This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 303

Archive 304

Archive 305

Archive 306

Archive 307

→

Archive 310

RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users:

Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs · block log · spi)
Hippeus (talk · contribs · block log · spi)
11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi)
Bob not snob (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

There is no concensus on the reliability of MEMRI or the accuracy of their translations, editors are polarised between those who consider it to be a reliable source and those who consider it unreliable. Some editors consider MEMRI selective in what it chooses to translate.Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC

New close per request: Due to sockpuppet disruption, the consensus has shifted to between no consensus and generally unreliable. While some non-sock editors said it was reliable source, a large number of editors said that MEMRI had a reputation of providing misleading coverage, and that the source needed to be used with caution if at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

}

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)? MEMRI has been cited around 560 times on Wikipedia per memri.org and memritv.org .

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (MEMRI)

Option 1 Yes there were some controversies in the past but but there was some controversies with other WP:RS doesn't meant we should disqualify it.It widely used by others WP:RS [1],[2],[3],[4] and I could find many more.Yes it have agenda like many others so it maybe best to attribute --Shrike (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 Generally reliable, they do a very high volume of translations with only a very small percentage ever shown to be misleading or erroneous, and are heavily used by others. I don't think it's necessary to attribute because they aren't giving their opinion, just a straight translation of primary source material. However, that also means that, as Memri is a primary source, it doesn't lend weight unless the quoted material is covered by a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its an informal Israeli agitprop organization with strong Israeli defense connections. The question is, has MEMRI's documented methods, and purposes, which created the ruckus back then, changed, when it was exposed for altering a Palestinian child saying:'(They/Israelis) are shooting at us' to 'we will annihilate the Jews' Despite the protest of Arab translators, its founder Yigal Carmon, had the chutzpah to go on Glenn Beck's programme and defend the distortion as, yes, accurate, though he doesn't know Arabic. These are the precise words. He overrode the objections of CNN's translator, and insisted they translate it differently:

'You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. .. Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word "Jews" at the end and it also means it is something to be done to Jews not by Jews.'

As independent experts on translation have noted.

Carmon does not just challenge the expertise of CNN's Arabic department here but also ignores what all Arabic grammars have to say on the structure of Arabic and the mobility of the object in Arab syntax.(See Mona Baker, 'Narratives of terrorism and Security: "Accurate" Translations, Suspicious Frames,' in her Researching Translation in the The Age of Technology and Global Conflict: Selected Works of Mona Baker, ed.Kyung Hye Kim, Yifan Zhu Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-0-429-65670-5)

The man who refused to admit the translation was falsified, even when it was proven to be such, i.e. Carmon, still runs the outfit. He was a military intelligence colonel who had been the effective military governor of Palestinian territories for several years, and who was stoutly opposed to peace agreements with them, its method is to select the worst they can find on numerous Arab media outlets, and highlight the putative content, to create a sense of chronic terrorism in that world. They have upgraded their accuracy since, yes, but not changed their selectivity, and the aim of publishing whatever looks bad, however parochial, to skewer the 'Arabs'. The results are predictable. If any Arab organization imitated their tactics, they could produce the same hysteria by excerpting and translating from English motherlodes of stuff from Fox News the Drudge Report, and any of the thousands of shock jock radio programmes in the US, like those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and take them as representing a threat to the world. A sense of proportion of what dickhead said what, where, and in what context is lost from view, as is invariably the case in intelligence disinformation operations like this, which use raw material that has some basis in reality, to influence public perceptions. Memri's translations should only be cited through secondary sources written by competent area scholars, and should never be used as a Primary Source, which is an open sesame to the usual wiki editor engaging in original research, usually for BLP articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishidani's link above goes to Mona Baker, who once said[5] that "I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances." Adoring nanny (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Support Option 4 This is literally MEMRI... This is the poster child for a bad source which we use as a derogatory comparison for other sources. They have a long history of publishing both false translations and false analysis, I literally cant think of another organization in their space that does a worse job (if anyone can then name them). If MEMRI isn't a 4 nobody is, they’re the bottom of the barrel. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with this source. When I look at its WP page, it seems like most specific incidents mentioned in the article occurred back around 2007, and I don't see a source that obviously talks about the reliability of MEMRI in a general sense. Do you know of sources that talk about MEMRI on a timespan longer than a single event, or that makes general statements about the source? If MEMRI is a poster child for this issue, then I assume I'd be able to look at articles about the issue somewhere. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you catch the "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation” part? MEMRI faded out of relevancy in the early-mid twenty teens due to their hijinks, they are not currently regarded as reliable by anyone I know of and if you do a google news search for MEMRI you will find that they are no longer used as a source for translation or anything else by WP:RS as they once were. The news organizations all got burned by MEMRI, they’re not trusting them again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2002 we had the Guardian do a whole story on how unreliable MEMRI was, “Selective MEMRI” [6] which is still a good read. This sort of thing is why I’m surprised we’re having this conversation, we knew MEMRI was garbage two decades ago and they’ve done *nothing* to dispel that notion since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Lets not forget that Guardian has its own bias yes they selective but as many other biased sources that we do allow.And you own source says Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output. Shrike (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of reliability not bias and the Guardian's reliability is not up for dispute here. You will be overjoyed to learn that since 2002 there has been dispute over the general accuracy of Memri's translations as is covered extensively on the page. They got worse, not better. Nobody has yet made an argument that MEMRI satisfies WP:VERIFY, if you would like to then go for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 at least and probably Option 4, according to Middle East Media Research Institute. We will mainly be using the translated documents and in fact often using MEMRI for the translations, because this is the English Wikipedia. The fact that those translations have been found to be be selective is a pressing concern. Guy (help!) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their bias and they regularly used by respectable WP:RS.I don't see any difference for example from Btselem if we allow such partisan sources with clear agenda there is no problem to allow Memri--Shrike (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bias or partisanship, this discussion is about reliability. They also *used* to be regular used by WP:RS, they aren’t anymore (its down to maybe two Israeli papers and even then its infrequent). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly Book from 2017 [7] Book from 2018[8],Book from 2018 [9] Does it recent enough? Shrike (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be from general commercial publishers not academic publishers. Try a google news search limited to the last month, thats always the easiest way to check relevancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look again Routledge and Walter de Gruyter are academic publishers --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Shrike (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't recognize de Gruyter as it was rendered. Routledge is borderline with a more commercial outlook post 1998 although I’l give it to you if that moves the discussion along. My question still stands, they aren’t as widely used by WP:RS (particularly news outlets). Can you name three reliable news sources that have used them in the last month? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is picked by the media but here is an example from NYTIMES on last year [10] and washPO[11] from April 2020, BBC used their clip on their program [12] I think its recent enough.If they use it there is no problem that Wikipedia will use it--Shrike (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those first two feature quotes from the head of MEMRI and discuss their published reports or soon to be published reports but they don’t make any comment about MEMRI’s reliability nor do they adopt those assertions as their own. MEMRI is certainly a notable think tank/advocacy group (thats why they have a wikipedia page after all) but neither of those speaks to their reliability. Can you specify when in the 27 minute audio clip the MEMRI bit is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the article about radical islamic groups exploiting Covid. Shrike. Yeah, MEMRI would report that. Neither it nor the mainstream media reported that Israel smashed a structure set up for a clinic in the poorest area of the West Bank, one that could have served Covid testing among Palestinian herders. Yes, B'tselem did report it, but of course that is, as you say, as biased as MEMRI, with the difference that the IDF itself recognizes B'tselem's accuracy, and B'tselem always reports Israeli casualties and deplores terrorism, from either side. Mainstream reportage is already notorious skewed to one partisan narrative without adding insult to injury.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment No one is saying that they translate everything, which would anyway be impossible. I don't see how being selective about what they cover is evidence of unreliability, but then again I don't think this source grants any due weight per WP:PRIMARY. If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? Random WP editors translate stuff all the time without attribution and they certainly have much less evidence of being reliable. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

'If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? .' If we had the option of being allowed to use any source simply because we have no other available, Wikipedia would be chaos.(b) I've long seen them translating an extensive quantity of obscure crap (my analogy with shock jocks). Who establishes what is newsworthy, MEMRI, an informal arm of Israeli intelligence? No, reliable secondary sources that establish relevance, notability and WP:Dueness.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 and I'm curious why this user is opening up RFC's on specific sources all of a sudden. What is the impetus behind it? I don't see any discussion on talk pages or anything drawing it to an RFC that preceded it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1. Quoting Federico Zanettin's 2016 paper, [13], who notes some criticize MEMRI's selection of which pieces it translate but that:
"The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."
MEMRI's translations are used widely. That MEMRI, as a media watchdog, is selective in choosing which pieces it covers is to be expected. In any event, the translations themselves are considered accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4. I'd be open to the argument that MEMRI had turned over a new leaf if they apologised for providing twisted translations, but in fact they doubled down on them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 Some instances of controversy don't warrant a deprecation. Yes, they are selective in the same sense as for instance SPLC is actively scanning for hateful content. As for political ramifications or controversy, you can't really blame them for Arab language TV channels broadcasting such content. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

SPLC doesn't just focus on extremism coming from one racial group. If they did, we'd call them racist. MEMRI is dedicated to making Arabs and Muslims look bad. Hard to believe that in 2020 we are still not taking racial bias seriously.VR _talk 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 without independent confirmation. They took an interview with Norman Finkelstein on Lebanese TV and edited it so that he appeared to be a Holocaust denier. This episode alone proves that they cannot be trusted. The very reason MEMRI exists is to misrepresent the Arab (and Persian) world to the advantage of Israel. Zero^talk 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 maybe 4, seems there is enough smoke for a fire here:

Mona Baker (25 October 2018). Translation and Conflict: A narrative account. Taylor & Francis. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-429-79645-6.

Full text for free here. Zero^talk 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Christopher A. Bail (2 August 2016). Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-0-691-17363-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

Option 4: MEMRI "translated" a child's response: ""I'm going to draw a picture" to "I will shoot". And they translated the child's "The Jews are shooting us" to "We will annihilate the Jews". (See Mona Baker, 2010, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames), Worse than that: when confronted by their mis-translation, Yigal Carmon stated: "Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation." (see Tomorrow's Pioneers#Translation_controversy. Mistakes are one thing; pretending your mistakes are correct is immensely worse. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4, per above comments, this org has clearly published fabricated content deliberately and systematically, and therefore they should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 Fairly simple, imo. The degree of misinterpretation points towards disinformation, further affirmed by the long form publications presented above. Not to mention the ties with the Israeli intelligence community are not endorsements. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 This seems pretty clear to me just based on what others are saying. If they did anything like what Zero or Huldra are saying they did this is unambiguously a 4, and the supporters of 1 frankly don't seem to have a lot of evidence backing them up. Loki (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1. Did people here actually read Mona Baker who is cited above? Ignoring the fact she is a leader in the boycott movement (The Times: Don’t play the nutty professor with David Irving, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law : Boycotting Israeli academia: Is its implementation anti-Semitic?), her article after noting one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, is all about narrative complaining that MEMRI highlighting hate speech in terrorist-run TV promotes a narrative). Baker concludes with the opposite point on translation: "more important argument that I have tried to elaborate here is that attempts by Arab and pro-Arab activists to challenge neo-conservative organisations such as MEMRI by casting doubt on the accuracy of their translations miss the point. A group called MEMRI Watch for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 ... but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement". Baker herself does not contest MEMRI being accurate. Other editors above have pointed out sources showing use of MEMRI translations by both media and scholars. It is used by others, and even ideological opponents admit that the translations are generally accurate. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very astute comment, I would like to add that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow any user to translate content without infringing on reliable source or original research. No one arguing that the source should be deprecated has been able to show that it is less accurate or reliable at translating material than the average Wikipedia editor. One disputed translation certainly doesn't do it. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since you are refering to Baker (2010), I did read it and I think you're missing the point she is making as well, the question isn't about mistranslation but misinterpretation or in her words "misleading narrations". It is very much possible to produce factually incorrect translations with accurate translations, however odd that might sound. The point she is referring to in the quoted line is present in the introducing lines of the "Narration theory" section.

The model of analysis adopted here, and which makes it possible to demonstrate how narratives elaborated about Arab and Muslim communities through translation do not have to be ‘linguistically inaccurate’ to be misleading, is elaborated in greater detail in Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) and elsewhere.

For example, in english one can say "I want a hotdog" which can be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's hot" which can also be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's attractive", etc. This gets even easier and much more confusing when you add another language to it. There's an example of it in Baker (2018) long form.

MEMRI insisted that Bin Laden 'threatened each U.S. state, and offered an election deal to the American voters - a sort of amnesty for states that don't vote for Bush', and that 'the U.S. media have mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S'

(Ball 2016; linked above) and Harris 2003 make similar observations as well. The Baker (2018) long form has referenced the latter. (Bolding is my own)

Harris (2003) similarly insists that 'MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israel's] occupation as religious extremists or Anti-semites'

It should also be noted that the MEMRI Watch that is referenced to by her in your quoted text has still also found instances of direct mistranslations and doctoring albeit perhaps not as much as expected. At the very least MEMRI is an advocacy group with questionable reliability and questionable independence in relation to a belligerent party in a conflict zone. I don't see how this is of any value for encyclopedic purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris(2003) is a Counterpunch essay, hardly a high quality source. Baker is a leader in the boycott movement, she has her own narrative. Both are are relatively dated. In contrast, Zanettin, Federico. "‘The deadliest error’: translation, international relations and the news media." The Translator 22.3 (2016): 303-318, is a later academic work by a neutral party who refers both to Baker and Harris (whom Baker cites) that states:

"Various commentators have, however, questioned MEMRI’s impartiality, both in view of its covert ideological standpoint12 and in consideration of the apparent bias in the choice of source material it translates. Harris argues that ‘MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israeli’s] occupation [of Palestinian territories] as religious extremists or anti-Semites’ (Harris 2003) This ‘selective appropriation strategy’ is also discussed by Mona Baker (2006, 108–109), who similarly contends that the choice of material translated contributes to the elaboration of a narrative which portrays those who oppose neoconservative politics as extremists. The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

In short, the translations themselves are accurate even according to detractors.11Fox11 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't access The Translator so can't comment much on Zanettin 2016. Nevertheless, the quotation doesn't tell us anything; it just repeats a summarisation of Baker 2010 as in that MEMRI's accuracy of the translations of particular texts aren't disputed but not that MEMRI's narration of a particular piece as a whole isn't. Further, disregarding Harris 2003 and even if we consider Mona Baker to be partisan, there are still a number of academic sources which do support their assertions. For instance the concluding findings of Hijjo, Nael F. M.; Kaur, Surinderpal; Kadhim, Kais Amir (20 April 2019). "Reframing the Arabic Narratives on Daesh in the English Media: The Ideological Impact". Open Linguistics. 5 (1). De Gruyter: 81–93. doi:10.1515/opli-2019-0005. make these observations.

In this regard, the findings of this study reveal that MEMRI-translated titles are a complete reframe to the original...MEMRI makes several ideologically motivated lexical choice decisions. The findings clearly illustrate how translation agencies of international media outlets employ narrativity features to insert their perspectives and agenda in the target text. They also explain how narrativity features are used by MEMRI as devices of (re)constructing, (re)framing, and (re)negotiating the Arabic source narrative in favor of the meta-narratives ‘terrorist Islam and Muslims’ and ‘the War on Terror’.

