Archive 315 ← Archive 317 Archive 318 Archive 319 Archive 320 Archive 321 → Archive 325

Using the perennial sources page and the reliable sources archives correctly

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

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

You are using Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources incorrectly. Nobody is going to add ESPN to WP:RSP just so you can use RSP correctly.
Here is the right way to do it.
Example one: I needed to see if Lucien Merlet is a reliable source. I checked RSN and there is no entry. So I went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, used the Search the noticeboard archives box, and found
That entry in the archives is all you need. It tells you whether it is reliable, and you can link to it ("Reliable. See RSN discussion.") if someone questions the reliability of the source. No need for an RSN entry.)
Example two: I needed to see if Hindenburg Research is a reliable source. This time it wasn't found at RSN or in the search box. So I posted a question, got my answer, and now it is something you find in the search box:
Please note how I titled my question so that searching the archives for "Hindenburg Research" or "hindenburgresearch.com" finds the section.
Example three:
Example four:
So, as you can see, you don't need what you think you need (you think you need ESPN in RSP). You need what you actually do need (you need to change how you use the reliable sources noticeboard to check whether a source is reliable).
Example five:
In this case I found a bunch of places where it was discussed, often as an example of a reliable source. So I pulled them all together and posted a summary so you can link to one previous discussion instead of eight. See section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Atlantis77177, why not create a subpage in your userspace so that you can store links to previous discussions here? That way if anyone challenges your use of a source you can quickly refer them to said discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN ( www.espn.com )

This is a summary of past RSN discussions regarding ESPN.

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

Past discussions (oldest first)

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

If it has been discussed multiple times, wouldn't it merit a RSP entry? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No. If it had been discussed multiple times in the sense that one editor said it was reliable and another editor said it isn't, it might merit an entry in WP:RSP, but in the case of ESPN most of the discussion has been in the sense of it being used as an example of a source that everyone agrees is reliable.
The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." Literally nobody has disputed the reliability of ESPN, much less discussed its reliability and use on Wikipedia.
A source can be left off of RSP because it is so bad that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of RSP because it is so good that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://www.nejm.org/ --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'discussed' and 'disputed', I'd interpret it as not requiring anyone to dispute it but for the question to regularly be asked. We have Reuters on WP:RSP just because it is a really common and good source despite the fact that its reliability as a whole have never been specifically discussed. That said, I don't know whether ESPN merits and RSP, and I agree with your remarks in the above section. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition, having all of the discussions about the reliability of ESPN summarized in one place with one link is superior to having the various discussions about the reliability of ESPN in eight places that take 15 minutes of searching to find and half a page to link to. An unintended and happy side effect is annoying the Noticeboard Police who just got out of Noticeboard Police Academy and started telling veteran editors what they are allowed to talk about and not allowed to talk about. :) -Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
An unintended ... Um, ok -- but that's a frankly assholish attitude to have towards someone who asked a simple, polite, and genuine question. --JBL (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

www.hisutton.com

[ http://www.hisutton.com ] Is this site a reliable source? I came about this site when going through Tench-class submarine. I raised question about it here[1] Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The website does not appear to have any sort of about page and the apparent author seems to have self published a few books - He does seem to have some articles publised by the United States Naval Institute -[2] and navalnews.com [3]. UNSI is a reliable source and naval News is also probably a RS, so what he writes for those sites is probably OKNigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In this case he has reached the conclusion by adding the number of torpedo tubes and torpedo racks so if reliable sources could be found for those then it could be changed to highest number of torpedo tubes and racks combined. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source

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

Please choose one of the below:


