mentioned multiple times on this noticeboard over the last few years (see here), but no RfC was ever generated or consensus reached regarding its reliability. The website is an open wiki, fully user generated, with no mention of from where the contributors are getting their numbers. There are currently over 3,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia (mostly on election related articles) that should be removed as a clear failure of WP:RS.

Should the website be blacklisted/spamlisted to allow for mass-removal? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's clearly unreliable, user generated tertiary source (like us!) But do we need to spamlist it? Have we done that with other wikis before? Honest question, I truly don't know the precedent here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That is why I brought it up and asked for comments. With it currently being used as a source on 3,000+ pages, I'm trying to think of an easy way for it to be removed from them all, while also kept from being used in the future. I'm assuming this task could easily done by bots if blacklisted/spamlisted? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black/spam list it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Blacklisting seems like pretty strong medicine. Is there any evidence of clear disruption or persistent spamming? See Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting. I think this site is about comparable to IMDb: the content is mostly user-generated, but there's no sign of large-scale bad-faith fabrications. As such, "generally unreliable" should be adequate; blacklisting probably goes a step too far. I'm glad to reconsider if there's evidence that this site is being used disruptively. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• The COIBot spam report at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ourcampaigns.com is stale, and I am attempting to refresh it to get a better view at how this domain is being used. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  I noticed the update although it seems that the bot fails to report properly, probably because most additions are too old/numerous in the history... —PaleoNeonate – 07:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it looks like the link additions may be too old for COIBot to generate a report. We'll have to examine the existing links manually. — Newslinger talk 09:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I actually disagree with the general consensus here. The website is not "clearly unreliable" - their policy pages seem to indicate that access is somewhat gated and I have yet to come across actually inaccurate information there. Wikis with strong editorial control do exist. However, the source should probably be discouraged and used as an external link instead. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, no view on whether or not to blacklist. This is WP:UGC. Yes, it's 'somewhat gated', but that's just a matter of contributing for a while and demonstrating that you're not a troll/vandal, like getting auto-confirmed, extended confirmed or whatever here. We don't consider Wikipedia articles under ECP to be RS; hell, an FA written by an autopatrolled user and currently under full protection isn't an RS - it's still UGC, it's still generally unreliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and should not be used as per WP:UGC, anyone can sign up for an account--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Glaukopis journal

Is this source reliable for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area?

• Not reliable Although it is indexed in Google Scholar (not an indication of reliability), none of the papers appears to have been cited more than 2 or 3 times[135] It is published by Fundacja „Glaukopis”[136] (rather than, as is more common, a university press or other reliable publisher).
  • According to Andrzej Żbikowski, Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)".[137] Historian Grzegorz Krzywiec, reviewing a book that involved several people associated with Glaukopis, stated: "They are engaged in a persistent dialogue with a numerous group of people who see the world in a similar way and they do not care at all about anybody else."[138] Note, WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs."
  • The publication was founded and edited for most of its history by Wojciech Muszyński, who is known for controversial and often extreme opinions:
    • He thinks Judeopolonia is real and blood libel might be[139]
    • Grzegorz Motyka compared his methods excusing the NSZ to those who are trying to deny that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army committed massacres of Poles in Volhynia.[140][141]
  • Muszyński's replacement, Sebastian Bojemski, is quite obscure. I cannot find much information about him, but his books have only 61 library holdings[142] compared to 6,704 for Wendy Lower, one of the editors of the mainstream The Journal of Holocaust Research (published by University of Haifa and Taylor & Francis).[143] (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Whoa whoa whoa. Buidhe is using "oko-press", a highly partisan outlet (I'd say roughly comparable to something like The Jacobin, itself not reliable, to attack Muszynski. These charges may or may not be true, but you can't do this here - this is a pretty serious BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

      Neither Jacobin nor Oko.press are rated as unreliable at WP:RSP (or by consensus elsewhere) and I would strongly disagree that citing either of them is inherently a BLP violation. The article includes quotes where Muszyński publicly expressed his opinion on certain topics, you could probably dig up the original source but the article does have them all in one place. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

      • Lol. And neither is Glaukopis, so I guess it means it IS reliable? What you mean is that neither - not oko press, not Jacobin, not Glaukopis - are even MENTIONED on WP:RSP.

Oh and wait a minute. You say "you could probably dig up the original source". Ummmm... the Polityka piece you cited IS the "original source". Did you actually read the sources you're bringing here? Volunteer Marek 18:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • The other source cited by Buidhe above, Polityka is better (I'd characterize it as "oko press is to Polityka as The Jacobin is to The Nation (that might be a bit too generous for oko press)) but the thing is that that source (by Motyka) isn't as unequivocal as Buidhe or oko press pretends (which again shows the unreliability of oko press). Yes, it criticizes the book along several dimensions but also says it's a "valuable monograph on the nationalist underground" and treats the work seriously (for the record I agree with Motyka regarding this dispute among historians). Buidhe compounds their BLP violation above by using non-reliable sources to smear academics, by misrepresenting the more reliable sources on the matter. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable -peer reviewed, includes notable cited historians,involved with notable scholarly debates. Above criticism seems to be based on highly controversial non-RS sources like oko.press addressed not against the journal itself but against long replaced individuals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  I cite the news article only for the stated opinions that Muszynski has chosen to make public. I believe it's a reliable source for that. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• My reading here is that this is marginal (e.g. self-published by its own foundation, rather than being an independent journal), and should probably only be used to support clearly mainstream and uncontroversial material. If it's being used to support controversial or fringe material then it would be undue I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally Universities have their own presses and publish their own journals, with articles from their own faculty (some places, like MIT or Chicago, MOSTLY their own faculty). As long as the editorial board includes outside scholars and so does the peer review, then this shouldn't be a concern. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, universities, yes. but "Institut Glaukopis" is not Oxford University Press. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Guy, I'm actually particularly interested in your opinion here since you're the only uninvolved editor to comment - in this instance at issue is whether a book review from the journal, by a professional historian, should be included. So we're not actually using it to make claims about any historical facts but rather reporting on a source's opinion. Wouldn't this be okay as long as there's attribution (perhaps both to author and journal)? Volunteer Marek 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable - Glaukopis is an obvious peer-reviewed scholarly publication. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "obviously" reliable. The WP:BURDEN is on any editor seeking to cite the source to show that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by basic WP:RS standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• I tried to find some information about that journal and the foundation, but that appeared to be not easy [144]. The Polish Wikipedia page about that journal says that the journal's editor is a person who has no Wikipedia article even in Polish Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has no article about that journal and the foundation. The fact that it is not easy to find information about that journal is an indication that something is wrong with it.

I also would like to note that majority of users who commented here (except JzG) seem to be not uninvolved users. This noticeboard is intended for obtaining an additional input from the users who have not been involved in this dispute before. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The subjects for which this journal is usually used on Wiki fall under WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations, which state that Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. I am not at all clear that Glaukopis can be considered a "high quality source", or that the foundation behind it is a "reputable institution". The fact that Glaukopis has been criticized for its right-leaning publications; that some of the people behind it - like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Jan Żaryn and the non-existent "Mark Paul" - are either associated with the far right or have been criticized for spreading antisemitic myths; that they actually publish someone by their pseudonym, which goes against scientific transparency; and that, at least from my experience, there's a lot of cross-referencing in the above's publications, suggest that this is not the case. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, that's funny because previously you thought it was reliable and cited it yourself ... on this very board [145] [146]. For even more stringent info. I think an editor's !vote can be discounted when they argue that the same source is reliable as long as it agrees with them, but unreliable if it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Volunteer Marek: What's wrong with changing one's mind? If one were to assume good faith, one would have to assume that François Robere was not yet aware of the problems with this source, or that some other mitigating factor was at play. I wouldn't know, being unfamiliar with the context. Arguing that this diff –– one diff repeated twice –– should somehow invalidate François Robere's contribution here is absurd and implies a profound misunderstanding of how civil discussion works. Generalrelative (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's anything "uncivil" in pointing out that the same editor had no problems using the same source when it suited their views, but all of sudden doesn't think it's reliable anymore when it turns out it doesn't. And my bad about the double diff, control-C didn't work as it should. Here is the second diff [147] where FR has no problem referencing Glaukopis. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Under WP:SELFSOURCE! It was an account of Chodakiewicz's "fall from grace" by his colleague, John Radziłowski. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • If it was by someone else, how in the world can it be "self source"? Volunteer Marek 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Chodakiewicz is listed as one of the program directors, and is also given special credit in the byline (as the "Tadeusz Kosciuszko Chair").[148] Ergo, Chodakiewicz is the publisher. François Robere (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? One couldn't think of a less reliable source. Not reliable This publication is about rehabilitating the NSZ and the national camp. It has an awful reputation, and is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. Nobody of note cites this trash. Over at their library section they push trash like Polska dla Polaków!. Their program committee says it all. Kazimierz Braun is a playwright and scholar of theatre, not a historian. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is famous for anti-Jewish and anti-gay views. Dr. Ryszard Tyndorf of Canada may have a PhD, but is a lawyer and activist, and is known for his unsavory views. It only gets "better" when we head on to priest Dr. Jarosław Wąsowicz, who is the priest of extremist fans of Lechia Gdańsk, an ultra, whose homilies include gems like: "We want a Christian Europe, because only by appealing to fundamental values can we defend the continent against annihilation". And then we have Jan Żaryn, a historian turned politician, who is known for his extremist dialogue, for instance claims of disproportionate Jewish international influence, attacks on museums for not being Catholic enough, calls for expelling the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism, prosecution of Holocaust survivors, and other statements.[149][150][151][152][153].--Bob not snob (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you really are doubling down on the BLP violations. And you're a brand new account who immediately jumped into the controversy. I believe you're in violation of the 500/30 restriction [154] imposed by the ArbCom, which was imposed due to widespread sock puppetry in this topic area, particularly from an editor who had been topic banned (then indef banned) for making precisely the BLP violations you are now repeating. And I do mean precisely because you're even attacking the same BLP in the same way as that banned user, as one of the Findings of Fact from the case demonstrates [155].

You are also grossly misrepresenting the journal in a pretty blatant way. You claim: they push trash like "Polska dla Polaków!" <-- that's a title of an article ABOUT (not "in support of") Polish nationalism. The title actually is "Polska dla Polakow - who are the Polish nationalists?" If somebody wrote a history of Spanish Francoists with the title "Una Grande Libre - who were the Falangists?" that would not mean that they are supporting the subject. Maybe this is surprising to some but historians do write histories of fringe political movements.

Also it's a general humanities journal so there's nothing surprising about the fact that the editorial board has some non-historian scholars on it. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, just like the rest of your bludgeoning here. I've been here for more than a year and have more than 500 edits. Do you confuse me with User:Herzog von Teschen? He has less than 100 edits, and registered last September. That this obscure foundation lists a football ultra priest is a strong warning sign.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Nobody cites this trash" Really? Here is a book from Oxford University Press by prominent historian Jochen Böhler [156]. Apparantly good enough for Oxford University Press but not good enough for Wikipedia (although I guess it depends since it appears some editors want to use it as source themselves, they just don't want OTHER editors using it). Volunteer Marek 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable per buidhe, François Robere and Bob not snob. The evidence appears pretty overwhelming that this is not a source where articles are reviewed by competent experts in relevant fields of study, but rather by self-selected ideological fellow-travelers. The comparison with Mankind Quarterly is apt. Generalrelative (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You might not like the people who review the articles, but they are certainly content experts. (No, it's nothing like "Mankind Quarterly" - you want to back that up with sources?) Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean, I can just quote back to you what Bob not snob has stated perfectly clearly: it is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. The above references presented by buidhe make that apparent. Also, you may consider trying to restrain yourself from WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It does not help your cause. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Glaukopis" is:

• a peer-reviewed journal [157].
• is indexed in the Polish Scholarly Bibliography (Polska Bibliografia Naukowa; component of a country-wide system POL-on, a System for Information About Higher Education in Poland, developed for Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland) [158]
• from 2013 to 2018 was on the list of scholar journals prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Based on that and discussion above, this is a reliable, but possibly an opinionated source. The citation index is irrelevant. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot, but this is not an RS. Yes, as some participants noted, the journal has been criticized, but so was CNN, The Lancet and almost everything else. One should look at specific publication and specific author, they are more important than journal. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the Polish state has serious problems with freedom of speech on precisely this issue, and supports a strong unhistorical POV. Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is xenophobic (Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement). This list included many scholar journals, eg. American Historical Review. He should also stop using AHR because user Boynamedsue thoughts? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  I stand by the statement. The Polish state has criminalised commentary on the holocaust which implies that Poles had some responsibility in what occurred, and they promote a "state line" on history which diverges from historical fact. If we are talking about WWII, sanction of a source from the Polish government would be an element of concern rather than something which added credibility. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  You read something in the American magazine and you use this as an argument about European peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Did the Atlantic write something about this particular journal? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have not offered an opinion on whether the journal is reliable or not. I have merely stated, due to what I have read in a myriad of reliable sources, that the Polish government has criminalised certain historical facts and actively promotes a POV on WWII. Therefore, imo, the acceptance of the journal by state or parastatal organisations in Poland can not be used to support claims it is a Reliable Source.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Boynamedsue, that's a good point. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• It is good to have scrutiny on the reliability of sources always but nation states have a very high position of dignity where they are equals (formally). Rejecting carte blanche Polish opinions on the history of their country is not a likely consensus position. Free speech restrictions (even the US has restrictions for seditious speech) impact the balance of what is published but not the reliability of what is published. The only question is if it meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source (fact checking, not UGC, etc.) or if there are additional sourcing restrictions for this, François Robere comment below may be cogent. Spudlace (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Spudlace. I believe Boynamedsue did not intend to suggest that some opinions should be discounted on account of the nationality of whoever expressed them, but rather that the current Polish government has an unhealthy preoccupation with historical revisionism (see Historical policy of the Law and Justice party and Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance), which raises questions with re: their choices of whom to support and who to reject. François Robere (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for that fair analysis François Robere. Spudlace I think you have misunderstood me. I have at no point rejected any scholarship for being Polish. I am entirely happy for wikipedia to use Polish scholarship on history, even scholarship which is endorsed by the government where it meets WP:RS. However, due to the revisionist tendencies of the Polish state, endorsement from Polish governmental organisations can not be seen as supporting the reliability of a given source.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Herzog von Teschen: I've checked six international academic databases (Scopus, SJR, Lens, Scinapse, CiteSeerX and Microsoft Academic Search) and couldn't find Glaukopis in any of them. In comparison, Slavic Review is listed by all of them, and even the relatively small Journal of Holocaust Research (formerly Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust) is listed by one. François Robere (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @François Robere: Many academic journals from the Eastern Europe are not included in academic databases from Western Europe and the United States. You could compare the database Arianta with those six databases. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Herzog von Teschen: Thanks for the link. The thing is being listed on an international DB means the resource has a higher profile, and is more accessible to scholarly review from abroad. Since there are plenty of Eastern European sources which are listed on one or more of these DBs, I see no reason to compromise on those that aren't. François Robere (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable as per nomination. To say that internationally awarded investigative journalist outlet oko.press is "highly partisan" is nonsense and shows how any criticism or proof of misdeeds in the country is currently dealt with. Polish academia is still a free for all with very few checks and balances and always has been. Poland also has a long history of historical revisionism. Professorships had been awarded on basis of cronyism and nepotism in many cases, especially during the PRL-era. I suspect there are many more journals like this, one doesn't have to look much further than to see how IPN works to see this in action. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would argue it's unreliable and also biased as a source, particularly given the sourcing restrictions in the topic area. Historian Andrzej Żbikowski [159] writes that in the Polish historiography of this topic, we can see the "persistence of two basic contradictory scholarly trends in the historiography of the mass murder of Polish Jews, accurately categorized by Krupa as a critical historiography and a historiography glorifying Poles’ wartime attitudes" [160]. He writes that Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)," whose WWII newspaper argued that " the liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million-headed parasite." This kind of far-right, ethno-nationalist source and viewpoint has no place here. Probably worthwhile noting that Żbikowski offers examples of historians advancing these historiographical approaches: the "martyrological narrative" or something like a "Jewish-Soviet sympathy" narrative, etc. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's opinion of the only one historian. In this way we could excluded all journals because we could find this kind of opinion. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• While I think some people here are going way overboard and using this as an excuse to grossly violate our BLP policy by attacking historians they don't agree with (based on very partisan sources), I've become convinced (particularly by comments by User:JzG) that given the "extra" sourcing restrictions in this topic area, even though the journal has an editorial board staffed with professional historians and independent peer review, we shouldn't use it in this particular case. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Highlighting cronyism and how controversial academics game the system in an attempt to get their extremist views into mainstream is in no way "partisan" nor "attacking" them; citing them is not a BLP violation either. The title "historian" does not mean much on its own even when merited; a strong example in the same way Harold Shipman was unquestionably a qualified legitimate doctor. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with caution. Caution should be focused especially towards historical facts and data/numbers appearing in Glaukopis articles. I believe the journal can be used here but I'd like to see additional citations from other sources, especially at potentially controversial claims. As a side note, I am really disappointed to see some users here resorting to xenophobic comments about Poland, its education system etc. I thought the WMF's recently passed Universal Code of Conduct strives to make also this project more inclusive. Regarding the IPN, I don't see any problem with the institution as a whole. If one group of people accuses you of "promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism", and other people accuse you of "promoting Jewish interests in Poland" (whatever that means), then you're doing something right. By the way, e.g. Czech ÚSTR is subject to various bogus criticism of "historical revisionism" too but you won't hear about that here. Bashing Czechs is not as sexy as bashing Poles.--Darwinek (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems to me like a misrepresentation of the above discussion. Criticizing the Polish state is neither xenophobic nor anti-Polish. Speaking as an American, I would readily observe that the Trump administration attempted some atrocious historical revisionism with its so-called "1776 Commission", and if he had won re-election would likely have continued to erode the US government's reputation as a reliable source of information. The general consensus seems to be that the situation in Poland is just a bit further along this road. Also, the idea that being accused of promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism is somehow a sign that you're doing something right so long as someone even more loony than you is also accusing you of promoting Jewish interests is a truly problematic epistemic criterion. You may wish to re-examine that. Generalrelative (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    State-sponsored sources (which Glaukopis is not, it has no affiliation with the IPN), have to meet the same WP:RS criteria as any other source. To give another example, scholars do not take seriously the Rwandan government's claim of more than 1 million victims in the Rwandan genocide; neither should Wikipedia. This stance is not anti-Rwandan but rather because we aim to be reality-based. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    • The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy. In 1940's Germany, some people wanted to kill no Jews and some people wanted to kill all the Jews. The correct number of Jews to kill was not 50%. Concern about Polish state misrepresentation of WWII is entirely based in reality, it is therefore inappropriate to use Polish state support of a source related to WWII as evidence for its reliability. The idea that this is a xenophobic position is utterly laughable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No, what’s actually laughable, is comparing Polish government’s historical policy, as flawed as it is, to... murder of Jews by Germany during WW2. If you have to use a crude analogy, find something less offensive. Because that kind of hyperbolic comparison actually IS xenophobic and has led to topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 02:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I will second the previous responses in saying that "xenophobia" or "anti-polonism" is completely out of place. I would also add that although increasingly popular, it is a dangerous and harmful statement to make. Firstly, the criticism comes from other Poles first and foremost, and having an opposing view does not make them "foreign agents", "unpatriotic" or other such nonsense. The same can be applied to 2020 Belarusian protests, opposition to Brexit, 2021 capitol riots; they do not make you anti-Belarussian, anti-British nor anti-American just because someone levies those accusations, which by the way, can easily be made in the other direction. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I fully agree that comparing the Polish government's current policy of historical denialism to the holocaust would be unacceptable, which is why I have never done that. What I have done is use a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the falsity of the idea that if a position is criticised by "both sides" it must be the correct one.--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Darwinek: Note that the TA is subject to special sourcing expectations that raise the bar beyond what is required by WP:RS. If something should be used "with caution" under RS, then it's probably not good enough for the TA SE. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Dr. Wojciech Muszyński, who is listed as the publisher of Glaukopis is infamous for statements in which he suggest left-wing Polish politicians (Left Together) should be dealt with in a manner similar to the Pinochet regime with death flights, [161] [162].--Bob not snob (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, that settles it for me. An extremist source of this nature is not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk, for anything. Wojciech Muszyński, the editor turned publisher, was a far-right candidate for office and published racist anti-immigrant junk, including a picture of Barack Obama hanging by a noose. This dude is the opposite of reputable editorial oversight. [163][164][165] Mellow Boris (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Unreliable the pet journal of a fringe organization doesn't become reliable simply by having a peer review process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