The translations of text in isolation of context may be accurate but the interpretations are not which is still a form of disinformation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how you're getting "disinformation" out of that. "translation agencies of international media outlets" are likely considered RS and according to this source, they also use "narrativity features". (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Narrativity features" only refers to semantic attributes in a language. The "translation agencies of international media outlets" are not being considered in the same vein as MEMRI in the study; the former might insert their perspective or agenda through minor inconsistencies in semantic meaning but not to the extent where the rendering of source material has been completely deconstructed and reframed as is the case with the latter, which would produce a misinterpretation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 - MEMRI's reputation as a poor source is well established literally over decades. Examples: [14] [15] [16]. It is a propaganda outlet, and I dont think that is even in dispute. As far as the absolutely nonsensical line about Baker writing about one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, no, what she, in a peer-reviewed journal article (which oh by the way matters more than the well-poisoning above about leader in the boycott movement), what she writes is that MEMRI fabricated entirely what a subject said, which CNN's translators also agreed with. We have well-poisoning and gas-lighting in defense of a propaganda outlet. Great. nableezy - 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your three examples, the Guardian and MondeDiplo are both complaining about what Memri chooses to translate, and the Guardian one actually says the translations are generally accurate. In the WaPo source, if one clicks through to the Memri translation the WaPo is complaining about, it is clear that Iran's parliament did put nine conditions on its approval of the JCPOA. The WaPo takes issue with the characterization of these conditions as "amendments", but, well, look at the actual conditions to see for yourself. So what we are left with is a complaint of selectivity. But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, please do not misrepresent what these things report. What the Le Monde Dilpomatique source says is

Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not”. Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.
Halim Barakat, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC, also suffered from this approach. He claimed that an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, “The wild beast that Zionism created: Self-destruction”, was reproduced by Memri under the hate-inducing headline, “Jews have lost their humanity”. Barakat denies having used that phrase. “Every time I wrote Zionism, Memri replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I’m not criticising Israeli policy and that what I’m saying is anti-semitic.” As soon as the translation was posted on the Memri website he received threats. He was told that he had no right to teach at a university (he has taught for more than 30 years) and that he should leave the US. Another Georgetown professor attacked him in an article based only on Memri translations, without checking the Arabic texts.
In June 2004 Memri triggered a campaign against a London visit by the well-known Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, commissioned a study of the “Islamic conspiracy dossier” to obtain an impartial view. His counter-dossier concluded that the campaign was part of an “apparent rising tide of Islamophobia” aiming to “close off any dialogue between London and mainstream representatives of one of the world's great religions”.
The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi's works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel's military intelligence service”. It concluded that Memri systematically distorted facts, not only relating to Qaradawi but to many other Muslim leaders, and the report was intended to set matters straight.
Memri is also guilty of basic factual errors. According to its “experts”, Abdel Karim Abu al-Nasr is a Saudi national, because he is a leader writer for a Saudi newspaper, whereas he is a prominent Lebanese journalist. In a long paper on Saudi Arabia, Memri wrote that Crown Prince Abdallah Ibn Abdel Aziz (now king) belonged to the Sudeiri branch of the royal family, which would surprise anyone who knows the country.

What the Guardian supports is that MEMRI is a propaganda outlet. What the Washington Post says is that MEMRI straight fabricated a claim that Iran did not pass the JCPA when they in fact have. That is, MEMRI said a black and white lie, 4 pinnochios by they way are reserved for "Whoppers". nableezy - 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that WaPo said that. But look at Memri's translation, which the WaPo does endorse and uses in its analysis.[17] There are nine "conditions" on the approval, and most conditions have multiple sub-conditions. For example, the first condition starts off "Khamenei demands that the U.S. and Europe lift the sanctions, not suspend them, and in addition . . .". There are further links to Khamenei's English-language twitter feed, which also have nine conditions. Curiously, the WaPo prefers to characterize this as approval. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4. MEMRI is an unreliable source with a lot of questionable reporting. I don't think that can be debated. On the question of whether it should be "outlawed" or not, I lean towards being inclusive, i.e no outlawing. Thus, my vote is for option 3. If preferential voting isn't yet a thing on Wikipedia I'll have to vote for option 4. ImTheIP (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 2. There is no real dispute that the translations themselves are accurate, this is acknowledged even by Mona Baker (who showcases her own axe) and neutral parties such as Zanettin note accuracy and use by news outlets. Baker stresses narrative, and I don't think there is a real dispute that MEMRI promotes a narrative. MEMRI is selective in the pieces it translates. Thus, if a piece appears on MEMRI's site we can generally count on MEMRI's translation to be accurate. However, we can not count on MEMRI's showcasing to be representative of the Arab language media it is presenting.--Hippeus (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Baker very specifically says that MEMRI totally distorted a translation, giving it an opposite meaning than it had. This canard that she acknowledges that there is no real dispute the translations are accurate when her paper opens up with what she calls an example of blatant mistranslations has no grounding in fact. nableezy - 14:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 I have read the discussion above. There seems to be consensus that (a) MEMRI's translations are mostly accurate, and (b) MEMRI is a highly political and biased organization. I agree with both these statements.

I therefore strongly support full deprecation because “mostly” accurate in a politicized organization is nowhere near good enough. The same test applies to all sources we have previously chosen to deprecate – all our deprecated sources are also "mostly" accurate.

Let’s say that MEMRI are 95% accurate in their translations, which sounds great, and is likely as statistically accurate as a translation made by an average Wikipedian speaker of the translated language (referencing a point made above). But what about that 5%?

First, it is likely that a reasonable portion of the 5% inaccuracies in a MEMRI translation are politically-driven spin. Second, is quoting out of context – MEMRI may have translated the part of a speech which fits their narrative, but not translated parts which add nuance or context.

Because they translate niche publications, we usually cannot verify any of this. The existence of these gaps in our knowledge, combined with certainty that they are a biased organization, make it negligent for us to use a MEMRI quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 – MEMRI does not produce its own content, only translations, and some of the original content cannot be found elsewhere online. Therefore, at the very least, it's a reliable repository of third party content, where the sources are clearly stated, which is also helpful in practice. As for the translations, I think it is telling that despite being extremely controversial among those who hold opposing views, they have only managed to find a small number of possible mistranslations, out of thousands of MEMRI clips throughout history. This is an extremely low rate of mistakes, likely lower than any major publication we commonly cite. For example, yesterday I found an article in a leading economic newspaper about Israel's energy sector, with a number of obviously bungled facts – does it mean the entire source is bogus? In any case, since translations themselves aren't the source, even if theoretically a translation was inaccurate, it would be within Wikipedia policy to cite the video with a note on the translation. However, this should be done on a case-by-case basis, if there is doubt; by default, the translations should be accepted as reliable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: Thats not true, their translations are packaged as “reports” which contain original analysis and content, in fact some of them are almost entirely analysis and original content with only a snippet or two of translation. Their four most recent pieces [18][19][20][21]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 From an article attacking MEMRI[22], we have the following: "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output."(Emphasis added) The part I've bolded above really cuts to the chase. The article then goes on to state concerns that in one case the newspaper being translated might have lied, which, if it did, is obviously not a reflection on MEMRI's translation. It also says that MEMRI's founder and several people who work there have former connections with the Israeli military. Which would point to bias, but every source is biased.Adoring nanny (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That article is from 2002, 18 years ago, and is entitled “False MEMRI” which should tell you everything you need to know about their reliability. "General accuracy" isn't good enough, if even a small fraction of the information published by a source is false or misleading and there is no mechanism by which errors are corrected and no reputation for correcting errors either then its an option 4. Since 2002 we’ve had clear cases of them publishing false and misleading information, what are we supposed to do about that? We aren’t given much wiggle room here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

When I follow the link, the title I see is "selective Memri". But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read more than the title. A title which is a pun on "selective memory" and not a comment on how selective MEMRI is. nableezy - 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy I did. Please strike the first part per WP:NPA, and see my discussion above of the fact that the article is in fact saying that Memri is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 One of the best source when it comes to information about middle East and a large number of scholars trust this source. Excelse (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4; they're very biased in what and how they translate, and cases of outright falsification / misrepresentation and fabrication of information have been cited. Our main citation should be to the original news report if it is (independent of MEMRI's selection of it) due weight. We might (on a talk page or, perhaps, even in an article) compare our translation of a non-English source to any other available ones, including MEMRI's, and take it as evidence that we have the translation right if they line up, and seek further assistance if they don't. But I wouldn't take their word for anything (whether their translations or their original content), especially anything controversial or in the topic areas (of politics) where they are biased, or about BLPs. -sche (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 You might not like MEMRI's agenda, but they translate Arabic accurately. They don't make up remarks by Arab and Muslim personalities. The truth is above everything.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 4. The examples of patiently deliberate mistranslation listed above are compelling, and the arguments against them (which mostly seem to consist of either ignoring the worst examples, arguing that Mona Baker is biased, citing much more vague / general statements that they're mostly accurate, or saying that everyone translates with an agenda) are weak. While they have been widely criticized for selective translation (which would already raise WP:DUE issues), and a lot of the coverage focuses on that, the deliberate mistranslations go way beyond what we could accept from a WP:RS, especially given the total lack of any sort of corrections or retractions, and nobody seems to actually be willing to directly disagree with the examples given, which have been cited in peer-reviewed papers as examples of manipulative mistranslation. As I mentioned in similar cases, we allow WP:BIASED sources, and we allow sources that sometimes make mistakes; but when a source has a clear, overriding bias that seems to define its entire mission statement, and has constant serious "errors" (always in the direction of its bias), that suggests a systematic problem that makes them unusable as a source. An additional concern is that many people are saying things like "well, if we remove MEMRI as a source, we will have no alternative to replace them" - that, to me, is a red alarm. A WP:BIASED source that has been accused of deliberate mistranslation in peer-reviewed papers, and which everyone at least agrees selectively translates things to present an inaccurate picture, being used as the sole source for things that are not mentioned anywhere else at all? Not just no, but hell no. EDIT: After quickly glancing over how it's currently cited, I would also point out that even though nobody seems to dispute that MEMRI is, at a bare minimum, WP:BIASED, it is repeatedly cited for statements of fact about its ideological enemies without an in-line citation, and is sometimes even used as the sole source to attribute statements with clearly-negative implications to WP:BLPs. Regardless of the outcome of this RFC, its usages are going to require massive cleanup efforts - as a WP:BIASED source, it should at the absolute bare minimum never be cited for anything that has to do with Islam, Israel, or mideast politics without an inline citation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 2. Based on the published criticisms, this seems to be simply a biased organization. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 2. Claims of actual inaccurate translations are few and far between. Even the published criticisms, some of which are by a biased author mainly known for firing Israelis on the basis of their ethnicity, point out MEMRI's wide use and that the point isn't accuract. The criticisms do lay the charge that MEMRI translates content that is extremist, and that the selection itself is biased while the translations are accurate. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 - MEMRI has made mistakes, but let's not conflate that into saying that all their translators are unqualified. Like others have said, MEMRI is widely quoted by sources far more reliable than Wikipedia. If a reliable source says that MEMRI's translation is wrong, then we shouldn't include it. However, if we don't have a specific reason to doubt, then absolutely use it.Resowithrae (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 or 4 - a big problem with MEMRI is how its used. MEMRI is mainly a WP:PRIMARY source and it is often used to make claims about living persons. Yet WP:BLPPRIMARY strongly discourages using primary sources alone for BLP material. But taking a look at its usage there are far too many instances of it being used for BLP material. This problem is compounded by the fact that MEMRI has a tendency of selectively publishing the most derogatory comments about living persons.VR _talk 23:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 - MEMRI should be evaluated like any other primary source. It is best used when cited by a secondary reliable source, expert in the field. When there are conflicting reports among reliable sources, both reports should be included with attribution according to weight. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A random example of MEMRI cited by a secondary reliable source:

David Patterson (9 February 2015). Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-04074-8., see ref #65.

Hope it helps, Infinity Knight (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

More random examples of MEMRI cited by secondary reliable scholarship sources:

Kelsay, John. “Democratic Virtue, Comparative Ethics, and Contemporary Islam.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 33, no. 4, 2005, pp. 697–707. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40017994. Accessed 27 July 2020.
Cook, David. “The Implications of ‘Martyrdom Operations’ for Contemporary Islam.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 32, no. 1, 2004, pp. 129–151. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40018157. Accessed 27 July 2020.
Douglass, Charles A., and Michael D. Hays. Bibliography. Air University Press, 2008, pp. 99–108, A US Strategy for Iran, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13989.16. Accessed 27 July 2020.

More recent examples:

Blank, Stephen J., editor. A CLINIC ON CLAUSEWITZ: LESSONS OF RUSSIA’S SYRIA CAMPAIGN. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2019, pp. 401–490, THE RUSSIAN MILITARY IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20098.15. Accessed 27 July 2020.
“Prospects for Counter-Theology against Militant Jihadism.” Militant Jihadism: Today and Tomorrow, by Serafettin Pektas and Johan Leman, vol. 6, Leuven University Press, Leuven (Belgium), 2019, pp. 187–216. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvq2vzmt.14. Accessed 27 July 2020.
Landau, Emily B., et al., editors. In the Aftermath of the JCPOA: Restoring Balance in the US-Iran Deterrent Relationship. Institute for National Security Studies, 2018, pp. 23–32, Iran in a Changing Strategic Environment, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17021.5. Accessed 27 July 2020.

Best regards, Infinity Knight (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 4 is the most accurate depiction of MEMRI's reliability in my estimation based upon the above. To rely on an organisation founded by Israeli intelligence personnel whose only goal is to highlight the shrillest voices in the Arab world, together with their proven track record of knowingly or unknowingly mistranslating source texts that most people cannot understand on their own is a recipe for disaster. At most, their translations could be used with a disclaimer to the effect that "the above is from a translation by MEMRI, a partisan organisation; independent corroboration of the translated text from the original Arabic/Persian source is highly recommended". Havradim (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MEMRI)

MEMRI has been substantially discussed three times, but these were between 2007 and 2009, over a decade ago. 1 2 3 Given that much of the controversy over MEMRI's translations is over a decade old, so I would like to know if anything has changed since then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