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

We don't know much about the site or their editorial process as they don't really explain, sooo without being able to be certain about identity of authorship and those authors expertise being independently verifiable, it would follow the same path as WP:FORBESCON. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a Heavy Metal site, not a business or politics news source. I'd be happy to say don't use for anything controversial. That aside, the reviewer in question has written just over a thousand reviews and is one of at least half a dozen regular contributors from that time. I think that the volume suggests some degree of reliability. But as per the question of whether the album is reliable or not, which is why I really ended up adding my opinion here, it's a perfect example of an album that was mentioned in multiple known RSes and was 4th place on the national album chart. El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
See WP:SPS. Reviews are opinion statements. We don't reference some random dude that runs his website unless it says who he is, and there are reliable and independent sources regarding him as expert on this matter. Otherwise, it's the same as some random dude's opinion statement on wordpress. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Assuming that the number in the URL is sequential, Alex is the 19th and therefore not the guy running the website. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but who is running the site, and what are their credentials? And what are their editorial policies? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to further add to my comment that consulting the wisdom of Wikipedian's past, several dozen articles use it as a source, on the same order of magnitude as other Heavy Metal dedicated MUSIC RSes. Further looking at this specific case it would indicate that the album is notable which would also be the verdict that we would come to even if it was deemed unreliable suggesting that for notability purposes at least it should be seen as reliable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This website is a WP:MUSICRS, I think it's fairly conclusive that we generally don't determine what an RS is based on its design team. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That was merely one, and the least important, of my reasons. You’ve haven’t addressed the others. Any thoughts on that or no? When I say I’m concerned about the trajectory of this discussion, I’m pretty much talking about your comments. Nothing you’ve said is a valid reason within the bounds of what Wikipedia considers in reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And then place several thousand reviews on it? El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop badgering people on irrelevant points. How prolific they are has no bearing on if we consider them reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources for uncontroversial facts

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

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

What is the encyclopedic significance of the given names of the two (apparently) non-notable children? They are not mentioned again in the article. I think it would be an improvement to remove their names. That would also eliminate the underlying problem. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
JBL, I couldn't agree more, and I removed the names. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
They're two children the subject abandoned in infancy, two children he later attempted to claim weren't his and the subject has since tried to portray himself as a man of principle. They chose to put themselves in the public domain as they wished to put on the record their feelings about what their father did. But it seems that wikipedia doesn't believe they should be quoted or mentioned, merely silenced. An outside observer could all to easily portray this as a bunch of misogynistic middle-aged men protecting another, did anyone stop to think about that for one second? WCMemail 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you stopped to consider for one second that an outside observer could all too easily portray your editing as that of an incompetent asshole? --JBL (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Having done some background reading on the guy, all of the Spanish language obituaries make no mention of his second marriage. Some even portray his second marriage as that to his Argentine mistress. It's like he tried to airbrush them out of his existence. So yes it could very easily be construed as I suggested, or I could just be an incompetent asshole. Or you failed to take into account that text is a fairly poor medium for conveying nuance and you've inferred something completed unintended into my comment. Who knows. You have a nice day now. WCMemail 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it will remain a mystery forever. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You included the names of living persons who are minor children in a Wikipedia article, sourced to an unreliable tabloid, that is now deprecated. You then edit-warred it back in repeatedly. I can confidently state that you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that they're still minor children (if I understand the context correctly, they were born before 1982). Anyhow, it's better now that they've been removed (again). There were also three more children pointlessly named, I've removed them. --JBL (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Large chunks of the article are cited to tabloids - e.g. quite a lot cited to "Free Library" is actually a single Sunday Mirror article. It looks very like Wee Curry Monster is cobbling together any old trash that mentioned the subject's name - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Minor children eh David? One is nearly 40, the other 37 now, so hardly minor children. I can confidently state that it shows how little you care about getting your facts right. And they themselves wished to be on the record about what their father did, putting themselves in the public domain. And for the record again, the "Free Library" cite was already in the article when I started to improve it, I didn't write the article but started to correct what was a bit of a dog's breakfast. I've already told you this, so it's difficult to see your comment as anything other than a deliberate smear. WCMemail 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME predates any Daily Mail related issues sufficiently to merit removal of them regardless. The inclusion of non-notable living people is sufficiently controversial that it has a specific section in one of our strongest policies to address it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