www.figma.com/blog/

Edit where used: [166]

Reliable for claims about fonts? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to say no, per WP:BLOG. I was hoping to have an RSN entry to point to, but it is what it is. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is writing for a company, so it's not a personal blog. He's also an author on this topic in reliable sources, e.g. [167], so "self-published expert" seems to apply. The source seems OK to use to me. Fences&Windows 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, In that case, use with attribution? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Fences&Windows 09:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan News

Is Taiwan News a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Does reliability still stand especially over political articles such as cross-strait relations?

According to Taiwan News, it is owned by I-Mei Foods, and openly leans Pan-Green politically.

Website: [168]

taiwannews   is currently cited on over 1,000 articles, and if I'm seeing correctly were all added in the last year or two.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting, including politics.
• Option 2: Marginally reliable or unclear, considerations needed.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Not sure if relevant: Taiwan News still largely refers to "COVID-19" as "Wuhan coronavirus", examples: 1 and 2. Not sure if these are unintentional and are being meant casually/off-hand or is being used deliberately as a political statement. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Taiwan News)

• Close this poorly formed RFC- The basis of this RFC is that the source should be considered unreliable because it dared to use the term "Wuhan Coronavirus" which is a term that the Chinese government does not like. Other reliable sources have used the term. I believe this is actually the preferred term for the virus in Taiwan. At least one source back that up. [169] No evidence was provided that actually would call this publication's reliability into question.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Endorse RfC. Taiwan News has been discussed twice, in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298 § Taiwan News Online and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320 § Taiwan News. Previous discussions pin the source to option 1 or 2, but leave uncertain whether the source is reliable for controversial claims. The RfC is formatted correctly. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: random IPs with no other contributions opening RFCs on the reliability of a major source in the absence of any actual dispute over their reliability is not something I’m open to endorsing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like "option 1", but the choice is yours. We have little insight on the reliability of Taiwanese sources, and this RfC is a good start. I don't treat IPs differently from other editors in content-related discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

With a neutral RFC question and an actual dispute escalated to this noticeboard from an article talk page or similar I wouldn’t be opposed to having the discussion. This isn’t how its supposed to work, I don’t need to tell you that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking of neutrality, I have to question your strong hostility behind this RfC as well as your intention to have this snowball closed. I realized that the article I-Mei Foods, which owns Taiwan News, was created by your old account, Horse Eye Jack, back in 2019. You also seem to be a major contributor in using this website as a source on Wikipedia, so I hope it is not inappropriate to ask whether you have a conflict of interest or personal association with Taiwan News that you had not disclosed? 85.10.51.92 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not. Since its family story time have you ever edited under a different IP or account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Just here to clarify what Wikipedia thinks of Taiwan News. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Snowball close this RFC "Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia” was the original name of the disease in the Chinese speaking world, that includes both China and Taiwan. It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc). I note that this IP has no other edits. I also went and looked and piece from that same writer published today [170] uses COVID-19 exclusively. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. I am unable to find any reliability concerns that would take precedence over the news organizations guideline for Taiwan News. Taiwan: Nation-State Or Province? (2019), published by Taylor & Francis, notes:

Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan—China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro-KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro-DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.

Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.

Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times (RSP entry), BBC (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Washington Post (RSP entry), Al Jazeera (RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment. For Taiwanese politics, consider balancing Taiwan News with other sources such as The China Post to ensure that both major parties are represented. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 per the questionable articles listed by Thucydides411 below. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

With the name Taiwan News being a difficult search query to use, I'm ultimately not confident enough to place a !vote. Copper (2019) still applies. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 no evidence of unreliability presented. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: I don't know how reliable they are for Taiwanese topics, but they have pushed a number of conspiracy theories related to CoVID-19, particularly in relation to China. A few examples:

1. Update: Rise in sulfur dioxide could be sign of mass cremations in Wuhan: This story from February 2020 suggested that there was ongoing mass incineration of corpses in Wuhan due to the coronavirus outbreak. This same story was printed in British tabloids such as the Daily Mail (note that even the Daily Mail has updated its headline to note that this story has been debunked). Taiwan News appears to have gotten this story from a Twitter account called "Intelwave" (that has since been suspended), which Taiwan News quotes throughout the article. Taiwan News eventually updated this story with information that suggests it's false, but they still did make the original decision to print this conspiracy theory that they found on Twitter.
2. Tencent may have accidentally leaked real data on Wuhan virus deaths: This story, based on a purported screenshot of Tencent's coronavirus tracker that someone posted on Twitter, claims that Tencent accidentally released the "real" case and death figures from Wuhan, which were supposedly about 100 times higher than reported. Tencent said that it had never released the numbers shown in the image circulating online, and it's likely that the "screenshot" was a fake. Again, Taiwan News simply repeated wild claims that it found on social media.
3. Taiwan News has pretty relentlessly pushed the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab. For example, there's this recent article titled, "WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic". The WHO inspector wasn't "caught on camera revealing" anything. He appeared on a popular virology podcast almost a year ago to talk about research that has been published in internationally recognized journals for years.

What connects these various stories is that Taiwan News picks them up on social media, and that they're all various conspiratorial claims about mainland China. I don't know how Taiwan News' reporting is on other subjects, but editors should be aware of their strong biases and poor sourcing standards when it comes to coverage of mainland China and realted issues, such as SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Usable about a number of topics but biased about China (and the CCP) and less involved sources should be used for COVID-19 related information except regional stats/news reporting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Primarily per point 3 in Thucydides411's comment (!?) and Horse Eye's Back highly questionable remark in the paper's defense about how "Wuhan _____" is supposedly an acceptable name for the virus in 2021 (HEB appears to be unaware, or deliberately pretending to be unaware, of how "Wuhan flu" and variants thereof are used in sinophobic rhetoric, to the point of being a meme that was paranoid in the second Borat film; the virus having first emerged in Wuhan and therefore having been called that in some early reporting is irrelevant after more than a year). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you actually changing your opinion to punish me for a “highly questionable remark”? Thats not very civil even if I had made such a remark. I am also well aware that offensive uses exist as you are well aware of from my comment "It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc).” If you are suggesting that the reporters in the Chinese speaking world primarily of Chinese ancestry are engaging in the same sort of sinophobic racism as right wing American idiots I don’t think thats likely. Also if they had used Wuhan flu you would have a point, but they didn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The editors of these articles who still peddle terms such as "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus" as late as February 2021 as well as spread conspiracy theories in relation to CoVID-19 are named Keoni Everington and Matthew Strong. There is a very high possibility that the editors (especially the English edition) are freelancers that are not even in Taiwan, and if they are, are expats/emigrants that are not of Chinese ancestry. Another writer who spoke about how "Why the WHO's COVID inquiry will get us nowhere" or how "The BBC makes trouble in Taiwan's backyard once again" was written by David Spencer. Albeit "opinions", the second source was a direct attack on another news organization (BBC), and specifically its Taiwan news correspondent Cindy Sui, whose publication implies endorsement. They actually being "right wing American idiots" (your words) may not be all that far-fetched. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the OP alone, I was leaning option 1, then I saw HEB's comment and was going add an addendum that one or more of my fellow option 1 !voters was apparently doing so based on an incredibly flawed premise, and then I sawT411's comment, confirmed its veracity, and !voted option 2 because ... yeah, this website has pushed the "COVID-19 was manufactured/developed/released/whatevered in a lab" conspiracy theory on multiple occasions, and doesn't seem to have ever published a retraction or clarification. If @Horse Eye's Back: misunderstood my comment as being based solely on their inappropriate comment, I apologize for this misunderstanding; I am also opening to changing my !vote if some evidence can be presented that TN has posted a retraction of one or another of their bogus "lab" stories. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 per examples provided by Thucydides411. Peddling stories that even the Daily Mail sees fit to retract after publishing should be a red flag tbh. All the examples cited have to do with the Covid-19 pandemic and the PRC, so is this a generally reliable publications that can't help itself floating conspiracy theories when it comes to China, or are there any examples on unreliable reporting on other topics? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. No reliability issues here. Of course any claims regarding Covid should be double-fact-checked, and ideally cited with additional sources.--Darwinek (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2-3, based on examples of false or fabricated information related to the coronavirus, as demonstrated by Thucydides411. Option 4 would be out of line since their reporting on other topics might be accurate or valuable for quotation with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 (for political articles) The term "Wuhan Pneumonia" (in Chinese) is the term used by the Taiwanese government and generally followed by the media of Taiwan, example [171],[172],[173]. It's not related to the Sinophobic terms used by some Western right wing/conspiracy theory riddled sources. I wouldn't consider Taiwan News unreliable because of this. The source might have a pro-Taiwan/pan-green bias though.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Nothing wrong with saying that something "could be" true or "may have" happened, even if it turns out to be false. Bottom line is that with China hiding the truth, people are going to have to make guesses, and some of those guesses will turn out to be wrong. Taiwan News acted responsibly by using the "could/may" type phrasing. Also nothing wrong with talking about "Wuhan Coronavirus" or "Wuhan Pneumonia" any more than there is a problem with talking about the "UK variant", "Kent variant", "British variant", or "South African variant" of that virus. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2. The source is an established news outlet that is generally reliable. However, the source has published questionable stories in the past that were too credulous towards social media rumours, per Thucydides411. The whole issue of them calling the coronavirus the "Wuhan virus" is irrelevant, even if you think it's biased phrasing, since reliable sources are allowed to have their own point of view per WP:BIASEDSOURCES.Jancarcu (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The headlines are too sensationalist and the crematoriums story surely doesn't look good but they did publish a correction. All the examples are about a specific topic, no proof of their general unreliability have been provided. Alaexis_¿question? 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - my position about news sources hasn't changed - excercise caution, corroborate, use common sense...Atsme 💬 📧 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Taiwan News)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Volunteer (book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The publisher seems to be "reputable", and it does not have to be academic. The book received an award. Is the book itself "academically oriented"? I did not read the book, but it was described as "compelling study" in reviews [174]. So I think it does qualify as research. Yes, the author does not work for a University, but this does not automatically disqualify his research. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is not a case to be discussed here. Fairweather is a reputable journalist, his book published by a reputable house. Whether Pilecki volunteered, not really volunteered, or was ordered & coerced to be caught is an interesting topic that should be discussed & elaborated in the article, not at RSN.--Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• So-so. It looks like a fine book, but without peer-review it's a problem to use it, especially in this TA. If the question is about the use of the term "volunteer", then the book is superseded by the journal article. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories [175]. According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" [176] (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting WP:APLRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

RFC: The Federalist

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

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

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

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [177]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Option 4 Obvious pusher of conspiracy theories is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2- This is just a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. As of this writing, it appears (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like a statement of fact. As other have pointed out, the source is rarely used anyway, but I don't see any reason it can't be used with attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This fails to engage with the substance of the claims - that it has a history of fabrication and conspiracy theories. I asked below about these claims, and you're pretending they don't exist. This does not instill confidence (and doesn't address the deprecation). I most note that this is not a vote - if you can't provide a reason of substance why it's actually a good source, rather than claiming a conspiracy to suppress a poltical view, then your opinion doesn't address the question, and would properly be ignored in a policy-based assessment of consensus - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I stand by my previous statement "it appears" is not a statement of fact. The article in question also was written on November 4 when explanations for some of these oddities mentioned in the article still were not provided (ie. Antrim County) and when official explanations were provided the author noted them. The facts presented about Pennsylvania in this article about changing of election laws still remain true, although it has since been shown late mail-in ballots were not numerous enough to change the result of the election (something which was clearly unknown on Nov 4).--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The fact is that there are consequences for selling your soul to QAnon trollery in a bad-faith effort to gin up clicks with outright lies about the election. There are any number of conservative outlets which affirmatively chose a different path, and chose not to stoke the flames of sedition. The Federalist chose to feed credulous dupes a manufactured series of easily-discredited falsehoods specifically designed to cast doubt upon the results of a free and fair election. This could have had no other intended effect but to foment outrage and hatred, and it led to one of the most embarrassing and dangerous spectacles in modern American history. The Federalist chose poorly, and choices have consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @NorthBySouthBaranof:That's just not true. The Federalist did not promote QANON, I am 100% sure of this. In fact, it called it a "conspiracy theory" here, here here, here and roughly 10 other articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
          • Then why did they pander to those same credulous dupes by publishing obvious falsehoods about the 2020 election, stoking irrational fear and hatred for the purpose of generating clicks and ultimately generating a violent insurrection? The answer is that like every other part of the Trumpist media ecosystem, they feared being insufficiently Trumpist. They could have simply explained the facts - that more people voted for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. They chose poorly, and again, choices have consequences. As I explained below, the Trumpist conspiracy ecosystem cannot be neatly separated - your party wove a tangled web of lies and is now caught in the trap. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm trying to assume good faith here, but which your choice of language makes it very difficult. First, your party, really? You don't know if I'm a registered Republican or not (and I'm not). Second, raising questions oddities in election results is not the same thing as publishing obvious falsehoods and claiming that The Federalist was responsible for ultimately generating a violent insurrection is something you really should strike. Here's a interesting article about the election that as far as I know contains factual content, doesn't prove anything other than this election was one of the strangest in history (I hope we can at least agree on that point). Also, note that the article which has plenty of citations, mentions a correction which disproves another claim you made that The Federalist doesn't issue corrections. I think most reasonable people would wonder how these results occurred, though not necessarily reject them. Bottom line is you've made several false claims in this RFC (apparently because you did not do your research first) and The Federalist which is mostly an opinion source (see WP:BIASED is far more creditable than you have portrayed it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I never said The Federalist doesn't issue corrections, I said the article I linked above which falsely states that Democrats stole the election has neither been retracted nor corrected. Which is true.
              • That link is not an "interesting article" at all - indeed, it's a hilariously obvious dog whistle to the idea that the election was stolen. There was nothing particularly strange about this election, actually. Lots of people voted, all their votes were fairly and accurately counted, and 8 million more Americans voted for Joe Biden, flipping five states. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard is entirely correct here. It is inappropriate to use this page as a forum for speculating on the imagined motivations of other editors. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor (an I apologize if it was taken that way), but it seems to be a trend here. Just look at how many recent RFCs involve right-leaning sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, it's not Wikipedia's problem that a number of "right-leaning sources" chose to openly and notoriously discredit themselves as reliable sources by publishing patently-obvious lies about the 2020 United States presidential election. Policy demands that we base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source chooses to destroy its own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that choice has consequences. If you think there are any "left-leaning sources" which have published similar lies about the 2020 election, please point them out because they should be deprecated too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You say: To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor - but this RFC was brought by an individual editor, and your own words above claim their action was a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. This is clearly and directly a claim about the motive of a particular editor, and it's nonsensical to claim you somehow didn't say what you literally said, right there, just above. And you still have not addressed the substance of the claims - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • David, with all due respect, I have addressed the substance of the claims. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't tell me I haven't addressed them. In fact, the editor who brought the RFC made an easily disprovable claim that this source is pushing QANON conspiracy theories which he has neither responded to or retracted. Does that matter to you?--Rusf10 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
          • "The election was stolen by Democrats" is a conspiracy theory clearly linked to QAnon amid an atmosphere where Trump's base repeatedly rejected reality in favor of a constructed fantasyworld where Trump was actually popular, COVID was a hoax, racism no longer exists, a "deep state undercover agent" posting on an anonymous imageboard is giving you the real inside scoop, and the only way Republicans could lose elections is if Democrats cheat. All of this ridiculous nonsense is of a piece, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. Trump sold lies to credulous dupes, and The Federalist chose to pander to those credulous dupes rather than tell the harder truth that lawn signs and boat parades signify nothing. Your own house organs sabotaged their own credibility, and you have no one but yourselves to blame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • You're still pushing the absolutely false claim that the Federalist promotes QANON, when I have proven that they've denounced it multiple times over a period of two years. Just stop, QANON has absolutely nothing to do with this source. I don't know where you get your news from, but you are so misinformed it is incredible. While, I do not have the time to fact check every claim you just made. I'll start with your first one. The very fact that 74 million people voted for Trump (more than the 68 million that voted for Obama) actually does prove he was popular. That was so easy, I'll do one more. COVID was a hoax Trump never said this and here's a fact check from PolitiFact (which is not a conservative source). Ask PolitiFact: Are you sure Donald Trump didn’t call the coronavirus a hoax? --Rusf10 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per OP and XOR'easter. This seems like an uncontroversial call. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I took a deep look at their early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic about six months ago and was appalled at the disinformation bilge that I found there. Their coverage of Trump's 2020 defeat was, if anything, worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [178], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [179] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [180]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

• Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories:[181]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[182]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[183]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [184]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [185] -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press

Are Gazeta Wyborcza (this) and OKO.press (this) reliable sources for the statements of Wojciech Muszyński in regards to modern left-wing politicians in Poland? User:Volunteer Marek is stating they are not sufficiently reliable.