They’ve gotten worse not better, its bottom of the barrel sludge and I say that as someone on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment personally unsure but I don't think Mona Baker's works on the matter should be used as an argument.--Calthinus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No kidding. Closer is encouraged to check out [23] and follow the links to see exactly who is being used to make the case for options 3-4. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An academic expert in the field of translation writing in an academic, peer-reviewed journal, or a literal logical fallacy. Yes, the closer should consider how this is being argued, I agree. nableezy - 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy You are arguing that she is WP:RS even though she removed two Israeli academics, Dr. Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University, Israel, from the editorial boards of her journals Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, based on their affiliation to Israeli institutions.Israeli boycott divides academics and subsequently announced that Translator will no longer publish any research by Israeli scholars and will refuse to sell books and journals to Israeli libraries.Mona Baker's double standard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, she is a reliable source on translation sciences. Her stance on BDS has exactly zero to do with her qualifications. See WP:RS#Scholarship for why a director of the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at the University of Manchester writing in the area of her academic expertise is a reliable source. Your objections to her politics has zero bearing on her reliability. nableezy - 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is her own words and actions make her WP:QUESTIONABLE. Note in particular her complaints about the "Jewish press"[24]. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, several MEMRI employees are Israeli. So Baker, by her own words and actions has an axe to grind with respect to both Israelis and what she considers to be the "Jewish press". No word on whether or not she considers MEMRI to be a part of that "Jewish press", but it's a reasonable supposition. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes her questionable. WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; a WP:BIASED source can still be usable, though we would use in-line citations when citing them in the article case. It only becomes unusable (as in MEMRI's case) where there is substantial reason to believe that their bias interferes with their accuracy on a systematic level. Do you have any reason to believe that published statements by Mona Baker cannot be relied on? That is, do you have evidence showing that she has distorted or selectively manipulated translations herself? EDIT: And, more generally, given that she's being cited in numerous peer-reviewed papers here - do you think those journals are WP:QUESTIONABLE? It seems baffling to hold her bias against her to the point of trying to discredit her entirely as a source even in peer-reviewed papers from high-quality journals while arguing that MEMRI, which is not peer-reviewed and which has been accused of far more serious distortions, can be still used. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is Academic analysis of the Mona Baker views[25] by Judith Butler(who herself a vocal critic of Israeli policies) she clearly can't be used to assess Memri --Shrike (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See what I said above. If being WP:BIASED alone were enough to disregard a source we would obviously toss MEMRI in the wastebin instantly with no need for further discussion; no one disputes that they have a point of view. The question is whether a source can be trusted to tell the truth and make valid arguments, or whether their bias systematically overrides their reliability. The reason people are citing Mona Baker is because she's made that argument (although she's not the only one to do so); do you have any comparable sources throwing her accuracy into doubt, rather than simply ones that disagree with her politics? Obviously the idea that participation in the boycott alone would render an academic unreliable in their area of expertise is absurd - it might qualify them as WP:BIASED and require in-line citations when citing them, but saying that someone isn't an WP:RS requires a reason to believe that they distort the truth, publish factually-inaccurate material, and so on, not just that they expressed an opinion that others find objectionable. (In a few cases I suppose there are opinions that might render a source WP:FRINGE, but for the better or worse, her opinions are not that far outside the academic mainstream - disqualifying her based on this alone would disqualify huge swaths of academia.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, The thing she in not just biased she make antisemitic premises as described by Butler.Do you really thing that person that espouse racist premises could be WP:RS Shrike (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Butler specifically says "(which does not mean she is antisemitic)"; she is criticizing one specific action and statement by Baker for (possibly inadvertently) playing into anti-Semitic tropes, not describing her as WP:FRINGE. "They once said something that another person took issue with as racist" is obviously is not sufficient to completely and permanently disqualify a source when nobody is actually raising issue with the accuracy of her statements or research. Saying that she make antisemitic premises is a massive stretch from what Butler says - she isn't accusing Baker of engaging in scientific racism, or advancing conspiracy theories, or other things that would call the accuracy of her work into question; and she certainly isn't accusing her of deliberately manipulating her results to obtain a specific result, which is the far more credible and far more serious allegation made against MEMRI. More generally, yes, of course a source who previously said or did something that another person criticized as racist could be a WP:RS; we don't require that sources be unbiased or fair or good people. What matters is whether the views they're accused of taints their research to the point of rending them WP:FRINGE or unreliable, which is light-years away from what Butler is saying there. Or, in other words - if you wanted to disqualify Baker, you need to find sources describing her published research as either inaccurate or WP:FRINGE, not just ones that took issue with the wording of a statement she made. Above, you said (in defense of MEMRI) everyone has their bias, but you have to understand that the key question is does their bias taint their research. Nobody (that I can see) is accusing Baker of that; numerous sources, to varying degrees, say that MEMRI's translations are fatally-tainted (and, I'll point out again, you still haven't really answered that accusation beyond repeatedly trying to shoot the messenger.) That is the key difference here. The idea that you would disqualify a respected academic with significant expertise in the field in favor of a think-tank with a reputation for manipulative translation is simply baffling. Sources like Baker are the ones we ought to be using (with caution, of course, with in-line citations when her WP:BIAS is relevant, and focused on peer-reviewed sources so we can trust the review process and not just Baker herself.) Rando stuff published by MEMRI with no further fact-checking or review belongs in the wastebin by comparison - we ought to rely less on advocacy-groups like that in general, but especially in cases like this where there have been numerous accusations of outright distortions on their part. Also note that the distortions by MEMRI have been reported by numerous WP:RSes, not just Baker, eg. [26][27][28][29]. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles you cite complain about MEMRI's framing and reframing (see Framing (social sciences)) of their translations, and about the translation of the Arabic word Jihad to the English word Jihad, among other things. But WP:RS like the NYT and PBS describe their own work with the same term [30][31]. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Library of Congress summarizes "Critics charge that despite portraying itself as neutral, it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light through the production and dissemination of incomplete translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions." Sounds about right as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: that summary isn't by the Library of Congress; it's attributed to the DBPedia abstract, which is derived from an old revision of its Wikipedia page. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  - True, they are reporting it, however, just as any other rs reports stuff not by them. I assume they give it some credence and it as well fits with the other material identified in this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    - Please see WP:CIRCULAR --Shrike (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one of the MEMRI quotes I've run into on Wikipedia: "You haters, you midgets, you little insolent people – whether in America, in France, or in Denmark ..." Since MEMRI is the only source, who knows if it is correct or false? Incorrect translations from Arabic has been used before to smear Palestinians. See f.e Dareen Tatour's poem. In the supposed quote from Salah is he really talking about people of short stature? If so, perhaps the correct translation would be "dwarves" or "little people"? Is "you midgets" some kind of Arabic figure of speech and would better be translated to "you prejudiced people?" It just makes no sense. ImTheIP (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If certain content can only be sourced to MEMRI, and no other reliable sources can be found on it, then it should not be on Wikipedia per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.VR _talk 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

IvoryTower123 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@IvoryTower123: I see you posted this !vote in the Discussion section about MEMRI. Did you mean to post it either in the MEMRI RfC above or the PinkNews RfC below (I saw your edit summary was "pink news")? Armadillopteryx^talk 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: at least 6 editors here have unusually short editing histories to be coming along and "voting" on an obscure noticeboard discussion:

- Excelse: 683 edits
- Bob not snob: 594 edits
- 11Fox11: 827 edits
- Aroma Stylish: 746 edits
- Resowithrae: 125 edits
- Infinity Knight: 933 edits

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I wonder why you mentioned only editors that voted against your POV and didn't mention LokiTheLiar with 579 edits? Shrike (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, I didn’t look thoroughly. I am sure there are more than the 6 I mentioned. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't exclude editors' viewpoints just because they don't have thousands of edits. That isn't in line with "anyone can edit", especially considering that most of these are extended confirmed. This is not an "obscure noticeboard", it is actually prominent and linked in many places, such as WP:RS, which new users are likely to be directed to. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A random example of MEMRI cited by a secondary reliable source:

David Patterson (9 February 2015). Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-04074-8., see ref #65.

Hope it helps, Infinity Knight (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it helps to classify MEMRI as unreliable. David Patterson, are you kidding? Zero^talk 07:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable? I think that info cited by ref #65 was found being accurate during discussion. Cambridge University Press trust Patterson, also other publishers: University of Washington Press and University Press of Kentucky, all publishers have good references. What editors believe is not really a factor. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Does violence fall under WP:RSMED?

In global warming, the following sentence is supported by sources that don't meet the higher RSMED standards (primary research, and a newspaper article):

Links have been made between a wide range of violent behaviour including, violent crimes, civil unrest, and wars, but conclusive scientific evidence remains elusive.

. As violence causes ill-health; should I improve sourcing? I think a case could be made that it falls under Wikipedia:Biomedical information's Health effects. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No. This is not biomedical information, unless I have to source information about violent massacres being caused by Nazi Germany to MEDRS compliant sources (!) (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No. There has been a movement in society to place everything from gun ownership to voting preferences under medicine, but RSMED applies only to biomedical information. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No... but with a question. In general I would say no. Certainly things like studies of violet crime rates vs say weather/the economy/etc are not necessarily the domain of what I think most would consider medicine or medical research. However, I think we might want a carve out for cases where it is claimed violence is due to or more likely in cases with a specific medical condition. So a claim that a brain chemistry imbalance makes someone more violet probably should be reserved for medical literature. Springee (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, violence in general is not inherently WP:Biomedical information. However, statements about epidemiology or public health are biomedical, including claims about the likelihood of some factor to lead to a certain number of deaths (whether by violence or something else). I believe this has been addressed before with regards to cases such as domestic violence and suicide rates. However, the right venue for this type of question is really WT:MED, as this board does not generally address MEDRS issues. Sunrise (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Does ebay and/or other auction-like/sell listings can be reliable source of fact something was sold there?

While editing a [[32]] page today I met some misunderstood with another editor about what can be used as reliable source of fact some thing was sold exactly at some date and by exactly some price via that services with my opponent which followed some edit war [[33]] and corresponding discussion.

As our disagreement looks like much wider problem as just article information disagreement itself he provided and I applying now discussuion about can ebay be used as reliable source:

1. Always.

2. Context-related.

3. No any way.

As you can see my opponent thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used as reliable sources any way. My opinion is that exactly in that case when I have to prove some exact thing (unique Jumanji game desk used while filmmaking) selling via that services (ebay/other selling service) with source ebay is primary (initial) source that information can be referenced from and I don't need any other information as some "news" that 'proves' that fact just roughly. My main argue is that ebay (and one more auction site) lot page where told item description (Jumanji original desk etc.), lot condition (sold) and lot price ($60800) exactly main source of information.

Trying to dispute I posted to my opponent a real news article [[34]] that telling us about that exactly ebay lot (I posted before as source) but not as "sold" one but as "still selling" and having price of $60400 (instead of $60800 after it was sold) so I cannot use it as source of "item was sold for $60800" any way because news does not have corresponding information there.

However combining a real news article that points to ebay lot (still not sold) and lot archived page that shows a information about lot was sold and price it had while selling telling us fact had place and is real. However no any information at 'major newspapers' about that event (thing was sold for $60800) being take a place was never found, but still was found numerous 'non-reliable' sources telling repeatedly telling that (blogs, imdb, etc) without any proving links.

So, main question now is can I use an ebay (or any other) selling listing lot page as a reliable source that proves a fact something was sold for some fixed price or I have to search what... bank transfer? cheque scan? to approve that fact ebay never hides and exactly writes at their site (not as news or blog or comment but as selling lot status).

Because with such strange source-reliability policy when I cannot use a sell-service (ebay etc.) lot page, that includes full item description date and time of purchase, photos of item and price of purchase, as prove of purhchase (reliable source) I never can approve a fact that obviously took place.

So, What is your opinion. Can ebay (or any/some other auction/sell listings) lot page be a Wikipedia reliable source of sell/purchase fact?

If no RS reports on it, I just don't see how it's WP:due. Ebay and other sites are WP:UGC and really should not be used, ever. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

About weight of event - that's (thing was sold) rare thing that connected to the film.
About WP:UGC - only thing there UGC is information posted by ebay-user (description&photos) that really can be a fakes (if not thinking about who dare to buy fake for $60800 and no any info about fakes was posted later). Fact selling operation was succeed is automated and is not UGC any way. From other side there's a news (Chicago Tribune) that points to exactly the same selling lot telling there selling exactly the same thing as at ebay lot description dated a day before item was sold. Newspaper is reliable source according to wiki rules but news article I found does not have info item was sold so it is not reliable source of fact item was sold but proves it really that thing ebay lot description telling about.

So.. Have I ignore that fact item was really sold and NOT post it to Wikipedia if full fact prove is 'divided' between a earlier newspaper article and later ebay lot link where below-mentioned newspaper article posted to because of strange RS Wikipedia rules, besides fact obviously took place? I thought Wikipedia does not ignore the proved facts. So I really don't know what is the right way to post a fact about something was sold but be obedient to Wikipedia rules if ebay is not RS anyway. 85.238.102.82 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's only acceptable if accompanied by a source talking about said sale. Otherwise, it's impossible for editors to tell whether the sale is WP:DUE or not. BeŻet (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean (in my case) combining Chicago tribune earlier article telling about selling is on the way but still not finished and pointing to exact ebay lot number URL [[35]] and same ebay lot number straight link archived after lot sale ([[36]]) approving sale had happen information as references can be considered as RS?

Ebay, no as it is wholly user generated. Respected auctions houses (even online ones) yes, but with artributation (they can make mistakes), bog standard auctions houses, same as ebay.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So long as there is no evidence of doctoring, eBay is generally considered a reliable source for administrative matters like copyright status (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities) and faithful reproductions of paper sources, but not for article content in and of itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Using auction listings as a primary source seems like a bad idea. If the sale is significant enough to warrant mention, there will be third-party sources. Guy (help!) 09:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart is talking about us

h t t p s : / / www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/

Don't miss this at the bottom:

Disclosure: The author has previously been involved in disputes on Wikipedia with some parties referenced in this article

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahahaha, still literally fighting the GamerGate thing five years later. And he says *I* have too much time on my hands? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

T...No comment, I was going to be sarky (see Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are).Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Section should be called "Aggrieved Wikipedia editor given a platform by furiously unreliable source to write critical articles". His summary is of course, almost right but not even right. Koncorde (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You could say it is alt-right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, TDA again? Not going to open a Breitbart article. Guy (help!) 22:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, JzG. He mentions you and several other editors by name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Annoying, TDA "quotes" the usernames of certain editors EXCEPT for Guy and Lee who they call by their full name. Lee may not be an issue but that's likely be OUTING in Guy's case. --Masem (t) 23:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's really outing in this case. I remember a recent comment by Guy where he discussed the German equivalent of his surname, which by looking it up on wikipedia you could very easily find out what its english equivalent was. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a precedent that if it's not explicitly mentioned on Wikipedia, it's a violation of OUTING (even if connecting the dots is obvious), though if Guy doesn't care about it, then there's no harm done. Sceptre (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, no, it's merely a shitty exploitation of the fact that I am open about my real world identity (and TDA is not, because apparently we're the stalkers here). Guy (help!) 21:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure we can do anything about it, so why waste time on it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WT:NPOV

There is an ongoing discussion about this noticeboard on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Undermining_WP:NPOV_through_Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Vahurzpu (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

wrldrels.org

I think it's a garbage source. But it's used in some Wikipedia articles. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky case. On one hand, the website as a whole seems pretty normal, and its leadership is a bunch of academics working in the academic study of new religious movements. Normally, that would be enough to assess it as reliable. On the other hand, that page was written by Massimo Introvigne, who is affiliated with CESNUR (RSP entry), which makes it a bit more suspect. I also didn't dig particularly deeply into the pasts of the other scholars on the board there, and so it could be that this is a bunch of the fringiest. I don't think it's fair to tag it as a garbage source (I'd reserve that for The Daily Mail, RT, etc.), but it's certainly something to use with caution. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion - Decision "Keep".

Not a sourcing question (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Stephen2nd/Nazi Party nobility

15:24, 22 October 2015‎ Nominated for deletion;

see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen2nd/Nazi Party nobility

Decision: Keep.

I have created two previous articles on the same subject matter. List of German monarchs in 1918 on 9 July 2020 the article had 1900 views, up from an average of 30 views per day, and Abdication of Wilhelm II. 500-600 views up from an average of 200 per day. This article was nominated for deletion in 2015, went through the correct processes and the decision was to keep. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, please explain why you object to me uploading this article? Stephen2nd (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Stephen2nd

@Stephen2nd: Am I missing something? Where/how has someone prevented you from doing that? Why are you posting this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away from Wikipedia for a while. I tried to upload it and a large pink block appeared in reference to this noticeboard, someone had already deleted its Talk-Page ??. So I did this to check if I had overlooked something. I will try to upload it again. Thanks for your assistance Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

First, the presumed title "German nobility in Nazi Germany, 1928–1945" is misleading (why not "Former German nobility in Nazi party" etc.?). Then, are there some summary works about this topic to prove this is not an original research (article seems to be mostly based on one book (?) by Jonathan Petropoulos; many of the other sources are primary, some even patently unreliable - The Daily Mail...).

Note that discussion in 2015 was a MfD, not an AfD. Requirements for drafts are much lower than for actual articles. Good luck anyway, seems to be an interesting topic. Pavlor (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The dates represent the first and last recorded royal-members of NSDAP recorded in the official German Archives listed and quoted by Petropoulos. I have no objection to any name change. May I suggest Royalty in the Nazi Party, there is a specific Category with the same name. My reason to quote The mail article, was to example the number of Sax Coburg Gotha princes who were excluded, albeit (IMHO) relevant, I have not included anything else from their article. Stephen2nd (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The big red notice was probably a warning about using deprecated sources - it had the WP:DAILYMAIL in it, and I removed that ref - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your assistances, the new article German nobility in Nazi Germany is now uploaded. I would appreciate it if some kind wikipedian would sort out the (red) refs in the references section, thanks again. Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The Weekly World News (!!!!) at Bam Bam Bigelow

No consensus has emerged or will emerge for this being a reliable source. Quite the opposite, as it is effectively deprecated in all but name. Edit warring for its insertion will doubtless incur the usual consequences. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

I can't believe I have to do this, but McPhail has repeatedly added a reference to the Weekly World News to the article Bam Bam Bigelow, and has not responded to my comments on their talk-page. This source is obviously too inappropriate to bother with an RfC/deprecating/whatever, but since they are willing to edit-war, I would greatly appreciate the attention of other editors (and possibly administrators) to this matter. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note the reference pertains to an interview (the text of which is directly quoted) from a section of the publication that featured actual events in professional wrestling (albeit written in a lurid style). The excerpt from the interview adds context to the article. McPhail (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe the quote is accurate; this is the Weekly World News. The problem is not their lurid style, it is that they continuously, relentlessly, shamelessly make shit up all the time. The quote should be removed unless it appears in an actual reliable source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bat Boy disapproves of this thread. - MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree... the Weekly World News is SO unreliable, that they easily could have made the entire interview up. Treat it as fiction. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Not reliable. The world might be a better place because of WWN, but as Floquenbeam has noted, they make shit up. - Location (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a literal fake news publication. That's lame even for wrestling, which is without doubt the biggest source of lameness on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Is not the whole point of this paper is that they make shit up for fun? No no it is not an RS, for anything ever.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Drunk History

No consensus will ever emerge in favor of this being treated as a reliable source. Ever. ——Serial 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi, I'm wondering if I am allowed to cite Drunk History. I am quite concerned about the accuracy of the episodes of the show.