In my opinion, the left of centre Gazeta Wyborcza is comparable to the The Washington Post, and has maintained its independence from the Polish government. While Oko.press is younger, its investigative journalism has been met with critical acclaim and they have won the 2020 Freedom of Expression Awards from Index on Censorship. Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Gazeta Wyborcza is NOT comparable to the Washington Post. You want to back that up? At one point they were reliable but over time, faced with increased competition they've become more and more sensationalistic. Most of their articles these days are football scores and "true crime stories" with a good bit of very polarized political commentary. This is NOT good enough for BLP (in this case it's a report about some facebook comments a historian might have made). Likewise oko.press is a very partisan source which regularly attacks political opponents. Seriously neither of these outlets even tries to hide it's bias. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the editorial board of The Washington Post (which "represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution") from 23.10.2020: Gazeta Wyborcza is "Poland’s most popular and respected newspaper".--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely reliable: firstly Gazeta Wyborcza is not left-wing, certainly not when compared to e.g. The Guardian. It's the biggest Polish newspaper and has been since 1990. Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal. The reason they (along with onet.pl) are attacked by the far-right is because they refuse to be bought by and influenced by the ruling United Right and continue to highlight their cronyism and corruption. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

GW is most certainly left wing. "Biggest" doesn't mean much. Doesn't Daily Mail have the largest circulation in UK? I think your comment actually highlights the issue nicely. They're both hyper partisan outlets. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, The Sun usually outsells the Mail ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GW is a liberal newspaper. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok? Volunteer Marek 01:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that this is a BLP issue and the editor in question is trying to include these sources to attack a living person simply because somewhere else they were being used as a source. Even if the person in question cannot be considered a reliable source, this kind of gratuitous attacks and attempts to turn BLP pages into attack pages on Wikipedia have resulted in ArbCom topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Coverage of Muszyński's own statements in national media is not an attack.--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• NOT reliable for questionable WP:NPOV material regarding BLP's. We should be very firm about using high-quality sources when entering any information regarding BLP's. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively regarding the subject's privacy, not cherry-picked statements to press small news. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Gazeta Wyborcza is an RS. It was in Gazeta Wyborcza that the Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski complained about the Polish editors on Wikipedia, including Volunteer Marek, who he said were distorting Holocaust history.[186] Another story from that newspaper describes efforts in Poland to discredit Holocaust historians. [187] SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And Breitbart has called me a left wing extremist and The Gateway Pundit said I was part of some vast "far-left" conspiracy etc. etc. etc. The fact that other people write goofy stuff about me in sensationalist media does not mean I have a "COI". Here is the WP:COI guideline [188]. Nowhere in there is there anything that applies. If anything the fact that Gazeta Wyborcza publishes the same kind of wrong headed articles about Wikipedians as Breitbart and Gatewaypundit just shows what type of sources they are. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Grabowski didn't write goofy stuff and GW isn't sensationalist media. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Note that Gazeta Wyborcza is part of The Guardian's "Europa team": "In 2011, the Guardian teamed up with five other papers from the largest EU countries to investigate the European predicament. Since then, the Europa team – the Guardian, Le Monde, La Vanguardia, La Stampa, Gazeta Wyborcza and Süddeutsche Zeitung – have worked together to dig deeper into some of the major issues of the day." [189] SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • More info about Gazeta Wyborcza. [190] SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Volunteer Marek: You seem to have a COI here. I suggest you withdraw from the discussion. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        • What Sarah mentioned...? François Robere (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Both are reliable as shown above, both sources have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And for this particular info, if Muczynski doesn't want this stuff in his Wikipedia bio he shouldn't have posted it publicly on social media. (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• They're both reliable per evidence discussed above, and lack of comparative evidence to the contrary. Also, I echo Bob's statement that quoting a BLP's words that received national coverage does not, and cannot constitute an attack of a BLP. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is a WP:BLP. These are two partisan sources reporting on something this guy supposedly privately said on facebook which has NOT received "national coverage" otherwise. EVEN IF these were reliable sources (and that is questionable), this info would be simply WP:UNDUE. This is nothing but an attempt to turn a Wikipedia article into an attack page. Volunteer Marek 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan", nor an award-wiining investigative journalist. The only reason other news outlets in Poland fail to cite such mishaps is because a lot of them are either directly or indirectly state-owned or funded and do not tolerate any criticism of those politically aligned to them. Once again, GW is NOT left-wing by any stretch of imagination, and co-operation with other newspapers does not change that, aside from the fact neither is Le Monde for example. If anything, they are more in line with the Civic Platform, a centre-right party. The founder Adam Michnik was an anti-communist and frequently expressed his support for anti-communist candidates post '89. There is nothing in GW that would make them left-wing. Perhaps anti-PiS, after resisting them and surviving the national onslaught against them sure, but that itself does not make them automatically left-wing, and neither does highlighting someone's faux-pas'. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan"" - lol, since when does "biggest newspaper" = non-partisan? I'm sorry but I don't get the logic here. The Daily Mail has a circulation of ... ... ... 1,134,184. The Times? 417,298. The Guardian? 111,155. Fox News, up until recently, was the most widely watched tv news in America. So... if we go by "biggest newspaper" for reliability or partisanship that would make the Daily Mail the MOST reliable and apparently the LEAST partisan, while the Guardian would be the opposite. See how ridiculous this is?

(In fact the opposite argument is way more plausible. It's hard to become "the biggest" without appealing to lowest common denominator and running sensationalist click bait while pretending it's news. That explains Daily Mail. And perhaps Gazeta Wyborcza too (honestly, they're still running on fumes left over from back when they were indeed respectable, which was like the 1990s)).

Oh, and asserting that GW is "not left wing" is like claiming that Fox News isn't "right wing". Look. I *am* left wing. I sympathize or agree with lots of their opinions. But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that they're not left wing. Or not sensationalist. Volunteer Marek 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Gazeta Wyborcza is quite reliable though not as much as say 10-15 years ago. To counter the steady drop in sales some years ago, GazWyb publisher Agora steered the newspaper in a more tabloidish direction. Wyborcza is still good but their articles on political or historical topics should be always verified by another source. A note to end my statement - there are no fully non-partisan nationwide newspapers in Poland. That's a sad reality of contemporary Poland.--Darwinek (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the characterization if not the "quite reliable" part (maybe... "sometimes reliable"?). And if this wasn't a WP:BLP issue I'd probably be ok with using it. But they're also notorious for doing hit pieces on politicians they don't like (and to be fair, have been subject to the same from the other side too). Volunteer Marek 01:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with User:Darwinek's assessment. So yes, GW does do hit pieces on politicians they do not like, but as far I am aware they have done so things that actually have happened, and they have a pretty good record in the courts on that. Compare that with let's say TVN, who have been badly caught out before and I would say they are far less reliable. GW still have a relatively big-tent range of contributors, certainly more so than other outlets, although slowly falling into us v them trap. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reputable, these are among the best media in Poland. Independent of the government. Similar to The Guardian or The New York Times. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

MDPI journals

David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal. This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I just tidied up an entry someone else had added. I think it's superfluous on RSP, it's already on WP:CITEWATCH, where it most certainly belongs - the "appeal" was legal threats - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Source on legal threats? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There's suggestions of it here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: The actual creator of the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the entry for MDPI (RSP entry) as disputed, pending the result of this discussion, as it is a new entry. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable is too harsh. It should be yellow with "additional considerations" and the like. Same for Frontiers Media journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, in my life as a physicist, I tend to treat articles in MDPI journals as a notch more vetted than preprints on the arXiv. I've seen some jank in their journals, but I've also found very reputable people publishing there; John C. Baez comes to mind [191]. I suspect that they may be "journals of last resort", places where people send work that is legitimate but without the oomph needed to get into journals that are more established. (Maybe a paper ends up there because it was bounced from Physical Review A, or maybe the authors figured they didn't have much of a shot at PRA in the first place.) For example, Gill (2020) is a paper that pushes back on nonsense, upholding a mainstream view rather than promoting a fringe one. But the nonsense being debunked is not very high-profile, so plenty of journals wouldn't find a debunking interesting enough to publish. So, yes, "generally unreliable" is too harsh; generally unremarkable may be closer to the truth. But I wouldn't put them in the green either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that this is strongly field dependent. In Palaeontology, where the difference between the highest and lowest ranking journals is relatively low, MDPI journals don't stick out as any worse than say, PeerJ or Scientific Reports. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they probably have to be judged field-by-field, if not journal-by-journal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It definitely should be on a case by case basis. There are definitely journals MDPI publishes that are on the predatory end and should not be trusted. At the same time, there are a number of journals they publish that appear to have proper peer review and other systems in place for promoting proper research. Trying to deprecate everything MDPI is involved in would be...a lot of the scientific publishing world. And would negatively impact thousands of articles. Silverseren^C 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the entry. Of course consensus may change, however past RSN discussion did not give me much confidence about MDPI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Telewizja Polska

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model.

Telewizja Polska (called TVP for short), is the flagship state broadcaster. But since 2015 it can now be likened to RT or KCT, in particular TVP Info, but also the long established news programs Panorama, Teleexpress and Wiadomości have basically become nothing more than outright propaganda outlets.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

• No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
• This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
• TVP has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

I would point out that Sport for now seems to be unaffected, therefore I would exclude TVP Sport from the list. Same may go for things like Polish soap opera channel TVP Seriale, and children's cartoon channel TVP ABC. However, TVP Historia and TVP Edukacja is still very much selective in its content in line with the others, people have started to be fired from TVP Kultura for not being pro-government as well. TVP1, TVP2 and TVP3 seem to be just as affected as the infamous TVP Info. TVP Info also has a large online presence.

I am not going to list all the sources, because actually a lot of the pages have criticisms sections and plenty of sources within them, so I do not see much point in copying and pasting those. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ after legislative changes has been compared, unfavourably, with communist era TV. At least back in the communist days everyone knew the news was lies. The sports coverage, weather, or anything else that doesn't touch politics or socials issues is still OK. This November 2020 item is relevant.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Lacks reputation for fact checking and accuracy (certainly for politics and social issues) per the many, many sources cited at the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Is a mouthpiece for the xenophobic Polish government and editorial decisions are made following the direction of the Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Usage in English Wikipedia is not so widespread. I couldn't find anything contentious on a cursory search. Also, as I mentioned in other RFCs, I think we shouldn't take any broad action on full broadcasting networks. --MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Sieci is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money. It only takes one look at the sheer amount of court cases against them, their frequency and what they are for, and it makes The Daily Mail look innocent and left-wing by comparison.

The magazine has a website promoting the magazine, but it runs the portal "wpolityce.pl" to compete with the likes of interia.pl and onet.pl for online content, but it is the online version of the magazine. They also run the internet TV "wPolsce.pl".

It has the following topic-specific domains too, but they often redirect to the main site:

• wNas.pl
• wGospodarce.pl (economic news)
• wSumie.pl (money news)
• stefczyk.info
• gazetabankowa.pl (banking news)
• tygodnikpodlaski.pl (Podlasie regional)

The portal wpolityce.pl specifically has been described as junk news by various outlets.

The franchise is firstly not independent because of its funding structure. Grzegorz Bierecki (pl), a controversial Law and Justice member, and one of the richest politicians around, created and ran the infamous "Stefczyk's SKOK Bank". When the media started to uncover the inaccuracies and scandals within the bank he started a mass litigation campaign against the media; he emphatically lost all of them in the courts. So he set up an eponymous institute and a limited company (Apella S.A.) which own 23% and 69% respectively of this Sieci/wpolityce.pl franchise. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable).

And again, even if there's some funding or something between someone in the L&J party and the outlet ... so what? You know that, for example, Democratic politicians in US may fund some left-ish media in US and... that matters not one bit for reliability? Or vice versa.

Look, Abcmaxx, I'm sorry, but while your list does indeed include a few clearly unreliable sources (Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik, Najwyzszy Czas!), it kind of just looks like you made a list of "the media that I, Abcmaxx, don't like personally" and then decided to ask us all here at Wikipedia to declare them all "unreliable". Sorry that's not how it works. Volunteer Marek 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it's all in here Sieci#Controversies Abcmaxx (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I would never say what you you should deem reliable or not, that's the point of starting the discussion. I saw a pattern emerge amongst the media, made a request, was asked to split it so I did. I am not doing this as some large political point or to ban a whole host of media outlets. But those were clear ones which do not stand up to any editorial scrutiny. In the US they may fund media one way or another, but they do not run it from public funds, using shell companies, and then try and claim they are independent when they are clearly not. FYI there are right-wing outlets that are reliable, Rzeczpospolita and Uważam Rze for example, which do stand up to editorial scrutiny and independence. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The issues are all listed in the Controversies section in the Sieci article, for instance spreading COVID conspiracy theories.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable lacks reputation for fact checking and accuracy, see many false assertions made by the outlet and listed in the "controversies" section. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Has a reputation for being dishonest junk. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Rzeczy

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Do Rzeczy is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money, and has a fake rivalry with Sieci witht he intention of crowding out non-government friendly media. It was initially founded by disgruntled Rzeczpospolita (later split to Uważam Rze who split again) journalists who deemed the paper not right-wing enough (even though Rzeczpospolita has been traditionally centre-right and Law and Justice-friendly). Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable). Volunteer Marek 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I was hoping not to copy-paste from the articles themselves, but how can it have any editoral scrutiny when Paweł Lisicki has near total-control? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that is that some of the sources used to cite various things in these articles are themselves reliable. Like, is this reliable? You're basically citing all the "negative" info about one media outlet to one of its competitors. Here's an older version of the article before you got hold of it. I don't really follow Polish politics all that closely but this looks like someone trying to drag those disputes from the internet onto Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is now a government mouthpiece, and had a hard line eurosceptic stance years prior. For example, Anne Applebaum has describes it: "after Law and Justice won that year, I was featured on the covers of two pro-regime magazines, wSieci and Do Rzeczy—former friends of ours work at both—as the clandestine Jewish coordinator of the international press and the secret director of its negative coverage of Poland. Similar stories have appeared on Telewizja Polska’s evening news."--Bob not snob (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Known for extreme right junk. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rydzyk's media empire

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Tadeusz Rydzyk is a controversial Catholic fundamentalist and business mogul.

There's a lot to be criticised: from calling anyone who criticises him or the church a "worshipper of satan", far-right stances on LGBT rights, frequent and public controversies regarding blatant anti-Semitism, his controversial support for paedophile priests, peddling COVID-19 conspiracies, accusations of inciting hatred, peddling false claims about any politician who is any further left than right-wing populist; and that's not even touching upon the conflicts with the intellectual wing of the Catholic Church, stance on abortion and women's rights, and his very public dislike of the current Pope.

What is more concerning is the fact that he has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations. He is wanted in Canada for various violations. He exerts significant power and us very cosy with the ruling Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political power, who are now repaying his support with giving him generous government grants.

His umbrella organisation concerning the media is the Lux Veritatis Foundation and has 3 main outlets:

• Nasz Dziennik (newspaper)
• TV Trwam (TV)
• Radio Maryja (radio)

Now the issue can also be that there are at least dozens other registered charities, foundations, organisations and limited companies as well as a bogus university as well, all in order get as many governement grants and tax breaks as possible.

In terms of reliability, they are nothing more than a vehicle for his private interests and to maintain his political prowess.

However, it is worth pointing out that Radio Maryja has a fervent and loyal fanbase, is broadcast all over the world, and has around 1%-1.5% of the radio market share in Poland, which is quite a lot given its profile. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This one's a no-brainer. NOT reliable. Although, again, NOT "Polish government affiliated" or "owned" (in fact, IIRC, Rydzyk and head of the current Polish ruling party hate each other or at least did in the past. Rydzyk accused Lech Kaczynski's wife of witchcraft or something). Volunteer Marek 01:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Anything related to Lux Veritatis is extremist religious mumbo jumbo. For example: "The station and Rydzyk have been known over the decades for spreading anti-Semitic and homophobic views.", CBC or "His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat", New York Times.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. This Rydzyk priest and his organization just hate anyone not Catholic. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • @User:Mellow Boris actually being a Catholic doesn't stop you from being on their "enemy" list. Prime examples are the Catholic Church in Canada, Tygodnik Powszechny and even Pope Francis. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Media outlets with a strong one-sided POV.--Darwinek (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Polskie Radio

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Polskie Radio (PR for short) is the flagship state-run radio network in Poland.

It runs the following:

• Polskie Radio Program I (Jedynka – One) – information and adult contemporary music
• Polskie Radio Program II (Dwójka – Two) – classical music and cultural
• Polskie Radio Program III (Trójka – Three) – rock, alternative, jazz, and eclectic
• Polskie Radio Program IV (Czwórka – Four) – youth oriented
• Polskie Radio 24 (PR24) – news (without music)
• Polskie Radio Chopin – Polish classical music
• Polskie Radio Dzieciom – children programming (daytime), parents magazines (evenings) and Jazz music (nights)
• Polskie Radio Kierowców – music and information for drivers'
• Polskie Radio Rytm – pop music – internet only
• Radio Poland – external broadcasts in Belarusian, English, German, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian

Now after the governement intereference and censorship scandal of Trójka, where the journalists and presenters who worked there for several decades were forced out of their jobs, creating competing Radio 357 and Radio Nowy Świat stations in protest, and Polskie Radio 24 working hand in hand with the controversial TVP Info, I would question the reliability of the network.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

• No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
• This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
• PR has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

Now it could well be that classical music, sport, drivers info are all unaffected and there is no reason not to see the network as reliable on those matters; the main concern is political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ following the legislation and 2016 purge is problematic. They are even questionable for music, as they manipulated the music charts poll after a protest song topped them.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Just a mouthpiece for the xenophobic Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• What are we discussing here exactly? Preemptively banning 10 radio stations? How does usage in Wikipedia of these radios look like? --MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

niezalezna.pl

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

niezalezna.pl is a right-wing populist news portal, claiming to be independent and "pro-Polish".

The funding structure actually shows this portal to not independent as it claims to be. The Lech Kaczyński Institute owns 100% of Srebrna Ltd. Srebrna Ltd. in turn owns 30.4% of niezalezna.pl. The other 48.6% is owned by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Umm, what is "Lech Kaczynski Institute"? I mean, I know who Lech Kaczynski was but I don't see any info about any institute. Is this what you're talking about? I also see some mentions of such a thing on internet blogs but who knows what that means. Likewise I can't find any info for "Srebrna Ltd." I do find some stuff but it's about... silver jewelers ("srebrna" means "silver" in Polish). I'm not sure how you wish people here to evaluate your claims when you fail to provide any sources for your assertions.

Oh, and also, like mentioned below, please observe WP:BLP.

Anyway, EVEN IF this source has some connection to the current Polish government, so what? That does not render it unreliable anymore than BBC getting funding from UK gov makes it unreliable. If it is unreliable it's for OTHER REASONS, which you have failed to articulate (just "right-wing" also doesn't cut it). Volunteer Marek 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Instytut im. Lecha Kaczyńskiego is a institute in honour of Smoleńsk disaster: article. Well, given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists, it does have a big difference. Firstly, it claims to be independent, and is not officially state-run, even though its structure clearly states otherwise. Also, how can fact-checking and editorial scrutiny can be applied when it is in the hands of one or two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian. It's basically siphoning public funds. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and assume that when you said "given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists" what you meant to say was "given *Polish government's reputation*. Otherwise your statement is ... kind of problematic. As far as this institute goes - does it even exist anymore? There's no info on it and you still haven't provided sources that these actually are connected. And again who owns is actually irrelevant. The "two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian" is confusing and appears to be highly POV - who exactly are you referring to and what are you backing this up with? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Closely connected to Gazeta Polska. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The paper quoted Sakiewicz. Ok. That does not make it unreliable. Have you ever watched Fox News and the people they quote there? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable homophobic junk. Known for its homophobia. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Gazeta Polska & TV Republika

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Gazeta Polska, a newspaper, and TV Republika, are ran by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to these in awhile so I'll have you check, but one thing: you might want to observe WP:BLP (!!!!!!) and NOT refer to someone as "far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist". I mean, he very well could be, I don't know, but that kind of statement WITHOUT a source to back it up is a quick way to get yourself blocked. I suggest you tone it down or strike it. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence points that I am correct. 1 2 3 4 Abcmaxx (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait. First source says that Sakiewicz, supposedly "far-right", insulted Janusz Korwin-Mikke, *definitely* far-right, by saying that the latter supported Nazism. How is that suppose to show that Sakiewicz is "far-right" exactly?

Second and third source (same thing) is just Sakiewicz talking smack about the former Polish President. Again, this doesn't show Sakiewicz is "far-right", just that he's in a different political party.

The fourth source has Sakiewicz saying some wacky shit, but honestly, this is the kind of wacky shit that is considered more or less mainstream, and even "moderate" in the present day American Republican Party (GOP) (For non-Polish readers, Sakiewicz claims that there was fraud in the 2020 US election, which is like what 80% of the Republican party believes, but he also says that Trump will have to accept the result if courts rule against him, which is the kind of thing that people are now getting kicked out of the GOP for saying). Volunteer Marek 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, tone down the WP:BLPVIOs. I mean that in a helpful way. Volunteer Marek 03:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Have you ever watched Fox News? Stuff like that is par for the course there. Have we ever made a decision regarding Fox News? I've lost track. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable homophobic junk. This organization is known for its homophobia. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Najwyższy Czas!

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

The magazine Najwyższy Czas! is a fringe right-wing Polish media outlet, linked to far-right and right-wing populist movements, attracting exclusively those, quite probably solely to further their cause. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Najwyższy Czas! is NOT "Polish government owned media". Which is why your original proposal was ... misguided. That said they are indeed not reliable. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Yes, it was a mistake on my part, after looking at the ownership, nothing to do with the government. But that should not detract from the matter at hand. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is a "far-right-leaning Polish tabloid". The company running this has also setup fake websites, copying text from real news (like France24) but changing some details to modify the meaning completely: "In reality, articles were rewritten with different titles, unproven or false details to modify completely the meaning of some stories, and therefore to spread disinformation".--Bob not snob (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Just dishonest fake news. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Polska Press

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. The ramping up of the rhetoric has been emphasised in late 2020, with the takeover of Polska Press (a collection of many inter-linked regional newspapers and websites) by state-run Orlen.

The following news agencies are affected:

• Polska Press Information Agency (Agencja Informacyjna Polska Press)

The following daily regional newspapers are affected:

• Dziennik Bałtycki
• Dziennik Łódzki
• Dziennik Zachodni
• Gazeta Krakowska
• Głos Wielkopolski
• Głos Dziennik Pomorza
  • Głos Szczeciński
  • Głos Koszaliński
  • Głos Pomorza
• Gazeta Wrocławska
• Polska Metropolia Warszawska
• Express Bydgoski
• Nowości Dziennik Toruński
• Express Ilustrowany
• Kurier Lubelski
• Gazeta Pomorska
• Gazeta Lubuska
• Dziennik Polski
• Kurier Poranny (founded 1990; not to be confused with other of the same name)
• Gazeta Współczesna
• Nowa Trybuna Opolska
• Echo Dnia,
• Nowiny (Rzeszów)

The following TV magazines are affected:

• Tele Magazyn
• Super Tele
• TV Pilot
• Tele Program

The following advertising newspapers are affected:

• Moto Express
• Autogiełda Wielkopolska
• Jarmark
  • Motojarmark

The following free newspapers are affected:

• Nasze Miasto

The following internet portals are affected:

• Motofakty.pl (motoring)
• naszemiasto.pl
• strefabiznesu.pl (business)
• stronakobiet.pl (women's)
• strefaagro.pl (agriculture)
• telemagazyn.pl (TV)
• gol24.pl (sports)
• sportowy24.pl (sports)

I would point out that this would only refer to those from 2021 onwards. The sports, TV, small ads and motoring are likely to be much unaffected, the issue is that it becomes incresingly similar to TVP Info in the way they report political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No to this. Sorry but even your wording/rhetoric ("Poland's rulers" - you mean its democratically elected government? Or was there an insurrection on the capitol or something?) suggests that you're here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being state owned doesn't render you non-reliable. Otherwise we'd have to toss the BBC (or does this "state owned" criteria only apply to the Polish government).

Some of these may very well be unreliable. But we need to go here on case by case basis and things like what exactly these sources are being used for matters. That's kind of a key consideration of WP:RS - reliable for what?

Incidentally, this reminds me a bit of the discussions we've had about Russian state owned RT (TV network). I *very strongly* argued that it was not reliable and should pretty much never be used. BUT. That argument was based on the nature of the source itself, not ownership (indeed, some commentators tried to defend RT by pointing out that other state owned media was considered reliable). Same thing here. You want to declare these unreliable? You got to do the work. Show why. Not just "cuz state owned and I don't like the current government". Volunteer Marek 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, The BBC is not state-owned and neither is it government-controlled. Polish media are quite different. GPinkerton (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither is "Polska Press" which is actually owned by Verlagsgruppe Passau GmbH, a German media company. Or at least it was until recently when apparently it was bought out by PKN Orlen which is ALSO a private company. That's the whole issue here - these are NOT media owned or controlled by the Polish government. Some of them may (I honestly have no idea since some of them are pretty obscure) have a "pro-government" editorial line or something but describing these as "state media" or anything close is simply incorrect. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. This company has been "re-Polishized" by the government: "Adam Bodnar, the national ombudsman for citizens' rights, told Wirtualna Polska that this was "a historic moment and, unfortunately, it shows that the authorities decided to take steps similar to those we could previously observe in Hungary under Viktor Orban." He said the transaction demonstrated what direction the ruling party was going in. "After full control of state media," he said, "now it's time for the private media."[192] --Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have a PRIVATE oil company. The Polish government happens to own some shares in this oil company. Simultaneously this oil company happens to own some media companies. And this is suppose to mean that the Polish government "owns" these media outlets? It doesn't.

Anyway, actually all of this is beside the point. If you think these sources are unreliable then you must make a case on the basis of policy - WP:RS. The phrases "government owned" or "state owned" (and these aren't even that!) don't actually appear anywhere in WP:RS policy. It doesn't matter. You have to show that these outlets fail the criteria that actually ARE laid out in RS. This is simply a misguided proposal for several reasons. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Following the takeover, by proxy, of this organization by the xenophobic Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Nothing to do here? State-controlled media is not banned in Wikipedia. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion about a dozen media outlets at the same time without any reference to actual usage in English Wikipedia. --MarioGom (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• - this is crazy..of course all reliable - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1981 Judy Chicago interview as source for broad material about gender inequality in the United States

Questions: (1) Is an hour-long 1981 interview of artist Judy Chicago [193] a verifiable and reliable source for the statement, Sexism and gender discrimination have long been factors in the visual arts and the art world, inflected by cultural taboos and the sexual division of labor. This affects both occupation and opportunities available to women and public portrayals of women's roles, and is further intensified and complicated by the intertwingling of the political culture of the United States, where universal women's suffrage was not achieved until the twentieth century.? (2) Is a long quote of Judy Chicago (which follows) WP:DUE for Gender inequality in the United States#Occupational segregation by gender?

My answers: 1. No. An interview from 40 years ago with a single artist where she gives her point of view is not remotely a reliable source for such broad claims about opportunities for women in the present and tying in US political culture in general, even bringing up women's suffrage. The topic should instead be sourced to the expert academic literature on this topic in fields such as sociology. Editors also should not be expected to listen to an hour-long interview to verify anything. 2. No. A single artist's lengthy quote is not due and interpretations of art don't have to do with occupational segregation; the academic literature should be consulted instead.

Further context: The editor Struthious Bandersnatch insists [194][195] on including this material. My response to their last edit summary is that they are personalizing the dispute by making it about my supposed beliefs (my actual beliefs are inclined to agree with the text being added; my concerns are RS and DUE related [196]), that they are reversing the WP:BURDEN of sourcing, and that their accusation of WP:TE on my part does not apply because the material is not reliably sourced. I also believe that this editor has been around long enough [197] to know better than this sort of behavior and should be informed of what is proper. Because of how this editor is singling me out, and based on past experience with them, I strongly desire broad input on this matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

How about you address which parts of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability the source—which, as your first external link shows, was preserved by the NEA in its archives—would not meet? And speaking of what's proper—you've been reverted once, and instead of simply looking for more sources to support already-cited content you're supposedly inclined to agree with, you place a GamerGate DS alert on my talk page (the instructions for which say, by the way, Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.) and you want to start a noticeboard discussion over a single interview from a single source, skipping even any talk page discussion?

Note that (as a fourth alternative in addition to what I proposed in my reverting edit summary, that you present contradicting evidence if you believe it exists) you could also have simply altered the text of the paragraph before the quote if you find any portion of it objectionable; it does appear you want to delete pertinent, reliably sourced content wholesale to which you've voiced no styling objections, as I said. (Unless the implication that politics and art aren't related is a styling objection?) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the WP:BURDEN of proof is yours, but WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) states: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An artist's recorded personal views are not fact-checked nor do they have a reputation for accuracy. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. This topic is covered by social science and absolutely has voluminous academic literature available to it. No idea what you mean by "styling objections". Note too that your edit warring your material in is contrary to WP:ONUS. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a lot to base on one interview with one artist 40 years ago. There are lots of scholarly sources that cover this. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with SlimVirgin. In the spirit of full disclosure, I saw Judy Chicago's monumental work The Dinner Party in San Francisco when it was first released 40 years ago, and I like it very much even though I understand the negative criticism of it. I have seen at least two other art shows featuring her work since then. I truly admire her and her work, but she is an individual artist rather than a respected art historian, and her individual opinions are fine with inline attribution in an article about her or her work and views. But her views should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice in an article about such a broad topic. Yes, scholarly sources are definitely preferred in this type of article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• So, just to be clear, the verdict being expressed above in response to the question is that an interview from the Drama and Literature Department of WBAI by Ann Stubbs, preserved in the archives of the National Endowment for the Arts, is not reliable or verifiable; and it's implied that per WP:UNDUE it represents the view of a tiny minority like the flat Earth concept does. As used here, none of these have the meanings of these terms as expressed in the corresponding Wikipedia policy pages, despite the promiscuous links; they are being given arbitrary meanings to fit another purpose—what that is I don't know—but it does not appear to correspond to Wikipedia processes and procedures. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that this is a correct assessment. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the issue here is that this is not the kind of source we use to make the kind of claim you're making. The issue is not the substance of the claim (which could be backed up by more scholarly and recent refs), nor whether this source might be reliable in another context. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is question 2 this really a WP:RS dispute? Looks to me like it's a WP:NPOV, which should be discussed on WP:NPOVN.--JBchrch (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this is a straightforward "Is source X reliable for claim Y in article Z?" question, it seems germane to me. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Generalrelative, clarified my comment.--JBchrch (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be a reliable source for something like the specific claim that Judy Chicago said/felt X 40 years ago. I do not see how Chicago's statement could be generalized to support a universal claim which seems to be the case here. To make this a generalized claim I think you would need more than one 3rd party source to make the claim. Chicago presumably is an involved source offering her opinion. Springee (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• The source is reliable for the purpose of attributing the or paraphrasing the quote to the person in question, but not for making general statements about the topic. There are plenty of better sources for that. It's not a question of reliability. The source is reliable, in so far as we trust that Judy Chicago really did make those statements. The issue is issues of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, insofar as it places an undue emphasis on a specific viewpoint that may or may not represent the preponderance of scholarship on the matter. Several more general scholarly sources would be more useful here. --Jayron32 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is extremely dated, there are newer sources on this. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= (https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html Even if necessary this fifth source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/

In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.

The other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.

It was discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion

The volunteer in the dispute resolution noticeboard refused to make a decision to enforce the policies on sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the first claimed "peer reviewed scholarly source", The Russian GULAG: Understanding the Dangers of Marxism Combined With Totalitarianism. It's a student thesis for a degree at Liberty University, which the lead of that article describes as "a private evangelical Christian university". I couldn't be bothered even looking at the rest after seeing that clearly wasn't a "peer reviewed scholarly source". FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 can you tell me how it being a christian university allows it to be unreliable when policy states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and can you read the other sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's written as clear as you like at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate are reliable under certain circumstances, except that isn't for a doctorate. It doesn't even appear to be for a masters degree, which might have got over the bar of Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So it's straight up unreliable, and it's not peer reviewed. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well the source that the liberty thesis uses for the 150 killings is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Please tell me why i cant just use that source? Or why even when this page says 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 am i allowed to use that source for that figure Danielbr11 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop forumshopping, you're already on ANI and I suspect you will be (in my view justly) blocked shortly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, Looks like that book is on a vanity publisher, definitely not peer reviewed either. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me hemiauchenia i was told in dispute resolution that i should come here to discuss the reliability of my sources (not just one source).Danielbr11 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie if you found that then i accept it. Now can you say why my other three sources would be unrealiable? https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ remember that the policy states you cant delete a source for being biased.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would ask that the volunteers here please be patient and answer Danielbr11's questions. As the person they opened the ANI about- they have been directed to this noticeboard over and over since they do not trust those of us who have engaged with them on this policy. Even the admins on the ANI have recommended they come here. Thank you.