Evidence

For example, they absolutely failed at the Martha Mitchell incident, (1) by claiming that Richard Nixon hired psychiatrists to say she was crazy. There is no proof of this ever happening. (If so, it would have been everywhere in the news, but I found no results).

Another false error was the story of John Wilkes Booth. (2) One of the episodes claimed Booth appeared one more time after killing Abraham Lincoln. The show says that he presented a musical a few days after the killing, and made everybody happy. This obviously never happened.

Ending note

I might be wrong, they may be getting all of their information from a source, but they're too drunk to remember any of it.

Either way, I'm still required to create a consensus for this kind of stuff, because I don't know what to do with an unreliable source, so I think it would be best if I went here. Koridas 📣 04:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Er, this seems like a terrible idea. Guy (help!) 09:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
About the only situation when it would be appropriate to cite it would be as a PRIMARY source in the article about the show itself - as verification for a statement about what was said on the show (similar to citing an original document when you are quoting that document). Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Please no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You answer your own question, they make errors for comedic reasons. No they are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Baidu Baike

There is near-unanimous concensus to deprecate. Editors cited that Baidu Baike's content is WP:USERGENERATED as well as politically censored as reasons for deprecation.Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Should Baidu Baike be deprecated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Baidu Baike)

Support Baidu Baike is a chinese language user-created encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and holds a essentially analogous position to Wikipedia in mainland China alongside Baike.com, being ranked (as part of Baidu) #4 on the most visited internet websites by Alexa, with over 16 million articles as of 2018. This inherently makes Baidu Baike an unreliable source, as like Wikipedia it has no fact checking or any other indication of a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu Baike has been noted for its hoaxes, like Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, as well as wholesale unattributed copying of Chinese language Wikipedia articles.[37] Its usage on Wikipedia is an issue, as it has been cited nearly 2,000 times per baike.baidu.com . There was unanimous concensus (of 5 people) in a discussion in 2018 on this noticeboard to blacklist and have bot removal of this source, but this seems to have not been carried out due to it not being a formal RfC. Other discussions of the source on this noticeboard 1 2 3 As well as at the Village Pump A B have noted the same issues with reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike essentially represents what would have happened to Wikipedia if it had become a commercial entity, with all the issues that entails. As a response to the point that the text recives moderation before addition, this is true, but while this is likely to remove outright vandalism, it is unlikely to remove non-obvious factual errors that would require checking the sources. The copyright of the text volunteered by contributors is reserved by Baidu. This article in The Point Mag also goes over other issues, including support of commercial COI editing of articles as an inherent part of the operation of Baidu Baike:

Unlike Wikipedia, Baidu Baike unashamedly hawks opportunities for “content collaboration” to celebrities, companies and media outlets, emphasizing that Baidu Baike can incorporate a prominently placed external link or insert entire sections of content into an entry

(EDIT: Baidu Baike appears to have denied this). It also documents numerous factual errors, one of which involving statistics misattributed from one street to another simarly named one which were subsequently incorporated by other websites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Support – Should be treated just like Wikipedia is treated as a source here. Should only be acceptable as an WP:ABOUTSELF, in very rare occasions, on our article about the website itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Unlike WP, the work is reviewed, first by their " expert team with over 2,500 members, including university professors" and second by the political censors. The censorship makes it of course of dubious value in some fiels, but not all, DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused by this argument that political censorship leads to reliability, can you elaborate? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike has over 16 million articles, far more than could ever be adequately reviewed by a team of experts (which is suggested to be around 2,500 people per the SCMP) The Perennial sources entry states:

Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Support deprecation its a under-created encyclopedia, as any Wikipedia editor knows those are inherently unreliable sources. I would add that I feel the political censorship and messaging detracts from their reliability, not the other way around. The 2018 consensus also appears clear, RSN discussions which were archived but never closed having less weight or not being implemented seems to be a recurring problem. Perhaps there should be a discussion about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Support This should not even need to be discussed. A source edited by anyone and controlled by a company closely linked to China's government. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Support deprecation: user-generated content, corporate links to government. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per above—absolutely no way we should use it as a source, ever (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support deprecation, certainly not a reliable source and there is already a consensus on it. I'd recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support depreciation per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu itself describes it as user-generated. The idea that the addition of political censors could exempt a source from that policy is certainly a... novel interpretation, but there's no evidence that whatever review does exist is sufficient to make a wiki of its size reliable, especially given the large-scale copying from zhwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support, with limits. Pace DGG, who makes an excellent point, it looks to me as if this is not so much peer review as "appear reviewed". The obvious bias issue aside, this looks like one of the many projects set up to compete with Wikipedia because we reflect the world as it is, not as some interest group wishes it to be. With the risk of ideology-driven editing both by users and by the moderating editors, and the ever-present problem of control, I can't see this being usable generally because I don't trust that any random article will be factual rather than reflecting some ideological spin that I'm unaware of. However, I think that if an article is noted by others as being credible then we should not second-guess that. So if, say, the NYT praised an article as a good analysis of some facet of Chinese culture, there should be no bar to using it here. Guy (help!) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support deprecation. I can imagine circumstances where review and oversight could help a source climb out of the WP:USERGENERATED hole. Political censorship is not the kind of review that could make that happen. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Support since this is user generated like Wikipedia, with possible additional censorship.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Support an edit filter, because I can't imagine any situation in which this would be useful. (pinged by Hemiauchenia) feminist (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Not our decision Baidu Baike is not an asset of the Wikimedia Foundation; and we are not accountants; so we cannot depreciate it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Support. Based on description, this is not an RS about anything. It could be just left alone, but it was actually used for referencing on ~2,00 0 WP pages. So, yes, making an official depreciation (meaning there will be a warning message every time when someone is trying to include such source) would probably be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Support: It's basically Baidu's Chinese Wikipedia. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Support: For the same reason we don't cite other Wikipedia articles here. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 23:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Support This is basically the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Baidu Baike is censored by the Chinese government. This might make it even less reliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Deprecation. can't imagine how one can find reliable, trustworthy and accurate information if certain topics are being blocked from its users. Tadyatha (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Support - doubly bad for being user-generated and under the control of political censors. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Articles are reviewed by careless robots in Baidu Baike, not experts. --Rowingbohe♬(Talk/zhwiki) 05:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Baidu Baike)

Pinging currently and recently active members of the 2018 discussions @SchmuckyTheCat: @JzG: @Feminist:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging the proposer of the village pump discussion @GnolizX: Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Does ebay and/or other auction-like/sell listings can be reliable source of fact something was sold there?

While editing a [[38]] page today I met some misunderstood with another editor about what can be used as reliable source of fact some thing was sold exactly at some date and by exactly some price via that services with my opponent which followed some edit war [[39]] and corresponding discussion.

As our disagreement looks like much wider problem as just article information disagreement itself he provided and I applying now discussuion about can ebay be used as reliable source:

1. Always.

2. Context-related.

3. No any way.

As you can see my opponent thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used as reliable sources any way.

My opinion is that exactly in that case when I have to prove some exact thing (unique Jumanji game desk used while filmmaking) selling via that services (ebay/other selling service) with source ebay is primary (initial) source that information can be referenced from and I don't need any other information as some "news" that 'proves' that fact just roughly. My main argue is that ebay (and one more auction site) lot page where told item description (Jumanji original desk etc.), lot condition (sold) and lot price ($60800) exactly main source of information.

Trying to dispute I posted to my opponent a real news article [[40]] that telling us about that exactly ebay lot (I posted before as source) but not as "sold" one but as "still selling" and having price of $60400 (instead of $60800 after it was sold) so I cannot use it as source of "item was sold for $60800" any way because news does not have corresponding information there.

So, What is your opinion. Can ebay (or any/some other auction/sell listings) lot page be a Wikipedia reliable source of sell/purchase fact?

If no RS reports on it, I just don't see how it's WP:due. Ebay and other sites are WP:UGC and really should not be used, ever. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

About weight of event - that's (thing was sold) rare thing that connected to the film.

About WP:UGC - only thing there UGC is information posted by ebay-user (description&photos) that really can be a fakes (if not thinking about who dare to buy fake for $60800 and no any info about fakes was posted later). Fact selling operation was succeed is automated and is not UGC any way. From other side there's a news (Chicago Tribune) that points to exactly the same selling lot telling there selling exactly the same thing as at ebay lot description dated a day before item was sold. Newspaper is reliable source according to wiki rules but news article I found does not have info item was sold so it is not reliable source of fact item was sold but proves it really that thing ebay lot description telling about.

Do you mean (in my case) combining Chicago tribune earlier article telling about selling is on the way but still not finished and pointing to exact ebay lot number URL [[41]] and same ebay lot number straight link archived after lot sale ([[42]]) approving sale had happen information as references can be considered as RS?

So long as there is no evidence of doctoring, eBay is generally considered a reliable source for administrative matters like copyright status (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities) and faithful reproductions of paper sources, but not for article content in and of itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Arab News on Iran International

According to WP:RSPS, 'there is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government. ... editors consider Arab News biased and non-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend attribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government." Arab News is a project by Saudi Research and Marketing Group (SRMG).

Iran International is a London-based news channel which is widely believed to be funded by the Saudi Arabian court (probably another SRMG project)(the Guardian and the Wall Street Journal). "Iran International regularly features guests who are highly critical of the Islamic Republic and does not shy away from presenting itself as an opposition media organization" according to Al-Monitor.

Arab News has published a news story on Iran International[43] which seems advertorial or promotional to me. In that story it claims that Iran International is "the most viewed Persian-language international broadcaster".

Three other points that should also be considered:

In the same news story, Arab News states Iran International " also operates on all social media platforms, and according to data provided by the channel, its followers are significantly greater in number than competitor channels" which is an outright lie and demonstrates the poor fact checking by the newspaper. BBC Persian has 9M followers on Instagram, whereas Iran Int'l has only 2.4M followers there, not to mention Manoto TV with 4.9M followers on the same platform.
The Sunday Times[44], the Evening Standard[45], and the Daily Express[46] have published the channel's claim that it has 20M viewers mostly in Iran.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have fierce rivalry in the Middle East and spend crazy amounts of money to discredit (or throw a spanner in the works of) each other.

I want to know if I can write this claim ("the most viewed Persian-language international broadcaster") on Iran International article (especially if the article is being evaluated for the GA status) and attribute it to the Arab News? Isn't the Arab News a questionable source with conflict of interest according to the footnote #9 of WP:Verifiability? They most probably have the same parent company (SRMG). 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO a COI does exist because of the well known antagonism in Iran–Saudi Arabia relations. This does not improve my opinion of the reliability of Arab News in general, either. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Clear COI in regards to the Saudi Arabia - Iran conflict. The article states that "The channel, which is privately funded" omitting that Saudi Arabia is the one primarily funding the outlet, which any reputable newspaper would disclose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica

The Encyclopædia Iranica is an English language encyclopædia "dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent." It has come up a handful of times on this noticeboard, though only one discussion would qualify for a perennial sources entry. It is currently cited nearly 4,000 times per iranicaonline.org . Iranica is a professional publication, associated with Columbia University and authored by subject matter experts. On its guidline for authors page it states: "All entries for the Encyclopædia Iranica (EIr) are commissioned by invitation only, and each received entry is subject to peer review.". I would personally consider it reliable for Iran-related topics, but of course like all encyclopædias it is a WP:TERTIARY source. Usage guidelines surrounding tertiary sources are somewhat vague. What do people think about Iranica and usage guidelines surrounding encyclopædias generally? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Any examples of "bad" use of this source? Seems to be fine for Iran-related articles. As far as I know, encyclopedias are usualy reliable sources and their use is even encouraged by WP:NOR policy. They may be not used for analysis and evaluation per the same policy, but they are permited as a source for factual statements. Pavlor (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - any examples of "bad" use of this source, even potential ones? Afaik it only covers Iran-related subjects, as its name implies. I use it a fair amount for Iranian-related art and a little for older history, where it is an extremely high-quality source, using top international experts, very often not themselves Iranian. Much better than Brittanica, and about as good as Grove, and all free online. We should be encouraging people to use sources like this. Looking at the list of articles using it, Cicero appears, but the article (Weiskopf, Michael (1991). "CICERO". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. V, Fasc. 5. pp. 558–559.) covers him as a source re the Parthian Wars, which is fair enough; I can't in fact see it used there for citations currently. You can't please everyone on recent Iranian history - I don't look at those subjects so can't comment. Not sure it even covers them. Why are you raising it? Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if Iranica should be treated as a more reliable source than Britannica, considering that both are tertiary Encyclopedias. The RSP for Britannica suggests that "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available". Personally I think Iranica is a better source than Britannica and the entires can usually be cited in place of secondary sources with care, which I wouldn't do for Britannica. The 2010 noticeboard post brings up the article for the Iranshenasi journal of Iranian studies by Abbas Milani, which does seem somewhat overly glowing, stating that the "journal’s advisory board included an impressive array of scholars from around the world" and "A remarkable aspect of Iranshenasi has always been the care that the editor, Jalal Matini, gives to ensuring that articles are free from errors of fact or of typesetting". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely reliable. There's no inherent reason that a secondary source should be preferred over tertiary in all cases. Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos (although parts of it are more secondary than tertiary) is definitely a top-quality source, better than many secondary sources in the same area. (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Things published in conference proceedings

Hello. I'm wondering about the reliability of things published in conference proceedings. For instance the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics prints the research papers that were presented at their conferences in the conference proceedings. Although their Wikipedia article says they "peer review" what they publish. It seems like what they publish would have questionable reliability though, because they have a vested interest in publishing and promoting papers that were presented at their conferences. WP:RS says "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs." Which I'm sure would apply in this case. Also, I don't think something being published in conference proceedings would qualify as being published in "Peer-reviewed journals" in the sense that WP:OR means it. Anymore then an art gallery booklet or tech conference brochure would be "Peer-reviewed journals." I'd appreciate other people's opinions about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In general conference papers are considered less reliable vs a journal paper. What was typical in my area was initial findings were often published as a conference presentation. Then those results/research etc was expanded and put into a journal paper. Thus, in general, material in a conference paper would later appear in a journal. Beyond that, the review process in my field was typically less stringent vs journal publication. For example, a journal paper might undergo several revisions before being accepted to a journal. Due to deadlines for a conference the latitude for revisions was much smaller. Minor revisions might make it while majors might not. In general I would not discount a conference paper but I would feel better about a journal paper. Some of this might depend on the material in question and what is being cited. Springee (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Conference proceedings are a lot like journals, many of them are highly respected, others not so much. You have to look at multiple factors, such as whether the proceedings were published, what caliber of scholars participated, whether the proceedings are cited later, etc. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
^^ What Buidhe said. We a lot of cites for historical matters relating to caste in India that simply do not pass the bar because they're obscure papers by obscure researchers at obscure conferences. I tend to treat papers presented at conference proceedings as works in progress that, if they survive the test there, should result in a full-published paper or book; the conference is a talking shop, the papers presented are effectively up for review, not past review. There are exceptions to everything, of course, but as a rule of thumb it has served me well. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the field, I think. e.g., in cryptocurrency you can get almost any trash published as a conference proceeding, we are tending to peer-reviewed journal articles only (and those are bad enough) - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Field dependent, if it was a palaeontology conference I think it would be citable, if it was something biomed related then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
To echo the other statements above, yes, it depends upon the field, and even on the conference within the field. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Conference proceedings are a lower standard than peer-reviewed publications - more on a par with preprints in terms of reliability IMO. Guy (help!) 11:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:Primary could apply. It is better if referenced by an independent secondary source, then that would be considered a peer review. Few conference proceeding would have a real peer review, but at the actual conference they might have been verbal comments that are not recorded or considered in the publication. Others above have covered the main issues. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

https://via.hypothes.is which is https://web.hypothes.is

We have a few of these. Looks like a web annotation site, a social media discussion layer on top of any web page. Not a good idea to place a third party website in between the reader and end site (unless a trustworthy web archive site). No idea of the reliability of this site in terms of modifying the source HTML, what the web annotations say or contain potentially anything including fishing URLs, spam, political trigger comments, etc.. 'anyone can annotate' might turn a reliable source into an unreliable one, lots of room for abuse. The URL format also messes with our standard tools archive and citation bots. -- GreenC 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

China Buddhism Encyclopedia

The China Buddhism Encyclopedia is an online platform that claims to gather, preserve, translate and spread materials about Buddhism; it appears to have 62,365 entries. Though the platform says it adopts an academic approach, and materials added to the website are rigorously screened and approved by those who have been studying and practicing Buddhism for several decades. Little is known about who these editors are and what process they go through to approve an entry. On its About CBE it also claims "all materials used are always referenced to the original source." However, what I found is that many entries on CBE use unreliable sources or are poorly sourced (and broken links); some are even sourced from online forums.