And Daniel- it says you can't delete it JUST for being biased. You can deleted it for being unreliable. And bias is one of MANY things that can determine reliablility. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The majority of scholars don't group together all communist regimes into a single "anthropogenic disaster" since they had considerable differences. Instead, events in the Soviet Union, China etc. are listed separately. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Buide the majority of scholars say the death toll of European Colonization is way lower than the one on the list of 140000000 because they are mostly due to famine and there were also many countries involved. Can you please state why my last three sources above are unreliable. Once again there is a wiki article here that lists 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22Danielbr11 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So you would also exclude deaths from Famine in Communist regimes? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson: Opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, probably valid for authors opinion, doesn't state a total number of deaths. WP:WEIGHT would keep it out, the writer's opinion is not very important. Future of Freedom: Obviously an ideologically biased opinion piece (when you hear the word "Freedom" listen out for the splashes), but that doesn't discount it. However, it is not peer-reviewed and it is a source that does not claim to make any serious analysis of the numbers of dead, merely citing "Historians" that give a figure of 150 million. So to include it we would have to say "Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership Richard M.Ebeling says that historians say that 150 million people were killed by Communist Regimes." That's basically just tittle-tattle, not valid to support the claim. Christian Science Monitor: Opinion piece, no workings shown, no scholars cited, from 1985. Same problem as above. Liberty university Not RS, student work. Independent Review Opinion piece, no workings shown, cites Conquest for the 150 million deaths, Conquest actually cites considerably fewer in his own work, summarised here., and his top estimate of 100 million is almost certainly an overestimate. Same problem as the others, except here we would have to say "Billy-Jo Unremarkable says historians claim 150 million deaths, citing Conquest whose own work says 85-100 million", which becomes OR to clarify the misinformation we have introduced by choosing to quote an Opinion piece. Not RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider any of these sources reliable for these claims, or their opinions DUE. The Harvard Crimson is the student newspaper at Harvard and this is from their opinion/editorial section. The Christian Science Monitor (that's a better version of the source, by the way) is generally reliable for news per WP:RSP, but this is an opinion/editorial piece from guest author John Lenczowski. The Fruits and Fallacies of Fred Skinner on Freedom is from The Independent Review, a low-impact-factor journal published by Independent Institute, a think tank. That suggests they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require. Woodroar (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your input on those sources. Can you tell me why this source would be unreliable which says at the bottom communist regimes 259,432,000 as maximum estimate of deaths. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF and why is this page allowed to show 161,990,000 killed with its source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates Danielbr11 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide more information about that table of data? as it is it is merely a list of numbers with no provenance. In the other article, the phrase "In the dissident blog..." suggests to me that this number does not come from a RS, and therefore should be deleted. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The table is from here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM where it says "For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide" btw this source is used throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page Danielbr11 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The website is not RS in itself, by the looks, but it comes from the work of Rummel which seems to me to come under WP:FRINGE, according to his wikipedia page he claims numbers of up to 400 million. When rampant anti-Communists wind up claiming German casualties in WWII as "victims of communism", and barely scrape 100 million, I don't think Rummel merits a place in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As i said he is sources throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page and i dont think you can call him fringe if you allow 1 source to say 140000000 deaths from european colonization when most scholarly sources and historians say way less deaths because many were from disease.Danielbr11 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. His actual death toll proposal is 400,000,000. That is way out there. The difference in numbers for European colonisation is justifiable as disease is not a neutral force. It occurs in a social context, and is specifically deadly in situations of social collapse occasioned by cultural domination. People who are enslaved and abused and under-fed die more easily, and frequently simply stop trying to live. It is arguable whether it is correct to include all of these deaths in the death toll, but is a serious argument made by a serious person. 400 million dead in 70 years is simply not credible, and is not treated as such by other researchers. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Moved from section below. Danielbr11, you already have a huge section on the reliable sources noticeboard AND two reports at the admin noticeboard AND a case at arbcom. Please let me discuss the general reliability of Rummel on RSN in a seperate section without making everything be about your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon as i said rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article and i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as their is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source! I am not using any 400 million figure which is the total democide estimate for ALL GOVERNMENTS (not communism)- i am only the 259,432,000 figure for communist regimes at the bottom here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIFDanielbr11 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Rummel being fringe or somewhere-in-the-middle, personally. But even if he's in the middle, I agree that attribution is necessary. I'd also suggest that it's UNDUE to cite him throughout the list, as if he's some unquestionably renowned expert. My preference is that Rummel should only be used in prose—with attribution, of course—when we can provide context/criticism from other reliable sources. And if a significant number of sources show up demonstrating that he's fringe, we should remove him entirely. Woodroar (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Copying my comments from below so they appear in context. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article but i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as there is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source.Danielbr11 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding about neutrality here. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we give both (or even all) sides. It means that we, as editors need to neutrally summarize what sources say and also weight them proportionally. In other words, we can't read into or analyze sources, or make them say something they don't, or make minority viewpoints appear like majority viewpoints (or vice versa). Sometimes that means minority viewpoints need to be contrasted with majority viewpoints, and sometimes it means that minority viewpoints get excluded entirely. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans gets about 140000000 from 1 source while MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths as well. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc.Danielbr11 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

But that minimum number still needs to be reliably sourced, otherwise we could find some crackpot who claims 1 death and add that. The existence of a field doesn't mean that we need to fill it. As for Rummel being cited in other articles, that doesn't mean much. Sure, it could be a sign that the community has vetted a source, like many of the sources at WP:RSP. But it can also mean that someone's added it to articles and...well, nobody's bothered to revert or bring it up for a wider discussion. We're (mostly) all volunteers here and we can't be everywhere. So we're having the discussion now. It might end with everyone agreeing to use Rummel, but it might end with everyone agreeing to remove the source entirely, or somewhere in the middle. Woodroar (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Rummel is reliable and one cannot delete a source simply for bias. While they debate Rummel below, i found another source with a neutral reliable publisher: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans, which was done by many different countries and most deaths were due to disease, gets about 140000000 deaths from 1 source. MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc. Furthurmore rummel is not far off because some reputable sources have estimated stalins deaths at 60 million and maos at 70 millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not unreliable, in the sense that it can be used for uncontroversial facts and opinions of the author. It is outdated and probably has been superseded by more up to date sources on Chile. If it is another source which uses a throwaway line about a large number of dead victims of Communism, I would probably just forget about it, tbh. If it quotes a source for this large number, have a look at this source and see if it is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This source is reliable and meets the criteria, so i am free to use it in my edit to the list without others deleting it?Danielbr11 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, That's not what was just said. But even if it were, you would still need to discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus for inclusion. The mere fact that a source is reliable is not the only factor involved in such a decision. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So you say "Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas: "Democide (intentional murder by a government)" but that hes "not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger." so "Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories."? If you dont allow me to source him as the maxmimum estimate NEXT to the minimum estimate for opposing views with other sources than i will take this to arbitration at this point since you guys discussed this and completed this dispute resolution.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do what you think you have to do, but be aware that the community is getting tired of your disruptive edits and your continual attempts to make other pages and other sections of this page be about your edits when you already have a huge section where you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration does not take content disputes. If you do not accept that the answer to what you are asking is no, what's going to end up happening is a block. This is not a threat- its not even a warning- its a prediction. You're not going to force your way on this one.... Its not happening, move on and find another article to edit. You already had one admin saying their first impulse was to block you for a week- the reason you're not blocked is because other editors stood up and wanted to give you a chance to follow proceedure and see reason, if now, after doing that, you are just going to escalate things to ridiculousness again- no one is going to stand up and ask you to be given another chance. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No point in trying to stop a WP:BOOMERANG in mid flight. Clearly nothing that you, Nightenbelle, are going to write will stop the behavior or the predicted conclusion. Probably best to just stop responding and let things play out. (Reaching the point where you stop responding is looked upon very favorably at ANI and AE, BTW.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice taken. Sitting back and observing from here on out. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am being civil about it without personal attacks which is what the admins were worried about. The arbitration only got declined because it had not been discussed enough yet. But now it has. There will be a reckoning because rummel is used all over including on the list article. Now you guys are gonna change your mind and remove rummel just cause of little old me? Ya arbitration will take it..Danielbr11 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: FYI, as an uninvolved outsider, former Arb, and periodic ArbCom watcher who has seen this blow up in 3-4 different places the last few days: I can pretty much guarantee ArbCom won't take it, and you'll very likely end up blocked indefinitely for disruption. A bunch of people disagreeing with you is not the kind of dispute ArbCom handles. We don't have a content-related review board, if there's consensus against you (and it looks to me like it really, really is), that's pretty much that. Right or wrong, you move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam arbitration does take content cases look at the Kurd case they are doing now its there only active case. They only denied my first case because they said i didnt do enough dispute resolutions yet because it has to be a long standing issue. Do you understand whats being done here? They are blocking me from using rummel as a source WHEN he is used all throughout the article and many other articles.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, If it wasn't a long standing issue on Monday, it isn't likely to have become one two days later. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Because i never made it about the rummel source but now it will be because below as you can see, even though rummel has been everywhere on wiki for a long time, these editors have stated that they never felt solid about him and that maybe he should be purged.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

When you are inevitably blocked, it will not be about the 'rummel source' but about your inability to constructively participate in consensus making and your inability to walk way from a clearly losing argument. - MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Mrollie i have not made any personal attacks which is what the potential block was about. You cant call everyone who disagrees "disruptive" because we are free to debate these things why do you think arbitration has a Kurd case. I already accepted everyones opinion on the other sources but the Rummel one is extremely controversial because it is WIDELY accepted all over this website except NOW just because of me using his communism regimes killings estimate??? Thats a problem.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to repeat the advice from days ago, it is time to drop the stick and take your fingers out of your ears. This is a collaborative work of volunteers who have now spent an inordinate amount of time on researching, analyzing and commenting on your requested edits. You have no right to your edits being accepted. Once the edit was challenged, burden fell on you to convince others that the edit should be included. That has failed.... repeatedly.

If you stopped obsessing over a single edit on a single page, you would see that the discussion is leaning in the direction of removing Rummle's statistical data except from pages concerning his specific theories. No one has a specific grudge against you or Rummel, they just don't see the data as accurate or useful. That's their right and really our obligation to the readers.

You will not get some glorious last stand at ArbCom. ArbCom will not be telling you that you were right all along and everyone else was mean. Further pursuit of this matter will undoubtedly lead to not just a Page/Topic ban but a site ban as battleground mentality and tedentious editing are not welcome. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter its indeed sad that you guys have obsessed all this time in preventing my communism edit after i provided so many sources several of which were reliable or peer reviewed YET you all have given no scrutiny to the absurd highest estimate of European Colonization. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources say the death toll (especially due to disease) is way lower yet you allow 1 source that goes against all those? Fortunately even universities tell people not to trust or use wikipedia. When people type in google "what event killed the most"- every other website and source other than wiki says ww2 by a long shot while european colonization is way down the list.Danielbr11 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Way lower? Nonsense.

"Estimates of total dead in World War II vary from 35 million to 60 million."[198]

"Worldwide Casualties: Battle Deaths = 15 million, Civilian Deaths: 45 million.[199]

"European colonization of Americas killed so many it cooled Earth's climate: Research finds killing of native people indirectly contributed to a colder period by causing deaths of around 56 million by 1600"[200]

(Of course none of these numbers are exact.)

Please read WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Good read. Could have used that being dropped on me months ago when I was the one in an MOS disagreement. Slywriter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You loonies are the only website that say it killed 140 million which is basically the whole pre colombian population even though many sources say it was way less. Here the top 2 websites on google that have such a list say european colonization is wayyyy down the list. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2020/06/graphic-wwii-and-the-100-deadliest-events-in-history-feature/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2020/06/ww2-anniversary/wwii_anniversary_og-05.ngsversion.1588774396334.adapt.1900.1.png if you cant stop the website midload before the popup) and https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/08/The-100-Worst-Atrocities-over-the-last-Millennia-New-York-Times-Data-from-Matthew-White0.png

but i already tried adding on the list the 200 million abortions under family planning policy in china with these two sources . and thats not counting the 200 million abortions in ussr everyone can see communism truly killed more than anything.. wish me good riddance all!Danielbr11 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11:, I think "wish me good riddance all!" is the best solution at this point. You have posted huge walls of text on multiple pages and from what I can see nobody agrees with you. Given the situation that you have created you can either voluntarily walk away from such controversial and disputed topis as communism and abortion, choosing some other area to edit in, or someone is going to document your WP:IDHT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior and post a report at WP:ANI, with the probable result of you being topic banned from editing about abortion and communism. It is time for you to drop the WP:STICK. I have further advice for you on my page at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel

Danielbr11 is in the middle of an ANI case, so I would like to have a general discussion about the reliability of one of the sources mentioned above without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. Please move any comment specific to that case to the section above.

I do not consider the works of Rudolph Rummel to be either fringe or mainstream. They appear to be in that area between calls "controversial". There is some dispute over his numbers from other academics, and thus I think anything sourced to Rummel should be properly attributed, and when appropriate disagreement by prominent critics should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that his figures are not suitable to be included in list type articles, as they are WP:FRINGE and there is not possibility of giving context in that case. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are fringe. You may be right about not using them in lists where there is no room for context or criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Rummel being fringe or somewhere-in-the-middle, personally. But even if he's in the middle, I agree that attribution is necessary. I'd also suggest that it's UNDUE to cite him throughout the list, as if he's some unquestionably renowned expert. My preference is that Rummel should only be used in prose—with attribution, of course—when we can provide context/criticism from other reliable sources. And if a significant number of sources show up demonstrating that he's fringe, we should remove him entirely. Woodroar (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. I agree; Rummel should only be used in prose with attribution with context/criticism from other reliable sources. I have had to move several comments by a user who shall not be named to the section above because they want to discuss edits to specific lists. Would you be so kind as to make your excellent point about lists in the above section as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to ascertain whether his figures are in line with other people on non-Communist matters. It may be ok for other topics if he is just a bit funny about Communism. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at them in depth, and read most of his critics. The fact is that there are a wide variety of numbers on this, all from respected scholars. Some are no doubt influenced by a desire to maximize the numbers for democide in some countries. Some are no doubt influences by a desire to minimize the numbers for democide in some countries. This isn't a case of mainstream vs. fringe. There is no mainstream agreement for most of these numbers. So we should do what we always do when scholars disagree; present all notable views with attribution. The more I think about your comments on lists, the more I agree. we shouldn't just add numbers without a discussion about who disagrees and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain a little bit about Rummel. Rudolph Rummel is by no means a fringe author. He is a very reputable scholar, and his "democratic peace" concept is very famous. However, we must clearly understand what exactly his contribution to science consists in. His main contribution is introduction of factor analysis into social sciences. In particular, he collected all available data on mass killings and calculated correlations between various traits of each regime and the scale of killings. He obtained significant negative correlation between democracy and mass violence and strong positive correlation between a degree of totalitarianism and mass killing. That is why he is considered reputable.

However, can he be a good source for figures? No. First. His approach was analyzed by Dulic, who persuasively demonstrated that Rummel's approach (to take all published data on the number of victims and to calculate the boundaries of most probable estimates) inevitably leads to inflated figures. Dulic discusses Rummel's data on Yugoslavia only, but his conclusions are equally applicable to Rummel's approach in general. Interestingly, no other statistician joined the dispute (neither at Dulic's side nor Rummel's side), which is an indication of low interest of true professionals to Rummel's statistics. Second. Rummel used all published data non-critically, and he never re-considered his estimates to a lower side in light of new evidences. Thus, I checked his "Death by government", and his estimates of USSR deaths are based on outdated Cold-war era crude estimates. Despite the fact that a huge amount of archival data became available on the USSR after its dissolution, and now the USSR mortality figures are much better known, Rummel continued to publish dramatically inflated figures, which are more than an order of magnitude higher than actual numbers (and which contradict to most moderns demographic (Erlikman) and archival (Zemskov) data). Accordingly, it is not a surprise that most modern country experts essentially ignore Rummel's "estimates". The exception is Cambodia, for which the data dispersion has always been pretty low, and, accordingly, Rummel's estimates are reasonably precise.

Third, as Barbara Harff noted, Rummel's goal was not to provide the exact statistics, for even the amended data set would lead to essentially the same conclusion about "democratic peace". Therefore, Harff doesn't believes high precision of the data is neither required nor expected from Rummel. Therefore, although Rummel is a good expert in his field, the figures he provides cannot be trusted, especially for the countries or the events where a large number of contradicting figures were published, for Rummel just takes them all and obtains the average without analyzing reliability of each figure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Are Rummel's numbers really so far from other estimates?