E.g.,

Alara Kalama cited CBE but the relevant material on CBE is sourced from a personal blog.
Vasuki cited CBE but the source cited by CBE is a broken link.
Takshaka, ditto.
Kalachakra cited CBE but there is no source provided by CBE for this entry.

Though it has been cited only dozens times on Wikipedia, I'm seriously concerned that its continued use as a source would compromise the accuracy and trustworthiness of Buddhism-related entries. I would very much appreciate other people's thoughts about CBE.Is it worth the while to open up RFC for this? Tadyatha (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is The Nation reliable for claims about the Douma Chemical attack?

Over at Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#Article_in_The_Nation_(July_2020) There has been a discussion about a piece in The Nation by Aaron Maté entitled Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds?. Maté is strongly associated with and writes for the deprecated website The Grayzone. For those unfamilar, The Grayzone is a fringe website run by Max Blumenthal with a kneejerk "Anti-imperialism" (Read:Anti-US foreign policy) perspective, that means that they take anti-US positions on every issue, even when that seems abhorrent to outside observers, like denying the warcrimes of Assad or the camps in Xinjiang. The article repeats claims published in The Grayzone and other Pro-Assad sources (including RT) about OPCW leaks, claiming that these are evidence of flaws in the OPCW investigation which found Assad to be culpable for the attack. These claims have been mostly ignored by reliable sources and dismissed by those who acknowledge them, including a 4 part rebuttal by Bellingcat. The Nation is considered a reliable source at RSP. Does including these claims lend undue weight? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tough one. However, I think even such minority viewpoint may have a place in the article (with proper attribution), if published by usualy reliable source. Maybe a more of a question of due weight (we are not looking for The Truth, but write what the RSs say). Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion for the reasons set out in the article talk page, including verifiability reasons as the author of this piece has only published on this topic in deprecated publications, and for due weight reasons as this is clearly a fringe viewpoint, as the Nation article itself acknowldged. Also to note that the specific text the editor who wants this included is proposing is entirely a quote from CounterPunch. According to RSN/PS, "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed." BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't express your personal political opinions in your question, which is a red herring. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Nation is a reliable source. The specific claim made in the article is that leaked documents show that two scientists objected to the OPCW conclusion. The dispute is not about whether that statement is true, but what conclusions we should take from it. It is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: how much attention has been paid to these two dissenters and what degree of acceptance is there in reliable sources that the OPCW conclusions were wrong. if you want to discuss that, it would be better placed at the NPOV noticeboard. TFD (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hear Up

Is https://thehearup.com/for-quality-ayurveda-products-manufacturing/9558/ a reliable source for "In 2018, USFDA products were launched in the USA." The claim made in the article: "The products prepared by KAL are known for their quality and efficiency, and that is why in the USA, the Ayurvedic preparations have been approved by the USFDA." seems to be the one used for that citation. Now, I'm pretty sure that that Ayurvedic products do not undergo FDA review. The FDA has said that "Most Ayurvedic products are marketed either for drug uses not approved by FDA or as dietary supplements. As such, consumers should understand that these products have not been approved by FDA before marketing."^[1]

References

^ https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/use-caution-ayurvedic-products. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Vexations (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't appear reliable. The publisher looks too much like a group blog that focuses on public relations and promotion. The specific reference looks like a press release. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

British Rail Class 322

Is this a reliable source for claiming these trains are now with Greater Anglia as @Maxopolitan: says? SK2242 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No. For a number of reasons: First instagram is rarely a reliable source except as primary by someone who owns the account. Eg "Here is a picture of my dog" captioning a picture of the account holder's dog. Secondly since we cant take the accompanying text as reliable, the train type is only identifiable to an absolute expert, but even then we dont know where the location is, when it was (to see if the paintjob is old or new) etc etc. So no, not reliable at all for a specific train being in use by a specific carrier on a specific line. In order for something posted on instagram to be reliable for that, I would want a)the instagrammer to be a recognised train expert, b)the station sign be visible, c)more obvious branding of the train company, d)some form of visible datestamp - although thats usually contained in the metadata. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SK2242, see WP:NOR. Guy (help!) 00:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. SK2242 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased article on Delhi riots 2020

This is a question for article talk, not this noticeboard. Please post there unless you have questions about the use of a particular source. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The article, Delhi riots 2020 is a highly biased article. It is an issue of India, but not a single reliable Indian source is used. Some selected sources are overwhelmingly used, and even in that, some articles are of selected people used repeatedly. Most of the article relies upon secondary and untrusted sources, who are staunch supporter of a particular ideology. The article even do not accord with the government resources and they not trust even police investigations and findings. The main accused, has now willingly admitted that he is the main culprit, but the article does not even have a separate section on it. The article not mentions even the links of the main accused with terrorist organisations, inspite of both have now admitted that they did this to harm the image of India, at the time when Trump visited India, and to project that this had happened because of government. Inspite the same media which are used as sources, now have been updated after the investigations, the article has not been updated, and seems to be used as a propaganda against the police and the government of India. The article is also biased towards a particular community and is dogmatically one sided. The article was several times edited by a number of people, but has been reverted for no reason. Now, the article have it that, it has been 'protected to save it from vandalism', and ironically had become a place for unrestricted vandalism. Even after that, the contributors to Wikipedia, who can edit that page, have several times edited the page, but is again and again reverted. That article should be given a concern. It clearly supports the separatists in India. The CAA protests was supported by many political parties, but not even a single national or state political party of Delhi is in the support of these or even acclaim this view. Even, the accused is outsted by the party, he once belonged (Tahir Hussain). It is one of the articles belonging to India, which are without any sensible reason, is in the support of separatists. But, this article not even provide a space for alternative views. I think, the page should be given a severe attention.Ashutosh Jha (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Dakingsman.com

Being pushed all over the place, including into medical articles, https://dakingsman.com/ Opinions? I cannot find an About page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

By more than one editor? Doug Weller talk 18:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a Nigeria focused content farm, not a reliable source for anything, if is being spammed then it should be added to the spam WP:BLACKLIST Hemiauchenia (talk)

Dakingsman.com

is currently only being used in Obafemi Awolowo and Don Jazzy, is saw that somebody was trying to put it into the dementia article as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's only because I deleted the rest yesterday (more than a dozen), and those two were added back ... yes, by more than one editor, but generally by an IP after Catherinefo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was twice warned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

mises.org.br

This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing.

This site is fake news about taxation in the East Timor. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:814B:F063:D273:9F33 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And instrumentalized by neonazi alt-right 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:D56E:FA60:F275:FB91 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

please block in the meta too.2804:14C:5BB3:A319:814B:F063:D273:9F33 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)(UTC)

Terrorist group anti-State. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:814B:F063:D273:9F33 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For those curious, this is the website of the pt:Instituto Mises Brasil a libertarian think tank in Brazil. It is not related to and separate from the US Mises Institute. It is currently used in only 3 articles per mises.org.br

. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Neo Nazi" claim the IP makes refers to Instituto Mises Brasil republication of texts by Christopher Cantwell who is notorious for his actions during the Unite the Right rally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notorious links with the media group linked to the Brazilian military dictatorship make the think tank even less credible. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:90B6:5552:26C6:8F72 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Think tanks are definitely not automatically WP:RSes. Some people have argued that they can never be reliable, while others have said that a few specific ones can earn WP:RS status (eg. the Brookings Institute), but this one definitely has not. It should be considered a personal webpage of no particular notability or reputation and therefore only citable for uncontroversial information about itself via WP:ABOUTSELF. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Page of Helio Beltrão. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:554D:E9B5:E539:884C (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

National Catholic Reporter

I don't see the National Catholic Reporter on the perennial sources list. Could we get a discussion going about it and add it? Here is a link to the National Catholic Reporter website and also the Wikipedia page. Could we get a discussion going and get them on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Prauls901 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Not all sources necessarily need to be on RSP. Usually it is useful for sources that are often contested. Do you have examples of talk page discussions where this page is contested? Do you have specific articles from the source and specific details you want to add to a wikipedia article that you think might be in question? Not everything needs an RSN discussion, and it seems like there hasn't been a very good specific reason to have a discussion about this source. Oh! On the other hand, this source has been used 1000+ times, so maybe there's a point. Do you have any specific examples of use that might serve to start this conversation, Prauls901? Jlevi (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

american-rails.com

This home page is used extensively as a source for railroad related contents in numerous articles. The source lists some sources in a separate area, but they don't specifically show the source for each area of the contents and a lot of original research by the webmaster based on his reading, people he knows and such and the contents have not been published through a publishing house. Is this website appropriate for WP:DUE weight consideration as well as factual accuracy?

Several example from numerous articles in which this source is used:

Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Mackensen: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the site and I'm skeptical of it as a source. The proprietor is Adam Burns. I don't know the name and I'm not aware of him having published anything on railroading. I do recognize several of the names on the resources page. Drew Jacksich and Marty Bernard are recognized and prolific railfan photographers. Flanary has published on locomotives; in my index I see several articles in Trains. The rest I don't recognize, though that doesn't mean anything. The book list is a lengthy and reasonable one, though it tilts toward railfanning or "enthusiast" sources. These are acceptable on Wikipedia, but we prefer that an article not depend on them. I'm surprised at the absence of Albert Churella's monumental history of the Pennsylvania Railroad, but in fairness, it's new, heavy, and expensive. I think almost all of the sources he lists are in use on Wikipedia; I personally own or have access to many of them. On the main question of whether Adam Burns would qualify under WP:SPS as a recognized expert, I think the answer is probably no, absent some new information. I do think the site is a reasonable external link, given that the articles on the class I railroads include photos, maps, and rosters, which are of interest to readers but may not be appropriate for inclusion here. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I could start a new section although could you comment on altoonaworks.info by LR Myers since it's a similar situation? Whenever a fan (rail, game, car, whatever) do their own research from primary source and host it on their website; and another rail fan type cites that personal page to use on Wikipedia, this creates a huge due weight issue, because these personal sites are by rail fans for rail fans and falls into a fancruft territory and likely would be excessively arduous details. Graywalls (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be in its own section. It's an entirely different type of site. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?

There’s a discussion that RSNB editors may be interested in at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?

The only sources in the long section on Darwin in Scientific racism (other than direct quotes from Darwin) are talkorigins.org and rationalrevolution.net. A 2016 RfC on TalkOrigins [47] concluded that its reliability is good for defending evolution against creationists, but otherwise needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm asking about whether these two sources are reliable for saying that Darwin's views on race were not racist.

The section Scientific racism#Charles Darwin is being discussed at Talk:Scientific racism#Section on Darwin.

Can my question be resolved quickly, or should I start an RfC? NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive is a very reputable source for dealing with creationist claims, which is the use being made Scientific racism#Charles Darwin. For some reason, NightHeron seems reluctant to look for equally good sources for non-creationist claims about Darwin, and instead appears to be proposing original research based on direct quotes from Darwin. That's not good. The TalkOrigins Archive articles give a useful pointer to other potential sources, as I've just pointed out. This argument can be resolved quickly by either following up these and other sources, of by confining the section to the creationist claims alleging Darwin was racist, until such time as reliable independent sources are provided for other commentary on Darwin's views on race. . . dave souza, talk 12:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza is wrong - I did not make or propose any OR-edits to the article. The only edit I've made to the section on Darwin was a single revert of dave souza's edit. The problem I raised with dave souza's edit is that it gives WP:UNDUE attention to the creationists' claims and misconstrues the source by selectively quoting from it to suggest that Darwin did not have racist ideas. But another passage (not quoted by dave souza) in the source says Even if we hold that Darwin was a racist (by our present-day lights), what of it? Would that invalidate modern evolutionary theory? The source does not claim to have disproved that Darwin held some racist beliefs. Rather, what the source refutes is the creationists' claim that modern evolutionary theory is racist. The dispute between creationists and scientists over evolution is not what the article Scientific racism is about, and so it seems to me that the extensive use of that source is WP:UNDUE.

I'll be glad to edit the section, trimming it down and using different sources, but before removing the material sourced to TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution, I'd like to have other editors' opinions on whether or not those two sources are RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TalkOrigins is reliable. Rationalrevolution.net looks to be some random person's website, but its use in that section appears redundant anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ NightHeron, the sentence you've now quoted as a talk quote is one you cut bits out of, and in my reply I quoted it in full, in context, and to be helpful with an archived copy of the source cited in ToA link [5] which you've trimmed out of the sentence. The ToA article says before that sentence that "Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist", and it's a "what if that was untrue" statement, not a concession. It's wrong to remove the mainstream response to common creationist quoting out of context repeated in the article, and I see no reason to exclude from the article the fact that creationists make these claims, or to word it in a way that belittles TalkOrigins Archive. Your revert mangled the sourcing, at a time when I was in the process of making improvements. This looks like a rush to forum-shopping, rather than taking reasonable time to discuss improvements on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely there are academic sources which discuss this question? (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, while TalkOrigins Archive is good for creationist claims, it also gives references leading to academic sources and I've suggested a couple on the article talk page. A paper presented at an Interdisciplinary Conference at Princeton University is at least helpful, and Robert Bannister's book published by Temple University Press is good but not readily accessible online, except as a user-uploaded transcription from EPDF.PUB so I'm cautious about that. There are of course other academic sources, it's a complex topic. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, TalkOrigins is not the best source, and the changes made by NightHeron (which rely on better sourcing) is an improvement. I also agree that direct citation of Darwin should be significantly reduced. However, the older version explain better the actual views by Darwin about it in proper biological context/terms. I restored a couple of relevant para from the older version. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks. But can you improve the sourcing on the part you added? Right now it's sourced only to Darwin's words and to a website that is (I think) less RS than TalkOrigins. To avoid OR, the interpretation of Darwin's words needs a better source. Also, the words of the Jackson-Weidman textbook shouldn't be shortened to give the incorrect impression that they didn't see any racist ideas in Darwin; the full quotation I used makes their evaluation clearer. NightHeron (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but "he did think that there were distinct races that could be ranked in a hierarchy". The meaning is not obvious at all. Is it something about racial superiority, or is it about hierarchic classification in taxonomy? My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What's unclear? The Jackson-Weidman book is a textbook intended for classroom use by undergraduates, and they write quite clearly. If a student isn't sure what hierarchy means, they can check in dictionary.com and find that definition 1 is any system of persons or things ranked one above another. What's in the current version, by eliminating the qualifier confirmed and removing the but part, completely reverses the sense of the whole sentence — "He was not a confirmed racist — he was a staunch abolitionist, for example — but he did think that there were distinct races that could be ranked in a hierarchy." On the same page in the next paragraph the authors say Darwin admitted that the gap in intelligence and moral sense between civilized people and the animals was a great one. But one could look to the lower races to fill that gap. They're discussing The Descent of Man, in which the last sentence of Darwin's long passage in the article's earlier version states that Black people are in a gap between Caucasians and apes. (Jackson-Weidman don't specifically quote from Darwin, so I don't know if that passage is what they have in mind.) Jackson-Weidman are clearly not saying that Darwin did not have racist ideas. NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The textbook may be great, but the meaning of this specific quotation was not clear, at least for me. Using modern terminology, one could reasonably say there was a certain historical hierarchy of different ethnic groups, meaning some of them were newer in light of the Recent African origin of modern humans. That would not be a "scientific racism". My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In the context of the whole sentence the meaning is clear. Darwin's belief in a hierarchy of races is mentioned in the but clause. That is, it comes after "He was not a confirmed racist" — BUT he thought that races could be ranked from more civilized to less civilized. The sentence is not talking about older vs newer ethnic groups. NightHeron (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As ToA discusses, he ranked human civilisation in a social hierarchy rather than biological, so questionable if it's racism and his views changed over time. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, as noted on the article talk page I think there should be a shift from Darwin's views on race to the influence he had on the debates of the time and on his followers. He wrote so much as his way of evaluating the work of others that it's easy to find racist ideas, so there's probably a need for more sources for a nuanced evaluation. Anyway, as a frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality,[48] it's time for bed. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin

I came across a discussion at Talk:David_S._Rohde#Michelle_Malkin_blog where another contributor referred to Michelle Malkin as merely the author of a "self published blog".

I looked to see if a discussion here had ever occurred as to when, if ever, her writing merited being used as a reliable source. Her name came up in five archived discussions here - but always in passing. None of those discussions was actually about her reliability.

My opinion, prior to looking into this, had been that Malkin was one of those American full-time professional columnists, who was far to the right in American politics, whose opinion, nevertheless, had the respect, or at least the grudging respect, of most of her peers, and thus would generally merit being considered acceptable as an RS.

Since then I saw that she seems to have agreed to have the Unz Review, published by Ron Unz, serve as the archive for some or all of her older articles. Our article on him says he is allied with holocaust deniers. Well that erodes his credibility, and by extension, Malkin's credibility.

If a discussion here concludes her opinion pieces generally shouldn't be used as RS then how should the dozens of links to Michellemalkin.com from article space be dealt with?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuked, just like an equivalent left-wing blog, such as The Grayzone. (t · c) buidhe 12:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Our article on him says he is allied with holocaust deniers." So is Malkin herself. "In 2020, Malkin faced criticism for speaking at a conference hosted by far-right YouTuber Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey, head of the neo-Nazi organization known as the American Identity Movement (formerly Identity Evropa). At the conference, Malkin said it was "not anti-semitic" to question "whatever the precise number of people is who perished in World War II." Malkin was dropped by the conservative YAF organization for her support of Fuentes, who has also denied the Holocaust. " Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

fallingrain.com

fallingrain.com

There are nearly 6,000 articles that use fallingrain.com, but I am not convinced it is reliable. What do people think? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also skeptical since the website doesn't have much info on how it gets its content. However, it is UBO: CRC press [49], Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy [50], UN, UC Davis, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization [51], Harvard, and probably more. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I clicked the credits link at the bottom of one of their city pages and found details about their datasources here. It pulls from Geonet, Openstreetmap, Digital Chart of the World, National Weather Service/NOAA, and YouTube (?). So some open source content. Seems to be used in articles mostly for coords and latitude (just a spot check, could be totally off). From their main page, the site seems to be focused on the technical challenge of data scraping. The bulk of the information seems to come from GEOnet Names Server. As ugly as the fallingrain.com interface is, it's more usable than GEOnet and is easily citable, whereas getting the information directly from GEOnet gives me a bunch of pop-ups and no way to link someone else to them that I can figure out. I think GEOnet is reliable, and this just seems to be an alternative interface into a subset of its data, so I think it would be reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lists of Bests website (URL pre-2017)

Questionable source link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110927140142/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/23429-movies-banned-in-malaysia?page=2

I came upon a questionable source which were heavily relied and used in one of the Wikipedia article, List of films banned in Malaysia. The lists were very questionable because almost every listing were uses the same source, yet I discovered that some films are actually not banned in Malaysia yet (example: The Dark Knight: [52], Watchmen: [53], they actually had screened in Malaysia before without any ban). The source itself is only accessible via Website Archive as the Lists of Bests website has been defunct long time ago (currently the same URL hosts an unrelated Estonian language website) and inside the website it says This is a community list. You can contribute, edit, or help maintain it by adding it to your lists. which means the website itself is actually a user-generated content instead and not the expertise website, as such it is likely not a reliable sources. Should I need to remove the whole list from the article in Wikipedia where it cite the questionable sources? WPSamson (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"unreliable sources" vs. common sense

Moved from WT:RSP

People seem to think that unsourced content is preferable to content from an "unreliable source" and that unreliable sources are sufficiently toxic to spoil an article by way of even being mentioned in a comment in the source text - invisible to the reader.

I would want to suggest

clarifying that a "bad source" is better than "no source" and
maybe establishing a rule that uncontroversial content from a "bad source" may be added if it is clearly marked as "alleged", "unreliable", "controversial", "doubtful", etc..

All this is probably already encompassed by the rule: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

I am in no way endorsing the use of "The Sun" as a source. I am simply opposed to removing content which does not seem controversial. And if the content is admitted, then obviously the source should also be stated. Clearly marking the source as "unreliable" should be sufficient. Everybody is thus free to form his own opinion on the matter.

Some of this had already been stated by JohnHarris here.

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest not using deprecated sources like The Sun - sources so bad that they should basically not be used for anything.

The correct answer to "but what if I just use the deprecated source this way" is pretty much always "don't do that".

Do you literally not have any reliable sources at all for the stuff you want to put into the article, and the only source you can find is deprecated? Perhaps it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article - 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

David, your first action was to delete the source, but to leave the content!

How can it be better to have (possibly unreliable) content from an unknown source than (as yet actually unchallenged) content from a (possibly unreliable) source ?

Next you reverted the edit where I had clearly marked the source as "unreliable"?

Since then you have been deleting every mention of "The Sun" without regard of context and even visibility.

I really don't know what to say ..

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Depending on the article type and the nature of the source (if it simply unreliable or if it deprecated or if it is to avoid at all costs like the Daily Mail...), there are different steps that should be done. The default should be to try to retain the source but mark it in a manner to find a better source, but this should only be done when the current source is merely unreliable and the content is not BLP related or is not seen as contestable, so that editors can see what the original source said and look to find a better source. As soon as you move away from either of those points, its probably better to remove the source outright and leave a CN instead. The only thing that would be nice in those cases that unless we're taking the BLP and/or Daily Mail cases, where the source absolutely cannot be used, that commenting out the source and leaving a CN behind is more helpful to allow again for editors to find a replacement based on reviewing the original source article and not what a WPian interpreted from that. --Masem (t) 16:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No source is always better than a bad source, because 1) you can just put a good source in there instead and 2) if there are no other sources than bad sources, then the information in question should not be in the article at all. Furthermore, if you suspect that good sources should exist, but you cannot find them, that is what the ((cn)) tag is for. It allows us to flag statements for people who are better at finding good sources to do so. A bad source would give a false impression of sufficiency. Your options are a) provide a good source b) remove the information or c) tag it so someone else can do it. Under no circumstances is it useful for you to leave the information tagged with a bad source. --Jayron 32 18:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
KaiKemmann, a ((cn)) tag is more likely to be fixed than any tag identifying a source as unreliable - even WorldNetDaily or InfoWars. You are free to remove the unsourced content or replace the ((cn)) with a reliable source, but in the end, content with no source is better because the fact of the source being unreliable means the content needs verifying, and a crappy source provides superficial referenciness that bolsters the credibility of the statement. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
There is always Template:Unreliable source? with which you can tag a suspected unreliable source without deleting it. Perhaps that's a middle ground between the two scenarios you are mentioning (deleting citation while leaving unsourced content versus keeping the unreliable source 'just in case'). I agree with Guy/JzG that leaving behind an unreliable citation (especially without tagging it in some way) lends credibility to the suspect content, and that poor content should not remain in Wikipedia. As an editor, sometimes you just want to get that unreliable citation out of there and you don't have time to fully read the content and modify it as you should, and so you just yank the citation. I get that. It's not ideal, but there are several options an editor has, and he's not forced to fully research and re-write a segment just because some other editor used a poor/unreliable citation. Normal Op (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I concur with JzG, I add sources all the time and am much more likely to fix a citation needed tag than to engage in (likely) drama over a contested/poor source. Better to remove a poor source and tag for a new one. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
We had such discussions before (eg. in 2019: [54]). I know I´m in a minority here, but I will reapeat, what I wrote back then: Having bad (even garbage) source is better than no source at all. Simply tag the source as unreliable (or use better source template).

Policy based reasons:In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. (from WP:RS guideline) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. (from WP:V policy). Pavlor (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, yes, you said it. But this is about deprecated sources, which are deprecated only because they have a history of misleading content. In these cases the unreliable source adds weight to a statement that may be bollocks (such as one of the Mail's fabricated quotes). A ((cn)) is a bigger and more compelling red flag than ((dubious)). Guy (help! - typo?) 13:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Then why not remove such content altogether? It is worthless without a source of origin. Casual reader would not know true sense of our tags anyway taking unsourced text as something true which only needs an additional reference (from my own experience with my friends and family). Pavlor (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"uncontroversial content" That would require decisions on whether the content is controversial or not. Based on what information? "if it is clearly marked as "alleged", "unreliable", "controversial", "doubtful", etc.. " Such language should reflect what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Or else we risk reflecting our editors' POV in article space. "Alleged" in particular is highlighted in Expressions of doubt as having the implication "that a given point is inaccurate". Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My preference is that people used the ((unreliable source?)) template when they came across a source that is of questionable quality. The template alerts the reader that 'hey wait' this content might not be true: 'heads up look at the source we're not sure its good'. Similarly, the tag alerts a potential editor that 'hey look' let's make Wikipedia better and find a better source: 'here's the low quality source, try and use it to find something better'. If people are adamant about removing poor sources on first sight, then I would recommend using ((cn)) and hiding the source with <!– ... --> from the main space. This allows the interested editor to see the poor source and figure out how to go from there to find something better. If this method isn't used, then the only option that the editor has to discover what the bad source was is to waste excessive time searching through the edit history. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
"Questionable quality" is different from "Known bad quality". Where a source is not just questionable, but beyond-a-question shit, we should remove the source. Every time and twice on Sundays. If it is just questionable, yeah, tag it. But where we know the source is bad, to leave it behind implies an endorsement of it, which is not good. --Jayron 32 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to explain (although I don't know what BLP is).

Seconding Guest2625: ((cn)) and Template:Unreliable source? should be used by all means. They are absolutely very useful and I do not understand why the majority of the contributors of the German Wikipedia for example voted against this system of marking doubtful content.

But my/our concern really is: How can I judge dubious content if the source is removed?

If I come across a ((cn)) tag I generally tend to believe the content is true albeit apparently noone has taken the time yet to enter the appropriate source. Going by the "no source is better than a bad source" doctrine, wouldn't this allow me to remove any mention of an extremist organisation quoted as a source (for they are generally likely to be 'unreliable') but leave the extremist content in the article (as long as it is tagged 'citation needed')?

Do I not absolutely need to know the source to judge the degree to which the content is unreliable, as there is an extremely wide span ranging from 'sometimes unprecise or awkward in wording' to 'clearly fictional/ racist/ strongly biased ..'?

With or without the ((cn)) tag, I do not see why additionally stating that the content originated from "source x, which is judged generally unreliable" would make the content appear more reliable.

Going back to our example: If the 'possibly dubious' content originated from a source associated with one of the suspects involved in the murder case then this would obviously make the information much more biased than any content from a nationwide newspaper is likely to be (which may be politically biased or follow purely economical interests but that is obviously another matter).

Again I quote JohnHarris (not mainly because he referring to The Sun specifically but also for the more general implications regarding many kinds of shady sources): "May I offer an observation in passing, being British? The Sun and Daily Mail undoubtedly lie on occasion, deliberately, in exchange for circulation boosts. So does a lot of British journalism. Circulation is a powerful incentive when the consequence is trivial and far in the future. They also, and in the main, report factually when they're not making it up for scandalous effect. It's a matter of judgment whether a given report is truthful news or not. Flagging up disputed source is fair enough as a warning but it doesn't mean a report is false. You can be pretty certain it will be biased, which is another matter, but it may well be factual. Flagging sources as biased would cover far too high a proportion of citations on Wikipedia, the bar has to be higher than mere predictable repetitive bias which would necessarily include stalwart factual newspapers of record like the Guardian as well as the tabloid trash - and I say that as a Guardian subscriber."

To summarize: I really do not see what harm there is in "commenting out" the source AND marking it as "unreliable" in order to allow other editors to judge the original source. I do regret that I failed to leave the ((cn)) tag in, which was added by David. Usually working on the German Wikipedia I wasn't very familiar with all of its specific functions and I apologize for being ignorant about it.

@Dimadick: Please explain or give an example of what you mean by "Such language should reflect what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Or else we risk reflecting our editors' POV in article space. "Alleged" in particular is highlighted in Expressions of doubt as having the implication "that a given point is inaccurate"."
Why should information of a reliable source be qualified as "alleged"?

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Doubts of a story's veracity should reflect such doubts in the sources, and not our personal opinion on the story. How would you suggest stopping editors from adding "alleged" to articles to express their own beliefs? Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

((unreliable source?)) or ((deprecated source)) don't work in practice - nobody fixes anything. ((cn)) works much more often to gets a better source in. My source on this: having removed tens of thousands of uses of deprecated sources, i.e. sources that shouldn't be used on Wikipedia at all - US or DS tags linger forever, CN has a chance at some action happening - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And this is exactly what troubles me. You are removing tens of thousands of sources on autopilot, often (or usually?) without much consideration of context and circumstances.

Deleting the source and leaving the content will leave people guessing where the content originated from and deprives us of the possibility to properly judge the validity of the statement and the reliability of the source.

Deleting the source and the content means removing information which is correct in most cases, because it is likely to be incorrect in (very) few cases.

Again I would ask you to place the ((cn)) and either mark the original sources as "unreliable" or comment the source out. Or make both invisible, sources and content, instead of plainly removing everything.

Give other editors a chance to examine and improve suboptimal sources and content instead of obscuring the origin and causing much "collateral" damage by removing mostly valid information alongside minor amounts of actually doubtful content.

thank you,

KaiKemmann (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You are removing tens of thousands of sources on autopilot This claim is false. However, I am assuming it's a source that shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, per not one but two general RFCs to this effect.

I am treating this as a long-neglected cleanup task of sourcing that absolutely shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and that is worse than nothing at all.

Other editors had years to act on the "unreliable?" tags and they didn't.

So what you're asking for is that a deprecated source not be removed from Wikipedia. However, it remains that they should be - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

KaiKemmann, some sources are deprecated because they are unreliable; WP:RS demands that such sources are not used.

Some people demand that the content be removed with the source.
Some people demand that the content be left and tagged as ((cn)).
Some people demand that the unreliable source be left.

These three are mutually exclusive. Only one is forbidden by policy: leaving an unreliable source in place. Your options are therefore to remove the content or to add a reliable source, since reasonable people differ on which of those is better. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I second the use of common sense when removing lower quality sources. RS doesn't say "a low quality source should never be used". It says we should balance the reliability of the source against the claim being supported. An uncontroversial fact supported by a low quality source should still be acceptable. The dogmatic removal of sources without considering if they are sufficient for the claim in question is a problem and isn't something that makes for a better article. Springee (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A deprecated source is presumed unreliable under almost any circumstances, and should not be used on Wikipedia. Removing deprecated sources is almost never incorrect. This follows from Wikipedia policies and strongly followed guidelines. As you'd know from previous discussions of this precise point that you directly participated in - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say deprecated sources. While I think you raise on of the issues with effectively banning deprecated sources for everything but ABOUTSELF applications, I was thinking of low reliability sites dealing with non-controversial claims. For example take an article on Formula Ford racecars. The current section is limited on technical detail that might be of interest to some readers. They might be interested to know that the Hewland Mk8-9 and LD200 gearboxes were both used in these cars. This is not a controversial claim nor is it one that is likely to get a lot of coverage in our more traditional sources. It might exist in a book like Anatomy of a Formula Ford Race Car but it's as likely to only exist on various privately created sites. I would consider The Kent Lives [[55]] to be WP:RS compliant for such a claim. I understand that some editors will say such information isn't DUE since it hasn't been published in a RS. My counter argument to that is we have to weigh DUE with respect to other published information. US Formula Ford technical specifications are a rather narrow topic (but also one that a source like Wikipedia is particularly good at capturing. Few readers will find such detail interesting but some will and given the uncontroversial nature of the claim I think this is a great example where such information should be retained rather than removed. Springee (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say deprecated sources This is literally a thread about deprecated source removal - if you want to talk about another subject, you can make a thread for that - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be: What do we do when potentially accurate information is supported by an unreliable (or even deprecated) source? Wikipedia has two answers to this question, depending on what the statement is about:

If the potentially accurate statement is Biographical information about a Living Person/people (BLP), we err on the side of caution and remove the statement along with with the unreliable source. We are intentionally overly STRICT about this.
If the potentially accurate statement is NOT about Living Person/people, we err in the other direction... we remove the source, but retain the statement (and either replace the source ourselves, or tag it so someone else will know that the statement needs to be supported).