From our article on Democide#Killings by Communist states

• Rummel gives an estimate for communist democide including famine of 110 million, later revised to 148 million, with an estimated error range of "a probable order of magnitude", which means that it could be a lot lower or a lot higher.
• Stéphane Courtois gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.
• Martin Malia came up with "between 85 million and 100 million."
• Benjamin Valentino estimated 21 million to 70 million gave in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone and stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was "up to 110 million."
• Steven Rosefielde's number is "approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more."
• Matthew White published estimates 70 million, including "people who died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", with 26 million people additionally dying in "Communist-inspired wars."
• Stephen Kotkin estimated 65 million people killed intentionally with "even more" from starvation as a result of social engineering"

Several commentators on Rummel's estimates have noted that estimates for the holocaust (which we have far better numbers for) might be 20% or maybe even 40% off either way, while at the same time completely rejecting the claims of holocaust deniers that the estimates are a hundred times or more too large. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There is one fundamental problem with that. The estimates are made by the authors who (i) consider "Communist mass killing" as a single separate category, and (ii) use the figure of "killed" to convey some specific idea (usually, that Communism was worse than Nazism). However, this view is not supported by majority of other authors, and the criticism is not like "You say Communism killed 100 million, but, according to my data, they killed just 20 million". In reality the criticism is focused on the very approach: the very idea to provide some cumulative figure is considered as flawed and politically motivated. Thus some critics of Courtois note that he implicitly assumes that some "generic Communism" existed, whereas that is not correct, and each mass mortality event in Communist states had its own roots, and they were mostly unconnected to each other, so it would be deeply incorrect to combine them into the singe category. Other authors argue that the very term "victims of Communism" is vague, and inclusion/exclusion of some deaths into that category depends mostly on political views of each concrete author. And most importantly, an overwhelming majority of country experts just ignore the above authors. Thus, majority of scholars studying Chinese famine (which was responsible for nearly a half of "Communist death toll") do not use the term "killing" at all. Instead, they write that the famine was a result on a combination of natural factors and strategic blunders of Communist leadership, and it was just the last major famine in a series of famines that were occurring in China regularly, and they apply the same language to Chinese famine as to the Bengal or Irish famine (which are not considered mass killing at all).

In other words, the estimates provided by you are made by the authors who consider "Communist death toll" a separate category, and who use it to draw some specific conclusions from that. Taking into account that all those authors but Courtois faced almost no criticism, we may conclude they either express mainstream view or a small minority view. If the first hypothesis is correct, they must be being widely cited by the authors writing about each separate "mass killing" event (such as Chinese famine, Volga famine, the Great Purge, ets). If the second hypothesis is correct, they are expected to be ignored by country experts. My analysis demonstrates that they are fully ignored by such authors as O'Grada (Chinese famine), Wheatcroft, Ellman (USSR), Kiernan (Cambodia), etc. Moreover, most cases when the Black Book is cited by country experts, that happens because Werth's or Margolin's chapters of USSR or PRC are sited. However, both these authors severely criticized Courtois for his introduction, and they even publicly threatened to withdraw their name from the book. Which is by no means an indication of mainsreamness of the Courolis' views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

...and that is why the piece of text that you copy-pasted from the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is not more that ideologically charged minority POV that does not reflect the view of the scholarly community, and, therefore, it should be put into a proper context to bring it into accordance with our NPOV policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a minor point, Valentino explicitly cites Rummel for the 110 million "upperbound" figure (while Valentino's own figures are considerably lower than Rummel's). It would be misleading to construe that as Valentino "corroborating" Rummel. In addition, Wikipedia probably should not be citing the self-published blogger/author Matthew White, who has no qualifications, academic or otherwise, relevant to any of the countries that he is ostensibly researching.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentino's main contribution is a concept of "strategic mass killings", which is aimed to explain (and predict) the onset of mass killings. He is not, and he never claimed to be, an expert in figures. Like Rummel's "democide", Valentino's theorizing is not affected by moderate errors in figures. A bigger question is that some deaths that are considered as "excess deaths" by most scholars are claimed to result from "mass killings" by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Incidentally, few days ago relative of mine mentioned somewhat weird number victims for Czechoslovakia (65000), which is order of magnitude higher than any number I saw in recent scholarship. Basic source for such number is the very author we discuss here. Sources he uses for Czechoslovakia estimate (I list them on the article talk page) are all older than 1989 (before primary documents were accessible to scholars) - so wild guess at best. Note research in this field of study was really fruitful after 1989, which is not reflected even in later revision of his book (1997). In short: other issues aside, work of this author is so out-dated, I can´t recommend its use in any way other than an attributed opinion (where due). Pavlor (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is more serious: if some author provides outdated figures, usually, more recent data are available. However, no fresh data on a "global Communist democide death toll" are available, which implies the very concept is beyond the scope of scholarly community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is difficult then, logically speaking we would want to explain this in the article, but if it is so far outside mainstream scholarship that nobody even bothers to write about it, we can't do so! Boynamedsue (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion Version 1:

I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:

Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:

• Democide (intentional murder by a government)
• Democratic peace theory (few or no wars between democracies)
• Mortacide (murder by a government through negligence, incompetence or indifference)
• Democratic famine theory (few or no famines in democracies, deliberate or not)

All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.

• Rummel is also a reliable source with attribution in the far less controversial statistics areas covered in his books Applied Factor Analysis and Understanding Correlation.

Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.

Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes, but something is a little bit ambiguous. What do you mean under "Democide" and "Mortacide"? The actual phenomenae or theories? I am asking because such phenomenon as the Holocaust really existed, whereas "democide" seems to cover both actual killings and the deaths that either never occurred (like the deaths of tens of million GULAG victims), or were not considered as "killing" by other authors?

I also am unaware of any "democratic famine theory".

The second question. If we come to some common conclusion, how will that affect the articles that use Rummel as a source? Maybe, we need to invite the users who are working on those articles to join this discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: "The actual phenomenae or theories?", theories. Feel free to suggest clearer wording.

Re: "I also am unaware of any democratic famine theory" please pick a label that you think describes the theory described in Rudolph Rummel#Famine, economic growth, and happiness. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable appraisal. I would be very uncomfortable with the use of his figures, but his other work seems to be fine with attribution. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would generally support. His political theories are notable, but I don't think Rummel's death estimates should be cited either. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rummel is considered a "first generation genocide scholar", and his democide concept is somewhat obsolete. Therefore, his democide theory should be discussed in a context of more recent studies, whereas his figures should not be used at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion Version 2:

I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:

Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:

• Government intentionally murdering its own people (what Rummel called "Democide")
• Government unintentionally murdering its own people through negligence, incompetence or indifference (what Rummel called "Mortacide")
• Few or no wars between democracies (what Rummel called "Democratic peace theory")
• Few or no famines in democracies, deliberate or not (in Rummel's words "no democratically free people have ever had a famine. None.")

All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.

• Rummel is also a reliable source with attribution in the far less controversial statistics areas covered in his books Applied Factor Analysis and Understanding Correlation.

Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.

Note: there was an objection to the label I previously picked for "few or no famines in democracies" but nobody suggested an alternative. The phrasing "In Rummel's words..." is clunky compared to "What Rummel called...". Please speak up if you have better wording. This part of Rummel's theories is at [ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.3.19.05.HTM ] with the title "Democracy? Prosperous, and Never a Famine".

Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Reliable with attribution" means it is reliable for his own opinion, right? If yes, he falls into the WP:NEWSBLOG category when he writes not about factor analysis. With regard to his works on factor analysis, I see no reason to consider them less reliable that other scientific works. His works on factor analysis are widely cited, and, even according to our strictest criteria, they should be considered top quality reliable sources.

In addition, I am not sure if mortacide is a legitimate term at all. Rummel determined intentionality in a very unusual way, so even the death that are usually considered an unintentional result of the authorities activity are considered as intentional by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree with the summary by Guy Macon. But thinking logically, if his works in these areas are RS, then his estimates of deaths (the numbers) can and should be cited on any pages, probably with explicit attribution to Rummel. This is good. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I apologize for being late to this discussion. I do not follow this page closely but I was recently linked to this thread by Paul Siebert in a discussion at Mass killings under communist regimes, where I am an active editor. I would say that Rummel and his figures are not the majority view on that topic and fall in the "significant minority" bucket for weight purposes generally (the three buckets being majority, significant minority, and fringe). As such, like all significant minority sources, he is appropriate to be cited with in-text attribution along with other significant minority (and majority) views, rather than being being used to assert facts in Wikipedia's voice. In other words, citing his numbers in stand-alone list articles with tables of numbers that have no room for in-text attribution are probably not appropriate, because that is essentially an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice (unless the assertion of fact is specifically about Rummel himself or Rummel's work itself). Citing his numbers in embedded lists in an article, as is done at Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates may be appropriate, given how it is worded and the context he is being cited for. I think that is very close to Guy Macon's summary, although I am very uncomfortable with blanket determinations being made on sources on this noticeboard, since context on their exact use in an article is crucial information. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ultimately there's no evidence that Rummel has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in terms of his statistics (and some to the contrary). He was not a demographer or historian trying to create the most accurate estimates possible of the death toll for different events. Therefore, since such careful estimates do exist for most or all of the events he evaluated, these sources should be cited instead. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that Rudolph Rummel, a "political scientist and professor at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaiʻi", who has published multiple books on the subject of mass killing/democide through a reputable publishing house (Transaction Publishers), whose figures have been cited by other respected academics as worthy of consideration, with at least one explicitly saying that his figures are within the bounds of what is plausible (Benjamin Valentino, on communist mass killing here), has no evidence of a "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy"? I think you're wrong. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As said above, Rummel wasn't in the business of making the most precise or accurate estimates of these sorts of figures; his contributions were in theorizing. This is explained very well at the top of this section, which you've chosen to ignore. You're misrepresenting Valentino (who, similar to Rummel, is not a historian or demographer, but at least uses more up-to-date figures). He is hardly cited at all in scholarship for his death estimates. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING.
Also pinging participants of the discussion below: Bob not snob, Boynamedsue, NightHeron, Slatersteven. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting Valentino. One response to you in this thread is WP:BLUDGEONING to you? Is pinging sympathetic editors not WP:CANVASSING? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging all participants to a related discussion is not canvassing. Most of your bludgeoning is below for all to see. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion presents a strong case that Rummel uses historical estimates to support his agenda, without adequate regard for their accuracy. NightHeron (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think Guy Macon's summary is fair and accurate. Also we are at the point that there are newer secondary sources analyzing and incorporating Rummel's earlier work, and they are probably more to date in terms of accuracy. Estimates have progressed since the 80s and 90s.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America (VOA)

Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, first of all I would ask you to discuss Article Content Disputes at the Article Talk Page as you did several times before.It is by far not the first time I see you questioning my edits, you need to understand that Article you have created are not your OWN articles and that they of course will be checked and edited - by me and by several others. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it wants itself to be an encyclopaedia with a CLEAR neutral point of view, for very good reasons. None of your recently created articles were free of at least dubious sources and every first version was with a clear political intention. Secondly VOA is related to Myanmar Protests or the current Myanmar Government not really a reliable, neutral source since VOA is financed by the United States and I am sure that no one really can deny that the U.S. government has own particular interests in this issue. The other source you gave was - once again - from a clear political intentions driven medium. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting that VOA a dubious source and is just as bad as other state propaganda organisations like RT or CGTN is disingenuous. VOA maintains a firewall between government and itself and is widely respected for its accuracy. Despite recent turmoil, I don't think that saying that it is "unreliable" is a fair assessment. What specific claims are being contested? Are they in any way exceptional or not made by other sources? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hemiauchenia; the US Gov't's relationship with VOA is nothing like RT's with the Kremlin. GPinkerton (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I believe you are mistaken. Government funding does not in and of itself have an impact on a sources's neutrality or reliability as wikipedia understands it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Honestly I cannot believe this - point me to the policy/essay proving this please. If you have a look at the article about VOA you will see a separate section with controversies regarding their independency. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You can’t believe that a source can both accept government money and be independent? Thats hard to fathom given that almost all of our perennial reliable sources receive government funding in some way whether it be grants, subsidies, or tax preferences. A lack of editorial independence would be a problem, but thats not the argument you have made. I would suggest reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Eg, the BBC has long proven that you can have a state-backed media enterprise that retains high independence from influence of the state. The state sees a well-funded information service like the BBC as necessary to support an educated society but keeps its hands out of influencing how it handles topics to avoid the COI). --Masem (t) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC; it's all offloaded onto TV-owners as the licence fee. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, license fees which the state legislated and legally obligates TV-owners to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Car-owners also need driver's licences for which they are legally obligated to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions. The government of the day is forever threatening to reduce or abolish the fee whenever it feels itself unpopular. There used to be dog licences too. As I understand it, VOA's backing comes out of general taxation, so it is rather more the party organ than the BBC could ever be. For both institutions, the international news (i.e. the World Service, etc.) is directed at a non-domestic audience and is unlikely to be influenced by state policies of any government and most unlikely to take a contrarian angle. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You’re splitting hairs which don’t exist to make absurdly contrarian points like "In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC” when the statement you’re disagreeing with from Masem uses "state-backed” rather than “state funded” so your pedantry is not only unwarranted but based on a misreading of another editor’s argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is better to specify which Wiki article is being discussed. Where do you want to use this source?-Renat (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear all, user:CommanderWaterford, is a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. Do justice to me? Please help me... See pls Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon, User talk:Hintha#Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khin Thiri Thet Mon, and [201] even that The Irrawaddy and Myanmar Now are the most RS of my country. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Why people are using "their experience on Wikipedia" as a weapon ????? What is the community value of these over actions? Taung Tan (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you - WP:HELPAFD.--Renat (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RenatUK I don’t mean AfD. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}}) when there is no information questioned at all. [202], [203] and [204]. Taung Tan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there probably has been a misunderstanding here. It would be wrong to just say "this is a propaganda machine" and "this is not". The burden of proof for policy violations lies on the accuser, not the accused. I think everyone kind of just needs to calm down here, even me ahaha. We cannot have civilized discussion when there are constant assuming bad faith and negative attacks and whatnot. Aasim (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So VOA is clearly reliable ? Well, Hi... CommanderWaterford do you note ? Taung Tan (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is reliable its similar to BBC though Government funded there are editorial independence contrary to government funded press in various dictatorships --Shrike (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Both VOA and BBC are more reliable in the present than they were in their well-documented early histories. I've yet to see anyone reaching into the archives and for current news articles they are on par. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,

The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.

During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that the statement above, that it reflects the views of the US government, is taken out of context. The full page says

"The Voice Of America will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

(from the VOA Charter, Public Law 94-350)

As called for in its charter, the Voice of America presents differing points of view on a wide variety of issues. This includes the broadcast of editorials expressing the policies of the United States government, as well as essays on American ideals and institutions," specifying editorials, not news reporting. Zoozaz1 talk 04:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't take anything out of context. I explained that the editorials explicitly represent the views of the US government, while there's a supposed "firewall" between the government and the news section. However, as Dan Robinson (a long-time VOA correspondent and foreign bureau chief) has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review, that "firewall" is not effective, and there is significant government influence on the VOA news section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly think as in general for any state-owned media that if I see an article from state-owned media that appears overly pandering and presenting a case not corroborated and in disagreement with other RSes reporting on the same, there's an issue, and we can safely ignore it under IAR/UNDUE/FRINGE reasoning and use the other RSes. If it is the only article making a pandering claim and we have nothing that is "counter" to it, then inclusion should be discussed on the talk page (usually a claim by only one source usually isn't enough for inclusion). There are ways to deal with a situation described as a potential issue here as we'd have for any source and moreso as state-backed media in terms of its lack of independence to the state, but we don't have any clear evidence of a massive bias problem to mark VOA wholesale as a problem. --Masem (t) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

State-owned media is the only free media in many countries. Privately-owned media is intrinsically biased and corrupt. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously an RS.My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I know, that it's reliable for Europe and Central Asia related articles, not sure about other areas. But I lean towards "generally reliable".--Renat (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Generally reliable, but in-line attribution may be preferred when the topic is one where the US government has a strong interest" seems to sum up the situation, from what I've seen so far. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer in-text attribution in reporting about countries with ongoing conflicts with the US. --MarioGom (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's everybody dude. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this source ok to support a major claim in the lead of an article?

This statement is currently in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran:

• "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland"

We had a RfC debating if this should be removed from the lead of the article or not. Eggishorn closed it in "no consensus" and suggested to ask at RSN instead.

The source used to support this statement says "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."

Is this statement ok for the lead? or would it be better to have this moved to the body of the article instead? - MA Javadi (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the latter half of the sentence, "... a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland", supported by the reference on the pages specified (or elsewhere)? I realize I am not directly answering your question, but this point might be relevant. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends, is it just Ostrovar's opinion or is it shared by other researchers? (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe - I agree. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The second half of the sentence (a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland) strikes me as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, especially the very last part; summarizing the opinion of something as "treason" is very strong wording, as is the claim that this one action destroyed their support in their homeland. If it really is so important for those specific reasons, it should be easy to find additional sources to settle the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Markworthen: No, it's not supported by this reference. There are other references that (inconsistently) describe the effects MEK-Hussein cooperation had on the MEK's popularity, but they talk about events from 1986 onwards (Hussein-MEK collaboration post-1986 is already in the lead of the article), and not 1983 (which is the date this reference is pointing to).

• @Buidhe: These are the only other sources found about MEK-Hussein collaboration before 1986, but some are vague about the type of collaboration and none talk about the effects this had on the MEK's reputation.

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

• @Aquillion: there are mixed opinions that talk about the MEK's popularity after its collaboration with Hussein, but none refer to anything before 1986 (the year that the MEK put its base in Iraq).
• What do y'all think? Should this sentence be in the lead of the article, or in the body of the article? - MA Javadi (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a long lede (introduction) to begin with, so one option might be to make the lede more concise overall. Whether or not the lede is tightened up, I would remove or change the second half of the sentence. Perhaps something like: "By 1983 Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that decreased MEK's appeal in Iran." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I found two sources to support the statement:

This OUP book says "While the Islamic Republic came out of the war more powerful than ever, the MeK lost any legitimacy within Iran. To this day, the MeK's name is synonymous with treason for many Iranians".

This book by Hurst Publishers says "The MKO leadership first fled to France and then, somewhat imprudently, relocated to Iraq in 1986. There, in the words of one historian, they completed their transformation from a political movement into a cult. More important, as far as ordinary Iranians were concerned, was their decision to enjoy Saddam Hussein's patronage at a time when Iran and Iraq were at war. This simple fact made their claim to be the official opposition difficult to justify. Most Iranians, whatever their feelings towards the Islamic Republic, could not side with an organization that was effectively committing treason." Fences&Windows 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Your two sources talk about from 1986 onwards (which are already covered in the lead of the article). The source we are discussing here says "by 1983". So we are trying to determine if this only source talking about 1983 is enough to have this in the lead of the article. Can you comment about that please? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the date, whether 1983 or 1986, is the focus of the dispute. The key parts of the disputed section are the MEK's alliance with Hussein's Iraqi regime causing a precipitous decline in support and being viewed as treason by many/most Iranians, which those two reliable book sources have verified. It is also such a central part of the organisation's history that it needs to be in the lead. Fences&Windows 16:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I do think that 1983/1986 is also important and the bit about 1983 should be dropped as WP:UNDUE if it can't be confirmed by more sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, we definitely need to treat the two parts separately:

1. "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support" is still disputed. We know Rajavi met Tariq Aziz in Paris in January 1983 to sign a treaty [205] and this is already in the body of the article. That supports a date of 1983 for cooperating with Hussein's Iraqi regime. Financing is another question, but Piazza (1994) says "This meeting was highly significant in that it marked the beginning of what was to become a long-term relationship between Baghdad and the Mojahedin, one which would guarantee future Mojahedin funding and military support".[206] Maybe "In 1983, Masud Rajavi began to cooperate with Saddam Hussein's regime after a meeting in Paris, leading to the MEK joining Iraqi forces in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support".

2. "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" is definitely supported, including by Piazza: "At a period when the war with Iraq was taking a heavy human and financial toll on the Iranian masses, the Mojahedin’s move to Iraq and collaboration with Saddam Hussein was viewed by the Mojahedin’s supposed constituency inside the Islamic Republic with suspicion and scorn at best. It remains a specter which haunts the Mojahedin to the present day." It should be retained in some form. Maybe "The decision to side with Iraq was viewed as treason by many Iranians and caused lasting harm to the MEK's reputation in Iran." Fences&Windows 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used

Greetings all.

I need an assessment of how reliable the sources used in the article about Tomislav Vlašić are regarding the subject discussed. @Red Rose 13:, you are invited to discuss the issue as you requested at Talk:Tomislav Vlašić. These are the sources:

Books

• Bulat, Nikola (2006). Istina će nas osloboditi [The Truth will set us free] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
• Kutleša, Dražen (2001). Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
• Laurentin, René (1987). Racconto e messaggio delle apparizioni di Medjugorje [The account and message of the apparitions of Medjugorje] (in Italian). Brescia: Queriniana.

Journals

• Perić, Ratko (2009). "Vlašićeva upletenost u "međugorski fenomen"" [Vlašić's involvement in the "phenomenon of Medjugorje"]. Službeni vjesnik biskupija Mostarsko-duvanjske i Trebinjsko-mrkanske (in Croatian) (2). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar: 181–189.

News articles

• Agnew, Paddy (31 July 2009). "Pope laicises priest accused of creating Medjugorje claims". The Irish Times. Dublin. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Arslani, Merita (30 October 2020). "Franjevac iz Međugorja kojeg je 'Bog izabrao među 49 bića da uredi Svemir' izbačen iz Crkve" [The Franciscan from Medjugorje "chosen by God among the 49 people to sort the Universe" expelled from the Church]. 24 sata. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Bešker, Inoslav (24 October 2020). "Fratar koji je bio duhovni vođa međugorskih vidjelica izopćen iz Katoličke crkve" [The friar who was a spiritual leader of the Medjugorje seers expelled from the Catholic Church]. Jutarnji list. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Stannus, Jane (3 November 2020). "Medjugorje: A Cult Exposed". Crisis magazine. Nashua, New Hampshire. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Tomašević, Silvije (23 October 2020). "Lažnog franjevca iz Međugorja opet izopćili iz Crkve: 'Ne slušajte tog čovjeka, opasan je'" [The fake Franciscan from Medjugorje expelled from the Church again: "Do not listen to that man, he's dangerous"]. Večernji list. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.

Thank you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It'd help if you'd explain what the concern is, Governor Sheng.

I can see a general issue with independence of the sources. Crisis Magazine is a Catholic publication, so should be attributed due to this COI. The Spectator article discussed on the talk page seems OK to use, though the author Simon Caldwell has worked for the Catholic church so should also be attributed: [207]. On the books/journal, Laurentin is a supporter of the Marian visions and Perić and Kutleša are local Catholic bishops, so are not independent and need attributing. Irish Times is fine. Fences&Windows 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life.Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Staniel_Cay

Please see recent edits by User:Cladeal832 - I do not believe the new source mentions the films they are referring to via the source. https://imgur.com/a/8Gqt7Bx I have attempted to provide alternative sources and archived versions of the previous source, but the editor does not seem receptive to input. I would like additional opinions on the sourcing. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a dead link http://www.bahamas.com/node/54299, I updated it from the same website http://www.bahamas.com/natural-wonders/thunderball-grotto and the other users keeps reverting it back to the dead link. Also send me a link to an article on Yahoo News instead of just adding it themselves which I also added. Also I don't believe the information in the article is being disputing for its accuracy so I don't get all this hoopla about sourcing. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You have made 9 different edits to the article. I have expressed my concern with the new source not mentioning anything about the reference to the film you are trying to attribute the source to, provided you with an alternate source, and added archive links which have been removed by you. Is there a specific reason you have an objection to other sources or WP:COI that is driving your determination to use bahamas.com as a source even though the screenshot I provided of the current source you changed it to makes no mention of the film? DrGvago (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Language and Culture: Reflective Narratives and the Emergence of Identity

Would " Reflective Narratives " be considered reliable sources for encyclopedia articles? Google preview--Prisencolin (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a collection of short autobiographical stories, with an academic twist? Interesting stuff but I think it falls under WP:PRIMARY.--JBchrch (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

To me this looks like fairly typical ethnographic writing, and should not be simply considered WP:PRIMARY because the whole point of ethnographic methodologies incorporates the goals of WP:SECONDARY, featuring an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - the main primary source in question being their own recorded experience. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like ethnographies are secondary sources to the extent that they make a statement about the culture that is studied. Reflective narratives, on the contrary, are "self-centered" in the sense that they only seek to make a statement about the writer [208][209].--JBchrch (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a continuing scholarly discussion about ethnography and autoethnography; one recent statement is found here. My immediate reaction is to see this terrain as a continuum rather than a binary. 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

What kinds of statements would anybody want to source to this book? Most of it seems to be concerned with quite personal observations, so I'm not sure what kinds of encyclopedic content it could possibly be used as sourcing for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the encyclopeadia presently incorporates quite a lot of "personal observations", through ABOUTSELF and RSOPINION citations but also in more routine journalism and other independently published sourves. I would suggest that peer-reviewed autoethnography tends to be a cut above most of that - which we already routinely use - so I see no need for undue skepticism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we just wait for the OP to tell us some concrete example of what he saw this being used for, before we start judging if it could be used? I really see no sense in speculating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Irrawaddy

Hello all, I'm very tired and this is my last discussion. Firstly, user:CommanderWaterford, a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}} when there is used The Irrawaddy as source and no information questioned at all. [210], [211] and [212] and many more today. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Do justice to me? Hay guy, what is your problem? Why do you always bite me? Would you be happy if I left from Wikipedia ? I know you hate me because of my user page. This is my retirement.

Secondly, He says that The Irrawaddy is not reliable ! The Irrawaddy is second biggest media of our country after The Myanmar Times. Yes! Long long ago, "the media was produced by former Burmese activists who fled violent crackdowns on anti-military protests in 1988, it has always been closely associated with the pro-democracy movement". (the founder activists were retired from this media company nowadays and some have dided). But now, The Irrawaddy stands as independent media and a leading source of reliable news. The Irrawaddy may be not reliable on dictatorship news report and fairly neutral point-of-view reports on the military's moves. However, The Irrawaddy's is strong-pretty reliable on other news reports and categorys. Burmese editors will not accept this at all. Therefore, I would like to invite our respected and oldest Burmese editor @Hintha: to participate in this discussion. Pls see above my discussion wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Voice of America (VOA) and Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état#Some good, current major-media sources for further information. So sorry, my English is not good and I cant explain very well but as much as i could. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taung Tan: Most other editors have agreed with you, whether it be on your sourcing choices or whether your articles are notable. It would be a shame for you to retire due to the actions of a single user. That said I think that The Irrawaddy is a usable source, as it is not subject to oversight by the Myanmar govt and is a well established and respected publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being on my side. I did my best to help Wikipedia as a Burmese speaking editor even though my country is now in the darkness of military rule. I hope I didn't do nothing wrong on Wikipedia. I've fullknowledge on Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I can no longer editing on Wikipedia anymore because I'm very tired. Taung Tan (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well Taung Tan, don't know if you do yourself a favour here - no, I am definitely not happy if you leave Wikipedia and I (next to several other editors) tried to give you hints and advices how to improve your edits. You seem to revert almost every (!) edit of others editors which seem not be going into exactly your personal opinion, yesterday you reversed twice mergers from very experienced editors with comments barely acceptable. You are threatening editors if they are reverting with statements like "I know exactly what I am doing, take me to AfD, don't bother my time" etc. etc. What you need to see is that an article you created is not "your" article since this is a collaborative platform and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to be strictly neutral. Your article creations happened due to the very unhappy events in Myanmar and I personally do not favor at all this military coup BUT since this is an encyclopaedia we want to have accurate, reliable information - and I for myself added several of your statements with by far better sources (e.g. Forbia Asia directly today, you noticed that) or corrected them (source reported 170,000 protesters, you wrote at least 200,000 etc. etc.). Irradaway is a source at least doubtable IMO, it is driven by Burmese people living in the exile. That Burmese editors - currently under a military government - do have a different view on the reliability on this source is obvious. I personally do not have feelings if all others are of the opinion that it is reliable - no problem at all but what I do not want is Wikipedia being in the news with articles going (perhaps) into WP:Activism, that's all. At least: Content Disputes - and IMO those are content disputes - are not topics for the ANI usually, several other editors told you so a couple of days ago, too. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did not write this "(source reported 170,000 protesters, you wrote at least 200,000 etc. etc.)" you said above. Check edit history. I already noted that the articles I created are not my own. The Irrawaddy is definitely a reliable resource for a different category. Dear experienced editors pls kindly comment on this source. Taung Tan (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This Financial Times article from 2018, entitled "Hate speech, atrocities and fake news: the crisis of democracy in Myanmar" is the only discussion of the publication I can find in English-language sources. While in the introduction of the article it describes the publication as a "pillar of journalistic probity". It notes that after 2015 the publication gained a reputation for supporting the National League for Democracy and suppressed negative stories about them. It also demonstrates that their coverage of Rohingya issues is also questionable. I think that their coverage is reliable if what they are covering cannot be considered to have a conflict of interest with the NLD such as Rohingya related issues, like similar to how we treat Xinhua (RSP entry). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We currently have 686 citations to the publication per Irrawaddy.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• a) "The Irrawaddy (Burmese: ဧရာဝတီ; MLCTS: ei: ra wa. ti) is a news website by the Irrawaddy Publishing Group (IPG), founded in 1990[1] by Burmese exiles living in Thailand."
• b) Comments like "Dear experienced editors pls kindly comment on this source" are not useful at all.
• c) Suggestion to close this dispute for now and future edits: Perhaps it would make sense to put recently created articles related to the Myanmar Coup to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - so other, more experienced editors with WP:NPOV have an eye on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderWaterford (talk • contribs)

Taung Tan's first language is clearly not english and you should cut them some slack. Your judgement of any sources related to Myanmar doesn't appear to be based on any informed analysis but instead on hazy suppositions. Perhaps you should leave topics that you are not familiar with to more experienced editors? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hum? Why not useful CommanderWaterford? Most of my creations are not related to the Myanmar Coup, see my edit history! Btw The Irrawaddy media is now running by many reporters and staffs, the office located in Building 170/175, Room 806 and 312, MGW Tower, Boaungkyaw Street Middle Block, Yangon, Myanmar [213], not in Thailand. Taung Tan (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, so you are telling me the fact that 686 citations are mentioned makes this source a neutral, reliable source in articles about Myanmar protests - seriously? I have not seen an independent analysis so far. Anyway, as I said - perhaps better other editors or better sysops - will have an eye on this, we should take this to the NPOV Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't compare the bias of The Irrawaddy to that of the Chinese state-run Xinhua. To give an example of an English media equivalent, it's like American conservatives being upset about CNN and MSNBC for their favourable coverage of liberal politicians. Yes there is a biased slant, all media is biased to some extent including Wikipedia, but I don't think The Irrawaddy twists narratives to the point where they don't sound similar to news reports by other news companies. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar, Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état, Talk:2021 Myanmar protests, Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Our Myanmar Wiki project is not active now, User:Hintha is only one active user on our project at this times. Btw, so poor hater negative tagged on this even that the Irrawaddy is reliable on other topic not political news. Sure I’ll left from Wiki when this discussion was closed. “My opinion on my self is “A little dog need a bone” So..... Taung Tan (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the Irrawady is considered credible by a large number of high-quality news outlets internationally: The New York Times [214][215] ("independant") [216], The Associated Press [217][218], Reuters [219], Nikkei Asia [220], Le Monde [221][222] ("the voice of the exiled dissenters during the dictatorship"), Le Figaro [223], Courrier International [224], which also translated one of its articles in French [225]: Courrier International has a stellar reputation in the selection of foreign sources, DPA [226][227], Neue Zürcher Zeitung [228]--JBchrch (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, out of sheer curiosity: why do you think that they consider them credible just because they once quoted them? Journalists nowadays do not have to cite only from reliable sources, that's one of the differences by the way between an encyclopaedia (strictly has to be neutral) and media. The NYT and the FAZ do quote from non-reliable sources as well if they have to (just because they need some quote at all).

Looks btw that unfortunately they have cut off once again the Internet Access at Myanmar. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: Interesting Interview I found today with the chief editor of Irradaway a couple of days ago where he is mentioning deep concerns against the military Government, so IMO hard to believe that they really can and will report in a neutral way of manner: https://cpj.org/2021/02/irrawaddy-editor-aung-zaw-speaks-to-fears-of-a-post-coup-media-crackdown-in-myanmar/ CommanderWaterford (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health

Is it ok to source the following sentence with Frontiers Journal in Public Health:

In spring of 2012, three miners cleaning bat feces in an abandoned copper mine near the town of Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County developed fatal pneumonia.[229][230]

This source expands on a brief Nature Journal source also used for the sentence. Two editors (PaleoNeonate and Alexbrn) have stated Frontiers is no good. Frontiers Journal in Public Health has an impact factor of 2.483[231] and Frontiers the publisher is the 5th most cited science publisher in the world[232]. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Borderline predatory publisher, best avoided for anything not trivial. But even if it were reputable, this is a primary source and so not suitable, especially for controversial claims about COVID-19 origins. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also see these older threads in relation to Frontiers journals: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Scientific Research Publishing and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?; and I suspect Alexbrn refers to WP:PRIMARY vs WP:MEDRS, —PaleoNeonate – 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Frontiers is a predatory publisher, listed as such on WP:CITEWATCH. Frontiers publications are generally not usable as scientific sources. If the claim is solid, it'll be in a usable source. In this case it is, so use the RS version and not the jazzed-up version - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Frontiers is borderline, listed as borderline on WP:CITEWATCH. Citing the CiteWatch is also putting the cart before the horses, because the CiteWatch reflect community consensus, it is not independent from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Frontiers is to be avoided whenever possible, their own statements about how popular they are notwithstanding. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I encourage the people who create the scientific content on Wikipedia to look at the statistic links that I've provided. Many of the people who voice their opinion on this reliable source noticeboard have not created any scientific content here on Wikipedia. And there are also those, unfortunately, who are unable to read scientific literature. It actually does take time to learn how to understand the literature of different fields of specialization.

I'll provide this table, since I know many people do not actually click on links.

2019 Journal Impact Factors
Journal	2019 Journal Impact Factor
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience	4.362
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience	2.512
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology	3.644
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine	3.915
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology	5.201
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology	4.123
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience	3.921
Frontiers in Chemistry	3.693
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience	2.535
Frontiers in Earth Science	2.689
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution	2.416
Frontiers in Endocrinology	3.644
Frontiers in Energy Research	2.746
Frontiers in Environmental Science	2.749
Frontiers in Genetics	3.258
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience	2.673
Frontiers in Immunology	5.085
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience	2.152
Frontiers in Marine Science	3.661
Frontiers in Materials	2.705
Frontiers in Medicine	3.9
Frontiers in Microbiology	4.235
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences	4.188
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience	4.057
Frontiers in Neural Circuits	3.156
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy	3.292
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics	2.649
Frontiers in Neurology	2.889
Frontiers in Neurorobotics	2.574
Frontiers in Neuroscience	3.707
Frontiers in Nutrition	3.365
Frontiers in Oncology	4.848
Frontiers in Pediatrics	2.634
Frontiers in Pharmacology	4.225
Frontiers in Physics	2.638
Frontiers in Physiology	3.367
Frontiers in Plant Science	4.402
Frontiers in Psychiatry	2.849
Frontiers in Psychology	2.067
Frontiers in Public Health	2.483
Frontiers in Surgery	1.826
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience	3.293
Frontiers in Veterinary Science	2.245

Click on the following links to learn about the statistics of the publisher which is the 5th most cited scientific publisher in the world.