If on the other hand, we think that the statement is not only poorly sourced, BUT ALSO inaccurate... we should remove both. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Again many thanks to everyone trying to explain the current policy which seems quite different from the way these issues are handled in the German Wikipedia that I am more familiar with.

You have made it sufficiently clear that sources considered unreliable may not be mentioned under any circumstances.

But what about the case where I would want to illustrate the way a particular news issue was reported in "the media" or "the yellow press". Would I then also have to exclude "The Sun" from the recital?

Also I feel that "citation needed" may not be strong enough to mark content from a source considered so toxic that it may never be mentioned in the article. Shouldn't such content generally be flagged more explicitly by using the beforementioned Template:Unreliable source? or something similar?

Lastly I would propose to define "hiding the source by commenting it out" as being equal to the required "removal of the source". After all there is no visible difference to the reader (and hence really no danger of "endorsing" the source in any way).

But leaving the original source as a note to future editors will in many cases make it much easier for them to find better sources based on the information, cross references and context in the original source. Also -as mentioned before- judging the validity of the remaining content can a time-consuming process if the original source was removed a long time ago and might require a lot of digging around the edit history to uncover.

Maybe David could give us an idea for how many of the tens of thousands of instances of unreliable unsourced content remaining/ resulting from his edits he did then add better sources afterwards.

Insofar David claims that the ((cn)) tags he uses to "replace" the sources attract other editors which then take on the laborious work of finding and entering new and better sources it would be interesting to know how much of the now unsourced content has been provided with new sources, say within a year. I suspect it will be a percentage in the low single digits, possibly as low as one or two percent ..?

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Buckby‎

Is this [[56]] an RS for the claim Mr Buckby‎ is no longer far right (sources for him being far right [[57]],[[58]])?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hindu

There is a thorough consensus that The Hindu is a reliable source, and per the original question should be treated as a newspaper of record. ——Serial 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticisms of India's journalistic standards, and particularly its English-language journalistic standards are pretty widespread within Indian discourse, I wouldn't write this off as racism. [59], [60]. There was a pretty big scandal about a decade ago relating to major newspapers engaging in paid news, to the point that we even have an article about it, Paid news in India. The Hindu, at least as of a few years ago, was actually one of the only English language news publications in India to regularly publish corrections, a practice that we generally consider as a bare minimum for reliability, making it one of the more reliable Indian publications. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current discussion reminded of yet another instance when The Hindu fell for a WP hoax. To start with, Ror is a caste and Sagwal is one of its clan. There used to be an Indian volleyball player named Balwant Singh (aka Ballu). On 10 March 2008, User:Rorkadian created that player's unsourced BLP with a made-up/unsourced surname and Ror-related details: [61]. You won't find any prior mention of "Balwant Singh Sagwal" (or his Ror connection) in any reliable source. The user subsequently added a couple of sources and the article looked like this. Obviously, neither of the cited sources mentions "Sagwal" or "Ror" anywhere: [62] & [63]. The player died on 14 November 2010, and The Hindu copied the made-up surname twice that year: first time two days after his death [see here (archive link: [64])] and the second time in December 2010 (see here). The only other instance of mirroring of the surname by a reliable source is in this article of Mathrubhumi News, although we are hosting the made-up surname since 2008.

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

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

@Normal Op: Most of The Hindu's American news that you see in Google searches comes from print syndicates. For example, three of their most recent international news reports are syndicated articles from Reuters ([65],[66],[67]). Nevertheless, being earthlings, wouldn't Indians want to read some non-Indian earthly news?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further this N. Ravi, the new editor-in-chief, said that the “news desk was given standing instructions not to take any stories on Narendra Modi on page one. The Hindu has always been anti-Hindutva, but it was always kept out of our news judgement” Ram said “no difference was maintained between news stories and editorial pieces". Ravi also raised other charges and accused Ram for blacking out or downplaying any news that is less than complimentary to the Chinese Communist regime and termed it as “pro-China tilt” .“And contrary to the practice in any mainline newspaper, the editor-inchief indulging in an unceasing self-glorification campaign, publishing his own ribbon cutting pictures and reports of his activities and speeches with a regularity that would put corporate house journals to shame,” he added.^[1]^[2]27.5.71.199 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

N. Ram said “no difference was maintained between news stories and editorial pieces". Fowler&fowler is wrong The Hindu during Indian Emergency" Hindu’s editor G. Kasturi"" became a part of the establishment. He headed Samachar, the news agency that was formed after the merger of PTI, UNI and Hindustan Samachar. He obeyed the government diktat on how to purvey a particular story or suppress it." He could not withstand government pressure.The Hindu editorial policy was self censored in favour of Emergency.Whereas The Times of India or The Statesman never did it Again during the Bofors scandal G. Kasturi told N.Ram not to publish Bofors articles in The Hindu and changed editorial policy for poltical reasons ^[3]^[4] N.Murali states Hindu's rich tradition of credibility, objectivity,balance and editorial primacy had of late been compromised. ^[5]^[6]

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

There is clear Chinese Communist regime and termed it as “pro-China tilt” or Pro Sri Lanka tilt and backingAndimuthu Raja [[.^[7]60.243.14.89 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

^ "Siddharth Varadarajan quits The Hindu; family rift resurfaces". Vidhi Choudhary. LiveMint. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
^ "The Hindu editor-in-chief, N Ram's brother, N Ravi says he has turned the newspaper into an apologist for A Raja". The Economic Times. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
^ "The Hindu associate editor N. Ram and editor G. Kasturi tussle". India Today. 15 November 1989. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
^ "'Hindu and HT were worst offenders in 1975'". KULDIP NAYAR. India journal. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
^ "N Murali: Double standards on display at Hindu". The Times of India. 1 September 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
^ "N. Murali: 'Hindu' is run like a 'banana republic'". Indian journalism Review. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
^ "The Hindu: Board Room Becomes Battlefield". Forbes. Retrieved 8 August 2020.

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

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

Guinness World Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Station X

Over on Hades (video game), an IP editor has been inserting a claim that certain characters in the video game are LGBT+. While the claims are supported in-game, I am questioning if the source from which this information was taken from and cited, J Station X, is considered reliable. The "About" page mentions that the site was founded in 2010 by one person, Jasmine Henry, and that [o]ver the years, J Station X has evolved from just an echo chamber of video game content and now focuses on bringing [readers] news, previews and reviews about games that are inclusive of people of all identities.^[1] Emphasis in original. There do not seem to be any other people managing or contributing to this site except for a graphic designer named Sophie. The generated content appears to be written professionally, but the solitary contributor makes it seem more like a blog. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://jstationx.com/about/

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

Lynching of Wilbur Little

There's been disagreement over the quality of certain sources used in Lynching of Wilbur Little#A different victim, a different crime. Most specifically, is "The meanest little town…". earlycountynews.com. a reliable source to establish facts about Little's death? My view is that this is an editorial which makes unsupported statements about an event which happened 96 years prior. Gulbenk believes it is a WP:RS, and uses it to support the theory that Wilbur Little's lynching never occurred. See discussion at Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

For controversial issues I think that major established papers are better sources than small county newspapers. I'm sure a lynching has had writeups in more substantial publications. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's comment is on point. I would go farther than them and say I wouldn't use an editorial in a minor newspaper to support any claim about historical fact. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WhisperToMe and Buidhe It should be pointed out that the Chicago Defender is the original source for this information. All others (with the exception of a paper by a history professor at FSU) are simply repeating the charges initially published in the Chicago Defender. The Defender did not print the Wilbur Little story based on their own information. Their April 5, 1919 article carries an attribution to a wire service. Except no one has ever found that wire service news item, and no other publication in the United States carried the sensational story, on April 5, 1919, of a black soldier lynched because he refused to take off his uniform. Not one other newspaper, black or white, mentions the story when it was supposedly on the wire for all to see. We do have two publications, the black newspaper (Emancipator), just a few miles away from the scene of the supposed lynching, and the Atlanta Constitution, which print a story (just coincidentally on that very same day - April 5th) about a black soldier who was killed in a robbery and (again, just coincidentally) dumped in the same Georgia community as the supposed lynching. Finally we have the Early County News (ECN), which user RoySmith would like to suppress. That publication is the only onsite reporting we have. It carries information which is confirmed by both the Emancipator and the Atlanta Constitution regarding the murder of the black soldier/taxicab driver. It's statements regarding the non-lynching are supported by an investigator sent to the scene by the NAACP (who recommended that the organization drop their allegation of a lynching). The ECN has not been shown, at any point, to have printed a falsehood about this event (unlike some of the "reliable" sources cited elsewhere in our article). The ECN is the legal organ for Early County, it is a reliable source for our encyclopedia. Suppression of this source is simply wrong in every sense, if one honors truth and the expression of opposing views. Oh, and that FSU history professor? He states that on occasion, when information was lacking, papers like the Defender "imagined" (that is to say made up) details to fill in stories. If we look at reliable sources, perhaps we should reconsider listing the Defender as reliable. Gulbenk (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: Do you have references for some of these details? It would be good to link to them within your statement, especially the "imagined" detail. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Absolutely. I'll get that FSU dissertation reference to you momentarily. Let me know all the other statements you want backup on. Gulbenk (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User WhisperToMe, here it is. "imagining" reference & NAACP Investigation Pages 139, at the top of the Wilbur Little discussion. "Discrepancies and a Lack of Information" and page 140 respectively. [68] Gulbenk (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Emancipator - April 5, 1919 issue [69]

The Atlanta Constitution - April 5, 1919 (page 9) [70]

The Early County News - May 15, 1919 [71]

The Early County News - March 25, 2015 [72]

China Daily

As far as I can tell a discussion of China Daily has never come up before on this noticeboard. China Daily is yet another state-owned chinese publication, owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Despite its relative obscurity in comparison to Xinhua or Global Times, we have an awful lot of citations to it, over 5,500 in fact per chinadaily.com.cn , significantly more than we have for the People's Daily (which is less than 900 per people.cn ). Where do we think its reliablity among state chinese publications falls if Xinhua is the gold standard? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If Xinhua is the gold standard and Global Times is the shit-tier standard then China Daily hovers a little above Global Times. One difference between China Daily and some of the other Chinese media is that its unambiguously propaganda and there is no obfuscation of ownership or role, it is explicitly part of the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China. I do not consider them to be generally reliable and would vote to deprecate them if such a chance ever presented itself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: @Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind pre-emptive RFCs on this, on CCTV/CTGN, and on the HK newspaper Ta Kung Pao (sister publication of Wen Wei Po). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  See below for the RfC on China Global Television Network. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: If you're interested in a Ta Kung Pao RFC please do one WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Basically per Horse Eye Jack: China Daily, like Global Times, is straight propaganda, though China Daily is written with a higher standard of language. Their reliability should be comparable. feminist (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think this should be added on the perennial sources list too, so a formal RFC would be desirable. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
An RfC is not required to add to the list. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Ok! In that case, if this is OK: Whatever the result of this page is should be listed. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Would the following be usable as sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose / generally reliable. They should be listed as generally reliable or, at worst, yellow "reliable, but requires inline citations for controversial statements" instead per Gleeanon409; the previous discussion was improperly decided and didn't get enough people weighing in. Issuing two retractions (which seems to have been the only reason it was categorized as red) is a sign of reliability, not unreliability, provided it is done promptly and isn't part of a larger pattern of problems. Obviously this is a WP:BIASED source, but there's no real indication that this gives them chronic reliability problems. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Lots of helpful comments above; I support the new language proposed by Guy. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree it is generally reliable. Would it be better to instead of singling out specific examples (sexuality and homophobia), to be more general with something like "Care should be taken when using it for BLPs"? Or perhaps to add that to the specific cases? CMD (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment: In addition to Armadillopteryx leaving this alert at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and alerting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, I alerted Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I concur with Chipmunkdavis‘ wording. LGBTQ media are usually experts in reporting on sexuality and gender matters, in practice I see them correctly attributing to the original source. And rarely are they alone in reporting this type of information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose; generally reliable but use caution; see my comment earlier. Sceptre (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Mostly agreed but opinions in the source may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles. Unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality other than direct quotes. Particularly useful for interviews, or basic facts that are not covered by other sources, but not for establishing significance, or for speculation of any kind. Use prose attribution where contentious. — Bilorv (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
(Comment duplicated below in RfC.) — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. works for me, and would also agree with "may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable, per Guy Macon. That said, to some extent, "is this persoon homophobic/transphobic" is always going to be subjective (with the obvious caveat that in spectrums, there's going to be cases 99% of reasonable people will agree are examples). Generally speaking, "Pink News stated that X's statement on transgender people was transphobic" is always going to be more encyclopedic than "X is transphobic." We can state things in Wikipeda's voice sometimes - Anita Bryant was very openly an anti-gay rights activist. But we have levels we can go through, and one single, newspaper source saying it is NOT going to reach "in Wikipedia's voice" level, whether it's Pink News or The Times; newspapers aren't scholarly works. it'd be a WP:RSOPINION situation. While it might be worth reminding people of that, it's not really any different than not quoting The Telegraph's opinion of Labour in Wikipedia's voice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This is not a news site, it's an extremely partisan and often hysterical and inflammatory commentary site with a lengthy track record of being forced to apologise for defamatory falsehoods eg https://www.thegayuk.com/pink-news-apologies-to-mp-and-makes-a-donation-to-charity-as-compensation/
- That demonstrates they do correct mistakes. Any evidence of this lengthy record though? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Support. I do not think they would fabricate quotes, and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. And they're not going to blatantly lie about something non-controversial and easily fact-checked. But they do not appear to be encyclopedically reliable for assements of people's sexuality-related views, and similar matters. They're like any other opinion-laden web-zine. Probably entirely reliable for interview material, but a weak source at best for other things, and a poor source for matters in which they are rantily, socio-politically involved. I'm not opposed to other formulations proposed above, as long they resolve to about the same level of caution. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
oppose. A "news" site that does not unconditionally commit to unbiased reporting should only be used in a most restricted way. "Fabrication" of quotes is too narrow a focus. Even without fabrication, the framing and selection (!) of quotes can introduce massive biases. If my editorial policy does not strictly guards against that, one is not sufficiently reliable. It is an activist news site meant to convey a POV. --Trinitrix (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC?

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

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

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

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

RfC: PinkNews

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.

(non-admin closure) There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Several editors mentioned clickbait and opinion content, and suggested that editorial discretion has to be used when citing this source. Several editors cited the PinkNews's editorial policy and reputation for making corrections. Most of those who commented on PinkNews's reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. No consensus about the need to attribute Pink News in general. - MrX 🖋 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

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

Further questions:

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

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

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

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

Responses (PinkNews)

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

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

4 I have to agree with the notion of depreciation. This publication has already been caught out on here allegedly "outing" people who aren't actually homosexual and publishing other fake news. We cannot take that chance here and should follow the precidence that was set with the Daily Mail ruling (I don't agree with it personally but it has consensus so we should follow it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, any examples you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Option 4 It clearly takes an ideological stance on transgender issues. Accusations of transphobia abound, rarely are such accusations justified. The editorial position that "transwomen are women" is not based on any scientific fact, merely a belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:D008:1300:A10B:51F7:F6DB:FC61 (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A00:23C5:D008:1300:A10B:51F7:F6DB:FC61 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- It would be helpful if you supported your beliefs with factually-based evidence. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 2 While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: You mention speculation. Is ANY newspaper reliable for speculation? I'd be inclined to say that's a common flaw of all newspapers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  - Most newspapers are not in the habit of speculating about someone's sexual orientation without evidence. (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    - @Buidhe: Is there any real evidence of a pattern of them doing that? I'm pretty sure that you can find some horrible examples for any long-running newspaper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      - One example is enough. PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual. [73] There is zero evidence to support that claim. Her Diary is similar to that of many other teenage girls in the area of sexuality. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        The article you linked doesn't even contain the word "bisexual" in its prose, let alone say that Anne was bisexual. What it does do is quote passages of Anne's diary where she describes her attraction to female bodies, and it says that she displayed same-sex attraction. It also says, Anne never defined her sexuality, and it may not have been the most important fact about her. She was a teenage refugee, after all. In fact, it's plenty of other sources that actually describe her as bisexual. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        Please don't hide behind "in its prose". The author chose to show a twitter message saying "Fun fact: She's also bisexual. She outlined her attraction to another girl in the diary but NO ONE TEACHES THAT" and then -- in the prose -- spoke approvingly of the person who created the twitter message. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[74] Every scholar who has addressed the issue has concluded that what Anne Frank wrote was typical of a teenage girl with little or no real-world experience. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only two of the PinkNews pieces mentioned actually contained concrete errors. The one discussed by these two outside articles [75][76] and the one discussed here noted that PinkNews retracted the two problem stories; issued public apologies in both cases; and, in the first case, also made a charitable donation as further compensation. This, to me, indicates that PinkNews is like any reliable news source that values fact-checking, owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record.
I think the analysis in this one is itself dodgy at best, and I'm happy to go into why if anyone wants to discuss it. I also read the PinkNews article it was referring to and found only the headline to be misleading—but headlines in any publication are generally not written by journalists and are not held to the same standard as the article text anyway.
This link is dead and apparently not archived, but the URL appears to reference the Israeli health minister claim, which I addressed above in my reply to Scorpions13256. It was another case of PinkNews catching itself, correcting itself, and appending a corrective comment to the article in keeping with the practices of a reliable news source.
The only issue here was, again, a clickbait headline, but headlines are useless for encyclopedic content anyway (more at WP:HEADLINE).

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

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

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

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

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

Options 3 or 4. I've actually used them as a source before multiple times, but it's unfortunately hard to deny that they are not real media these days, having descended into clickbaity, obviously biased, opinion pieces more than "news". Heck, they don't even pretend to be legitimate media anymore. The last article i saw from them they actually accused someone of being a racist, with no context, merely to sway the readership opinion. It's garbage these days, only marginally more reliable than the Daily Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to the article in question? I ask because we found above that previous claims of journalistic malfeasance on their part didn't check out at all when we looked into them and discovered they'd actually handled them in an exemplary fashion. So if you're going to claim this, it would be useful to see precisely what you mean and verify your claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  - I'd hate to promise something and not deliver. We're talking about a specific example someone pointed out to me last year, on a website i no longer read or visit. I contributed to their article a bit in the early days, but this was when i was a regular reader and found their journalism to be worth defending, probably 5+ years ago. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1. I think this is a legitimate media outlet, or at least I'm not seeing any substantiated sources to prove otherwise. In general, no I wouldn't personally require attribution in cases of statements of fact. IvoryTower123 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 2 or 3 per examples cited in the previous RfCs (last in April). It seems clear to me that they are a quite recent online newspaper with lower standards than established newspapers. I went to their webpage and read this article: UK’s biggest cervical cancer charity shuts down disgustingly transphobic lie that ‘only females get cervical cancer’ which has a quite inflammatory title. It details a controversial issue in an opiniated manner, and the story mostly consists of tweets by random non-notable people. And importantly, when they are the only publication digging stuff like this from Twitter, WP:DUE should be considered. At best, this is clickbaity soft pop news. --Pudeo (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to Google[77], pinknews.co.uk has called someone a "homophobe" 2,940 times. For comparison, nytimes.com yields only 468 results (an considering this includes their archives from the 90s). I do think some of these articles are WP:BLP nightmares because the stories are built on tweets but detail such controversial issues. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Our article on PinkNews says it was launched in 2005. Given that it is an LGBT-focused publication, I think it is to be expected that words like "queer", "homophobe", "non-binary", etc. will occur more frequently there than in the average source, so I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. FWIW, PinkNews' editorial policy states their political stance and acknowledges how it influences their tone when they report on politicians and other entities they find homophobic. To me, that's actually preferable to a source like Fox or Daily Kos that portrays itself as neutral although far from it. And remember that WP:HEADLINEs in all publications are generally not written by journalists and fall short of the reliability standards of their article text. All sources have WP:BIAS; PinkNews is not alone in that (but unlike many, they acknowledge it openly). Armadillopteryx^talk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
3 o4 4 Pink News has low standards and is not neutral.Fred (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting, can you support those points with any evidence? Everything so far seems to have been refuted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  - I don't think there is evidence for the "low standards" claim. They are openly non-neutral when covering LGBT issues, but we use many non-neutral sources. On the other hand PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[78] and they have a habit of labeling historic figures as LGBT based on tiny shred of evidence. I stand by my previous evaluation: Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC
    - You've posted this claim three times in the past day, and not answered any of the replies noting that your linked source doesn't say such a thing. It quotes a tweet, and then it cites literally the diaries backing up the claim in the headline. Your example doesn't check out at all as bad journalism on their part, it checks out as good journalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      - The author of the article chose what tweets to feature, and the publisher approved their inclusion. The author knew exactly what message was being and I reject your claim that "it doesn't count if it's an image of a tweet". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        I have a similar impression as Jenova20. Much of its content is little more than buzzfeed clickbait articles with compilations of Tweets. Articles which amount to a list with photos of celebrities, such as "Celebs you didn't know.."[79] Articles that are 60-70% tweets about a charity clarifying their transgender policy, like "Jo's Cervical Cancer Charity..."[80] Again, another tweet-based story about a celeb getting married, the headline claims "a million"[81] people are upset she's chosen an opposite sex partner, yet never substantiates it -- not even citing one tweet disappointed.Fred (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        None of those examples demonstrate they are unreliable as much as they carry stories similar to other tabloids, and screenshots of tweets is somewhat common nowadays. Also WP:Headlines are often not written by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        
        You are absolutely outraged that a tweet quoted in the article uses the word "bisexual" to describe Anne Frank - you consider this sufficient to consign Pink News to the outer darkness. I look at the article text, and I see it discuss her attraction to a girl, and her attraction to a boy. Tell me, Guy: what's a common, reasonably used word to describe someone being attracted to both girls and boys? - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I explained under my post and gave three examples why Pink News is clickbait material. No one has responded yet. In terms of it being improperly sourced, check out this article on removing slurs from the NASPA Scrabble dictionary[82] The source they give [83] has a list, but doesn't contain any of those words or any words I recognize. It looks like placeholder text to me for a website under construction.Fred (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you Armadillopteryx, it was perhaps too late for me to see clearly the scrambled words! Gleeanon409, thank you for responding. I understand that editors may write or modify titles, however the issue that it is misrepresents the article is indicative of poor or "no editorial oversight" WP:Questioned. No? This is in regards to the 'million'[84] example I gave earlier, or articles like that.Fred (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Option 4 PinkNews is at this point far less reliable than sources such as the Daily Mail, which have been deprecated. They veer between obvious clickbait like posting a picture of 3-year-old Prince George and declaring that the photo had turned him into a "gay icon" [85] and rushing into print blatant hatchet jobs on public figures who dare to support anyone they're already bashing, such as this one on Jonathan Ross for saying that JK Rowling was not transphobic - they declare in the opening sentence that "Jonathan Ross announced Sunday evening (June 7) that he has become a representative of the entire LGBT+ community" (he said nothing of the kind, nor do they then quote anywhere he did) [86]. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Re:Prince George, you’re either purposefully misrepresenting what was written or simply failing to comprehend nuance.
- Re:Jonathan Ross, WP:Headlines are not content, and usually not controlled by the author. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  - Re: Prince George, the first line of the article is "Prince George has become a gay icon overnight - at least that's what some people - sorry, his subjects - are saying." underneath a photo of the three-year-old prince. So neither misrepresentation nor "nuance".
  - Re: Jonathan Ross, that headlines are not controlled by the article's author would be irrelevant here even if I had mentioned the headline, but I did not - I quoted the first line of the article, which was written by the author. But as I said, even if it had been a headline, those are indeed controlled by the publication, and this RFC isn't about the article's author, it's about the publication, Pink News. So I'm afraid your point is moot on two counts. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    - Respectfully, I think you are indeed mishandling the nuance of the Prince George article—either that, or I don't know how familiar you are with pop culture journalism. It's normal for a publication with interest in celebrities/fashion/etc. to write pieces about things they see that they like and to use the vocabulary of their target demographic in the piece. Calling someone an "icon" or a "gay icon" is a common compliment used by (especially the male segment of) the LGBT community—especially in conjunction with an obviously tongue-in-cheek expression like "his subjects". It doesn't literally mean the person in question is an icon, and I assume that's clear to most of the readership, who are familiar with the lexicon.
    - The same issue of misunderstood or misrepresented nuance is applicable to the Jonathan Ross piece. The text you quote is the author's so-called clapback to the Ross Tweet that appears immediately below. The article goes on to focus exactly on the response the Tweet got, plus it provides background information in the form of direct quotes about who said what previously. Not seeing anything problematic here; it's standard (reliable) pop culture fare. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
      - Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. He was a three-year-old toddler and they published an article based on the tweets of random nobodies saying that a photo of the way he was standing meant he is gay, with an obvious clickbait headline.
      - If a publication is publishing "clapbacks" to those who disagree with its ideology in the form of attributing something they never said at all to them, it seems clear that this is not a case of "nuance" but a case of the publication being unreliable as a source. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        Still missing is your understanding that headlines aren’t content. It’s fairly obvious you’re seeing all of this through your own ideologies. A more critical examination bears out in both cases that no unreliable statements were made but that headlines you don’t like were. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        Still missing is your acknowledgement that the first line of the body of an article can not in any way be defined as a headline, and is indeed content, no matter how many times you call it a headline. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        
        And a "gay icon" is not necessarily - or even usually - expected to be (or identify as) gay FFS. Nobody meant he is gay: not the journalist, not the editor, and not the healine-writer. And none of the readership would have thought so, if they had even a tiny bit of cultural literacy. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        
        As far as the Johnathan Ross piece is concerned, the first sentence uses hyperbole.. The body of the piece says, '"For those accusing her of transphobia,” the 59-year-old continued, “please read what she wrote. She clearly is not"' In pretending to define for LBGT+ people how transphobia is to be understood, this cishet was doing the equivalent of mansplaining, which the lede mocks as "announcing that he has become a representative of the entire LGBT+ community". That certain editors lack the literacy skills to understand what a source is saying does not make that source unreliable. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        
        You said, they published an article based on the tweets of random nobodies saying that a photo of the way he was standing meant he is gay. This is entirely a misreading on your part. It appears you aren't familiar with the term "gay icon". To alleviate the apparent confusion, I will clarify: a "gay icon" is someone seen as an icon by gay people. It's not an icon who is gay. And you don't have to take it from me—there's an an entire Wikipedia article about the term. Here's a preview: A gay icon is a public figure who is highly regarded and beloved by the LGBT community. A gay icon can either be a part of the LGBT community or heterosexual. It's okay that you misunderstood this, but it's not PinkNews' fault.
        
        Re: the other article: you said that the publication sharing an opinion (and it is obviously an opinion, not a statement of fact, by any reasonable interpretation—and one utilizing hyperbole, as Newimpartial explained) somehow makes it unreliable. If that's the case, I have bad news for you: most of the mainstream media sources currently classified as RS fail that test. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        Armadillopteryx I am going to reply only to your comments here and not the personal attacks of the other user. I am indeed familiar with the term "gay icon" and am well aware that it does not mean the subject is gay; you are misreading my statement. Some of the twitter users who were used as the source for the article speculated that the toddler Prince George is gay based upon the way he was standing in the photo. As none of these twitter users are notable or public figures, their random tweets about a 3-year-old child's sexual orientation are hardly the stuff of news, and I maintain that the article is therefore clickbait and nothing more. It's okay that you misunderstood me.
        
        I would have to disagree that news articles in most Reliable Sources begin with "hyperbole" stating that the subject has said something he has not. This is poor journalism, at best. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with the use of hyperbole, sarcasm and even satire in culture journalism, and that you assume that tweets included in such journalism are meant to provide factual information. Oh, wait; I'm actually not surprised. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
        
        Tweets are never acceptable to use as RS on Wikipedia (unless it's an WP:ABOUTSELF matter), and that stands whether or not the Tweet is reprinted in a news article; these rules apply uniformly to all sources—PinkNews, the BBC, The New York Times, etc. I think the editorial discretion we are always required to exercise makes the content of the reproduced Tweets a nonissue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3 (and Option 4 would not be off the mark). I have now and then used PinkNews as a source, but always in context and never when the selected story is a rant about a subject, accusing, incriminating, and attacking it/them about whatever it may be. As I see it, PinkNews may have started as a level-headed LGBT news source long ago, but it has progressively become the British LGBT equivalent of The Sun tabloid. PinkNews is a rag with occasional level-headed content, just like the sane/crazy you find in the Daily Mirror. But because of overtly biased opinions masquerading as news coverage, and the frequent indulgence in histrionics about subjects, groups, and individuals it disagrees with, I have consequently sought and used other sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 or 2 per SMcCandlish and PinkPanda272. The publication assigned historical figures a sexual identity ("queer") in its factual report of historians' findings, which blurs the distinction between the two options. In my opinion, PinkNews is somewhat comparable to The Daily Beast, which also lives between the two. I also support adding Guy Macon's proposed qualifier. KyleJoan^talk 03:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 per their editorial policy and history of retraction when needed.Rab V (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 or 4 They consistently rely on bizarre convenience sample polls from the internet, and then make claims such as "20% of the LGBT community think X" and don't even cite where the poll came from. Sxologist (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you site some examples of this consistent pattern so others can witness the concern? Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 They are known to be a quality outlet that has never failed a fact-check. Content on PinkNews is original and well-sourced. PinkNews clearly labels their opinion pieces. Left leaning is irrelevant, all outlets have a slant, factual reporting and oversight is what counts. I challenge anyone who has voted for option four to provide evidence of a single falsehood reported by PinkNews - failing that, one has to assume such opinions are based on prejudice rather than evidence and as such those opinions should not be taken into consideration when closing. Bacondrum (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment This is not a democracy. All those who have voted Option 4 - Based on what specific article/articles published by PinkNews do you base your claim that PinkNews "Publishes false or fabricated information"? Not a single piece of evidence has been presented for this claim. Bacondrum (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 2. PinkNews fits the definition of "additional considerations apply": with regards to content concerning public/historical figures and specific organizations, as well as articles with clickbaity titles. feminist (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PinkNews)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today on PinkNews: [87] Headline: Bona fide daddy Anderson Cooper mocks Donald Trump with baby talk after he flees challenging press conference Oh, but that's just a headline! Okay, next sentence: Anderson Cooper has channelled his big daddy energy to mock Donald Trump... Whatever would we do without sources like this!? How else would Wikipedia report that Anderson Cooper is a big daddy? /s This is not a serious news source. And the LGBT topic area in no way needs it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-site canvassing

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

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

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

Wiki editors? I’ve been asked to share this. 1/2 TRAs are pushing to get Pink News reinstated as a reliable source on Wikipedia and are meeting no resistance because no feminist editors knew it was happening. this is especially relevant bc they want to use it as a source...
— The Witch Janet Fraser @feministbirther 10:27 PM - 27 Jul 2020

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

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

It's also worth noting for prosperity that Janet Fraser appears to a prominent free birthing advocate, and received significant media coverage after one of her children died during a home freebirth, so she's somewhat of a public figure. [88] [89] Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also copies in the Wayback Machine: first Tweet + second Tweet.

And more canvassing from another Twitter account: first time + second time. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews founder responds

Firstly, I apologise if I'm not supposed to respond in this manner. I found this page after a number of anti-trans campaigners have used the current status of PinkNews on Wikipedia to score points on social media while attacking trans people/ me/ PinkNews. example here.

The vast majority of the negative points made here, as has been pointed out by many Wiki editors, are either ludicrous or deliberately misunderstanding how media has reported on news stories using social media as a commentary for the past decade.

I would though question, whether Wikipedia editors believe that the only substantial statement by the current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on his approach to LGBT+ rights is 'fake' here. If it is not fake, how can PinkNews be considered to be an unreliable source? Unless of course, you believe that LGBT+ media shouldn't advocate for LGBT+ rights as PinkNews does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbenjamincohen (talk • contribs)

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.