Frontier's publisher: Impact overview

Frontier's publisher: Journal Impact Factors

Frontier's publisher: Journal CiteScores

Frontier's publisher: Journal Citations

I look forward to having a rigorous discussion here on the reliable noticeboard as to what makes a science journal reliable or not. I also strongly encourage everyone who creates the scientific content on Wikipedia to contribute. This is an important topic that does not have room for gut feelings, politics, or passions. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

From WP:CITEWATCH: Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and has sacked editors for being too selective. Perhaps WT:CITEWATCH is the place to discuss the matter if you want a Frontiers journal regarded as a respectable source and removed from CITEWATCH - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers Media is near bottom of the barrel among non outright-predatory open access publishers. Editors have a high pressure to be non-selective about what is published in their journals. The acknowledgements section sets off many alarm bells. Citing "DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19)" for "invaluable discussions". As far as I can tell DRASTIC is a bunch of anonymous and otherwise unnotable twitter users who are dedicated to pushing the lab leak conspiracy theory. The authors also cite "Dr. Jonathan Latham of bioscienceresource.org" for translating the manuscript of one of the masters thesis. Dr. Jonathan Latham is the operator of "independentsciencenews.org" see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#independentsciencenews.org an agriculture focused fringe site, which last year also began pushing lab leak conspiracy theories. This demonstrates that like other previous pro-lab leak papers like The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin in BioEssays that they are strongly drawing from "lab leak twitter". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If you're trying to source a crank conspiracy theory, then Frontiers is certainly the sort of publisher who will have the sort of papers you're looking for; however, that's why they're not usable in Wikipedia. You may wish to consider sticking to firmer RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the Mojiang Mine story is that no samples were ever taken from the infected miners, meaning that anything about the identity of the agent that caused the illness is entirely speculation, and will never be definitively proved for sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead author on twitter has indicated that she is associated with DRASTIC. Even if it was judged to not be unreliable its still very much undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Mona's main speciality is methane oxidizing bacteria, while Rahul's is plant biology, meaning that neither have relevant expertise in virology. Further to this, she has attempted to canvass editors to wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of reliability, there is the much bigger WP:DUE concerns. That three miners caught pneumonia is trivia at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Frontier's Journal in Public Health a reliable source?

Note this section is to unpackage the question above and does not relate to the sentence that is being sourced above with the journal article. What metrics does Wikipedia wish to use to judge the reliability of scientific journals. I propose we utilize whether a journal is indexed in PUBMED and what its impact factor is.

"The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited"

-- Measuring Your Impact: Impact Factor, Citation Analysis, and other Metrics: Journal Impact Factor (IF)

These are the statistics for Frontier's Journal of Public Health in terms of real time impact factor:

IF: 2.6 Rank (279/516) / Source: https:// academic-accelerator.com/Real-Time-Impact-Factor/Frontiers-in-Public-Health

The statistics indicate that the journal is in the middle of the pack in the topic area of "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health". The statistics indicate that it is an indexed reliable source that has been cited by other reliable indexed scientific journals. I will also note that the journal always clearly notes in the left margin who the peer reviewers are and who edited the article. The source is a reliable source. If you dispute that this journal is a reliable source, please provide statistics to back up your argument. (Also, to foreshadow and see if this board is serious about reliability and science publishing: what is plan s?) --Guest2625 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Impact factor, particularly Impact_factor#Criticism, is an excellent argument for why we shouldn't do that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The citation index and impact factor are irrelevant. A scientific paper may never be cited, but be 100% reliable. For example, some articles on X-ray crystallography of proteins are never cited. The concern here is different: the predatory publishing, which indeed undermines reliability of publications because it means the papers did not receive a strong peer review. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New Europe (newspaper)

Does anyone know anything about this publication? It has an article--but the article is lousy, and I just redirected the founder's article (Basil Coronakis) as a blatant piece of spam for a person whose notability is unproven. I cannot find any reliable information on or assessment of the publication; I became interested in it because of this article, an interview with Stanley Clarke (a great bass player) which essentially promotes Scientology. That interview is linked with this outfit (with a [https://faithandfreedomsummit.eu/steering-committee Scientologist at the head), and if you look through the history of the Coronakis article you'll see that Coronakis is the (self-)publisher of a Deep State EU conspiracy book.

So I have a few interests here. I already think that New Europe is a partisan rag of a paper, but I'm wondering if it's Scientology or not. I'd like our article to either be AfDed or improved to where it actually verifiably says something about the paper. I know some of you know the media business much better than I do, and I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

For EU/Europe news some of the best English-language sources are Politico.eu and EURACTIV as well as some UK based outlets such as The Economist or Financial Times although they might focus less on Europe going forward because of Brexit. I never heard to New Europe before, but this paper states that "New Europe, de son côté, est une initiative d’origine grecque. Les principaux responsables de l’hebdomadaire sont d’ailleurs grecs."[233] and not much more. (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yale University and Pasadena Now sources

Do you believe that these sources [234], [235] are reliable to be added in the University of the People article regarding the institution's collaborations? Weatherextremes (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's a reliable source that the partnership exists. Whether it's DUE should be decided at the talk page if controversial. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• This user appears to be forum shopping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Horse Eye's Back is involved in the content dispute taking place on the talk page of the article and was actually the one who raised objections on the sources this is why I am bringing it here to ask the community's feedback.Weatherextremes (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I never challenged the reliability of the sources, I raised WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweety High

Hi. What are the thoughts for the reliability of Sweety High, specifically this. I'd like to use the content in this interview on YaYa Gosselin, specifically "Pedro and I were shooting the breakfast scene and all of a sudden Robert says, "YaYa, happy birthday!" And I said, "Huh? My birthday isn't till January!' In walked Taylor Dooley in her Lavagirl hair and all. I was so shocked I walked backwards into a wall. It was an amazing moment!", but I'm not sure if the source is reliable enough. Any thoughts? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would say this source is marginally reliable. Looking around, I haven't seen any evidence of unreliability, fabricated information, etc. However, the source hasn't been mentioned as reliable in any other reliable sources, from what I can tell. I'd use it cautiously. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User edit warring to add back sources older than 100 years.

Jonathan A Jones seems to be edit warring in University to add sources from 1911 and 1898 [236]. Especially the 1911 Britannica source should be removed, as it was superseded by newer version of Britannica entry which doesn't repeat the same claim [237]. Can someone weigh in on the usage of extremely dated sources? Should they be directly removed and replaced with citation needed tags? Bogazicili (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The following academic source may be a better replacement:

The university was born in the Middle Ages. Even if medieval universities were very different from modern ones, they contributed decisively to our conception of what a university should be (lsray 1933, Radshall et al. 1936).

The Medieval Legacy

Universities appeared in Roman Catholic Europe in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Schools had developed in many cities for the training of priests. They were dependent on bishops' authority and control. Because of the division between civil and religious powers which was then normal, they escaped the direct control of the King. When conflicts with bishops occurred, the students and teachers of some schools transformed themselves into self-organised and self-governing communities. In Paris, this community took in 1215 the name of Universitas magistrorum et scholarium parisiensium–hence the name of university, which meant community. It developed under the protection of the pope, a distant authority, who only controlled the kind of theology which was taught.

Claval, Paul (1998). "Politics and the University". The Urban University and its Identity: Roots, Locations, Roles. GeoJournal Library. Vol. 45. Springer Netherlands. pp. 30–31. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5184-9_3. Retrieved 13 February 2021 – via Google Books.

— Newslinger talk 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure there are better sources for the claim that the word comes from Latin as well. My question was also about usage of extremely dated sources. Is there a general consensus on this? Should they be removed? Bogazicili (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant section of the guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Age matters (WP:RS AGE). For academic sources, if claims in older sources are superseded by claims in newer sources, then the newer sources should take precedence. But if newer sources simply omit the claim, I'm not sure. — Newslinger talk 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In the case of a topic as commonly written about as "university", if a piece of information is not found in any modern source, but only in a century-old source, then in addition to calling into question whether the info can be considered reliably sourced, it calls into question whether the info is WP:DUE, doesn't it? (Btw, for a more obscure topic that's sourced mostly to sources from 1870 and 1909, take a gender at Chizerots.) -sche (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It does. Spudlace (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with old sources, in fact they are often best because they have the most in-depth coverage on a topic of interest a while back but little interest since then. The etymology of a word is more than fine to cite EB1911 because it is a free public domain source we can link and not worry about copyvio, reliable (EB1911 has a high reputation), and not contradicted by OED or Websters. -- GreenC 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether Bogazicili is seeking to report me for edit warring (in which case this is the wrong place) or to ask a general question about policy, or to ask a specific question about two references. With regard to the first point I invite any editor to look at the sequence of edits rather than the selected reports given above: suffice it to say that I simply restored a pair of very longstanding references which Bogazicili removed and then removed again after I restored them (per WP:BRD). With regard to the seocnd point, WP:RS AGE does indeed caution against using old references when these have been superseded by modern scholarship, but that is hardly the case here: the points supported by the references are utterly uncontroversial in the field. I accept that it is nevertheless preferable to use more modern references to avoid raising false concerns that WP:RS AGE might apply, which is why after restoring the references I added "better source" tags. Genuinely interested editors might wish to review the discussions at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation to get a clearer idea of what this discussion is actually about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't there already a discussion in the article's Talk page? It's difficult to believe that a controversy requires the input of the broader community if it hasn't even been addressed on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Using 100+ years sources seems to violate Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Age_matters to me. This is a discussion about that, whether those sources should be removed and replaced with citation needed tags, or if it's a case by case issue. This is a Wikipedia-wide issue. Bogazicili (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Using 100+ year old sources per se does not violate Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Age_matters. The policy says that they should be used carefully and the editors must check if there is newer contradicting information. In many cases there is none and therefore such sources are fine. Specifically here it's hard for me to imagine that the scientific consensus on the etymology of the word university has changed in the last 100 years. If it indeed happened surely it would be easy to provide a more modern source - and in that case it would take precedence. Alaexis_¿question? 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?

There is a dispute over whether the article should quote an estimated range of Communist mass killings published in an article by "DISSIDENT" on the website.[238]

The Foundation is a partisan organization headed by Edwin Feulner, the founder and former president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The previous chairman was Lee Edwards, the founder of the American branch of the World Anti-Communist League.

Their Mission Statement says, "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance. New generations need to confront the reality of Marxism in practice. Socialism is not a kind, humane philosophy. Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history."

I realize that some editors might say that whether or not it is a reliable source, it is reliable for its own views. But if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: there was a previous discussion on this noticeboard about the Global Museum on Communism, which was run by the same people but is now offline. TFD (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable this is an advocacy group, not a scholarly source. It does not have a good reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, why do you say it does not have a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy? And per WP:NPOVHOW, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems." AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this organization's purpose is to present a negative view of Communism/Marxism/socialism (note the lack of distinction between them) regardless of whether it misleads the reader. (FYI I detect at least one inaccuracy in the above: "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States" Opinion polls don't agree[239])

I believe the burden of proof is on those who are trying to show that it meets RS standard. Is it cited in peer reviewed scholarship for its information on Communist death toll or other information on Communist societies? AFAIK it is only cited as a source on anti-Communist viewpoint which does not show it is a reliable source for factual information. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The RS standard is not just peer-reviewed sources. It is clearly a reliable source for its own views. The "misinforms or misleads readers" bit is not about expressing the views of a biased organization, because biased sources are clearly allowed. The question is essentially whether the organization is lying. I don't think you think they are doing that. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

For it to be cited in an article for statistics it has to have a reputation for accuracy in compiling such statistics, otherwise it does not meet WP:RS standard. (t · c) buidhe 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe I don't think you understand - AmateurEditor is not claiming they are a reliable source for statistics, they are claiming that they are a reliable source for what their own claims are. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, the citation is for their own view, it's not even arguable whether they are a reliable source for that. This isn't about "statistics" at all. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is whether the source (specifically this page from the organization's website), is a reliable source for this sentence in the wikipedia article: "In 2016, the Dissident blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range "spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000" killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure.[ab]" It clearly is a reliable source for that statement. Whether there is an undue weight issue is a separate matter. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not, because you haven't show that they (or this one blog) has any reputation for fact-checking or accuracy whatsoever when it comes to compiling statistics on alleged Communist killings. That's a basic WP:RS requirement and it can't be handwaived by claiming that it's just an opinion. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an organization established by an act of the US Congress and a member of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, which is acknowledgement of expertise. And here is an example of the organization being cited in a book published by Cornell University Press. The "blog" is just a page on their official website. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who disagrees with you. I looked through 10 pages of Google Scholar results so that you don't have to [240] I see no evidence that the foundation is cited in academic research for actual facts about Communist governments. It is cited for one of two things: affiliation of a mentioned individual, and anti-Communist POV (more rarely, and usually unfavorably[241]). FYI I checked the Cornell book you cite and VOCMF is indeed mentioned... only once, as the source of the cover art. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly unreliable, this is unrelated to whether their estimates are WP:UNDUE - though they probably are, this depends on the individual topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, you are right that this really an issue of weight and not reliability at all. But the source is clearly reliable for the sentence it is being cited for: that the organization posted the estimate. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

AmateurEditor of course they're reliable as a source for their own claims - but that's all they are - claims, not indicative of reality in any way. This isn't the right place for determining due weight so I don't see the point of bringing this up here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why TFD decided to bring it up here. Even he says the issue is really about weight. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained that above: "...if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion." TFD (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Not "it's" estimates, they provided a range of estimates found in a survey of other sources, so of course the high end will be high. The low end is also low. The whole point was to report the range from low to high. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

TFD, it says at the top of this page to please include in posts here links to past discussion of the source on this board. You said in your post here that there was one, but you did not mention it above. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Buidhe. Vikram Vincent 07:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, they are a partisan organisation, their news stories are exceptionally biased. Statistics from them should not be included in any article. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources: "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." AmateurEditor (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in a collection of opinions it would be valid (i.e, "The conservative anti-Communist Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation believes Communism inevitably leads to mass killing") but not for statistical data or opinions on statistical data ("The victims of Communism foundation believes 10,000 Cubans were murdered by Che Guevara"). They are simply not competent to be giving factual opinions, so why would they be used? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't generating these numbers, it just compiled them from other sources, which it cited. AmateurEditor (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If they aren't RS, their compilation/selection of other people's data is not RS either. It's also useless, as if we wish to quote a primary source (which in effect VCMF are, if we consider them to be valid only for their own opinion) we can simply quote the primary data sources which they themselves cite, and which are probably generally more reliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a blanket reliable source/unreliable source outside of the context of its use. Every source is reliable as a source for it's own views. The problem with citing the individual sources that they cite, instead of their consolidation of those courses into ranges of estimates, is that it would be direct synthesis on our part. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument against using their data, rather than using it. The likelihood is that any source quoted by VCMF will be more reliable than them, and that source should be judged on its own merits. The VCMF are just no good for statistical data or factual information, they might be useful for pure opinion, where relevant, their own entry for example.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is no good for factual information? How so? But yes, they are only being cited for their own view with in-text attribution. I added the sources they are citing in the article reference excerpt. The reader can judge that for themselves. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, this is an anti-communist advocacy organization.--Bob not snob (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased sources are allowed, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable as a source of statistics about numbers of victims since they obviously are biased in the direction of exaggerated estimates. NightHeron (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, a source's bias is not a legitimate cause of unreliability, especially for the statement in question. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable for statements of fact, as they seem to be (pretty much) an SPS, and do not appear to be experts. Any other issues falls under undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is self-published, given that it is the organization's own website, but this topic is squarely within the scope of the organization's focus. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Our policies say, Acknowledged experts, not focused on the topic. They can be wholly focused and still not be reliable (as most fan sites would be).Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is not like a random member of the general public creating a subject matter fan site. It is an organization established by an act of the US Congress and a member of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, which is acknowledgement of expertise. And here is an example of the organization being cited in a book published by Cornell University Press. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the discussion. Slatersteven, FYI the Cornell University Press book only cites the foundation as the source of the cover art. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable VOCM is a histerically biased anti-communism advocacy group, totally undue for any discussion on the number of victims of communist regimes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per others. Self-published amateur hour. Zaathras (talk)
• Unreliable As the editor posting this discussion, I found it lacked any dedication to, or mechanism for, ensuring accuracy. TFD (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This particular link (I am not talking about the Foundation in general) is not an RS. However, it provides references about numbers in specific countries to other sources, most of which are RS. So one can take numbers from these other sources, verify these numbers, and arrive to the same total number after summation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable as others have pointed out. They are notoriously awful anti-communist group, seemingly branching off from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and have no basis in fact, as others have pointed out. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• On general principles, going to an advocacy group for a summary of other people's estimates seems a little misguided. If a historical question is important enough for us to be writing about it, there will be peer-reviewed academic literature collecting and meta-analyzing. A statement by an advocacy group about a question like this would probably be WP:UNDUE unless we had good indications to the contrary. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable such a big statement really needs a high quality source, preferably academic, not a blog hosted by a think tank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Radio Free Asia

Link: [242]

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a US government funded news source. They almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States. The articles regularly do not cite their sources, which makes their reporting unreliable. For example, this report (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/beatings-01222021193838.html) refers to "RFA’s source" and "Tibetan sources say." I think that RFA should be depreciated in line with a number of other state media sources.Dhawk790 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say yes, deprecate, or at least generally unreliable. Not only a source of political propaganda, even their non-political claims are unreliable. For instance, this piece claims that boxer Abudureheman Abulikemu stopped competing in 2003, but in fact he continued competing in 2005, 2008, and 2009. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)