100-year-old sources for current debates

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

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

It depends on is it still a standard work.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Negative, the sources are not standard works. Even if they were I don't see how they have anything to do with contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
OK a source from 1920 says that the moon in made of rock, published by the world astronomical society, the modern source says its made of a collection of small dancing midgets (published by the astronomical society of my ate bedroom). Does the modern source trump the older source? We need to know who said what to make a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how your example is relevant. The question is specifically about framing contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you go over our archives you can see plenty of attempts to use "contemporary debates" from extremist or nationalist sources to try and overturn long term accepted scholarship. My example was a rift on that, using dodgy sources that frame "A debate" as if its a real debate and not the promotion of a fringe theory. So with out seeing that you are talking about we cannot judge the veracity of your claim that this is "contemporary debate" or just the pushing of some fringe theory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, Could you give us more details? What article link to the source? Does any other sources contradict it? Shrike (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think secondary sources would take care of the the "framing" part. There is no blanket prohibition on older sources but my view is similar to Slatersteven's, they should not be used to overturn or undermine the current consensus or scholars, nor to broaden or narrow the contours of the debate beyond what framing has been done by secondary sources. Spudlace (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
In general, I would think that if a 100 year old source asserts X and that assertion is accepted by scholars, then it ought to be possible to find X referred to as part of modern day material on the subject and I would replace it with that. If modern material cannot be found, one needs to consider whether the assertion remains a part of the scholarly consensus or if it has been replaced with a different consensus. Perhaps tag it for better sources, maybe someone is au fait? Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add any specifics because the question is about the general principle; can 100-year-old sources be used to support statements on the form There is some debate ...? Precluding the existence of time machines, I don't see how that question can be answered in the affirmative. ImTheIP (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
General principle: the topic area matters. 100 years would be an incredible and probably absurd amount of time for the history of Hip hop music and debates about whether a specific artist qualifies. 100 years, in the span of of studies of the Hebrew Bible and associated Jewish religious texts, is an eyeblink. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
IHateAccounts, right, if we're discussing nuclear power then perhaps we should try to use modern sources, but we're talking about something that is thousands of years old, and the source in question is 100 years old. No reason to throw out sources primarily based on age in all cases. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Rabbinic Judaism is "only" about 1 800 years old, so 100 years is quite a bit more than just a blink of an eye. If 100-year-old sources are acceptable for framing current religious debates, then when is a source too old? Is a 200-year-old source fine? A 500-year-old one? What if the source describes the proper punishments for homosexuals and apostasy? ImTheIP (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I write this:

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

As noted by WP:DEPRECATED, any effort for this must be carefully done. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. There's been problems with flat out removal of deprecated sources and the information linked to them in bulk (eg when implemented as bot-like actions), but review and ultimate removal if no replacement source can be found by human hand is fine. --Masem (t) 17:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As I noted above, they all need human review. You've been asked repeatedly to back up your insinuations of bot-like actions, and consistently failed to do so. I know you don't like the idea of deprecation - even though you've yet to gather consensus for your views - but please stop making claims you've consistently failed to back up, unless you can in fact back them up - diffs, and so on - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
David, here is an example of what I think it a bad removal based on a source being deprecated [[6]]. The fact in question is not controversial. The fact that at one point this model was offered as a 16 gauge is a reasonably significant part of the gun's history. The fact was cited to a review of the gun published by The Daily Caller. So the question we need to ask is if the DC is reliable for the specific fact in question. I think one can be reasonably certain the 16 gauge version of the firearm existed since forum posts and various for sale listing offer 16 gauge versions of the shotgun. However, forum posts and "for sale" listings are going to be hard to use as sourcing. This may have been added before The Daily Caller was deprecated so at the time I don't see why we wouldn't consider it a RS for the uncontroversial claim in question. The the DC gets deprecated and now we have to pull this citation. Why? Do we really think this sort of claim is going to be inaccurate because it came from a review published in the DC vs if the same author had published that review in Ballistic Mag (another place the author publishes based on my web search). This is an example of why I'm generally opposed to deprecation. I'm happy to admit any source that gets deprecated is probably questionable for many claims (certainly for controversial ones) but some like this are so uncontroversial that we should accept and move on rather than seek out and remove. Springee (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: I think that's a GREAT example for removal of crappy sourcing. It wasn't really even a "Daily Caller" article, it was a "contributor" article crossposted from some guy at "Personal Defense World", which means it should have fallen under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources the same as "Contributor" articles from sites like Forbes or The Hill. Further, neither the current website version nor the archive.org version linked say anything about a supposed 16-gauge version of the gun. Maybe you should have fact-checked before complaining? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Your argument fails in one critical area, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The information does enhance the quality of the article in question. While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing and certainly it can be verified through other means that the 16 gauge model did exist. We don't need to treat every article as if we are making controversial political claims. Now, your claim that the material is not in the source (which wasn't given as the reason for removal) is valid but then the removal should have used the failed verification tag. Springee (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you can verify it in a reliable source, that'd be ideal. If all you have is a deprecated source, you don't have a source for Wikipedia. Maybe find an example that convinces people? - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since IHateAccounts rightly noted that the source failed WP:V this moves from a practical discussion to a hypothetical one. Your argument illustrates the problem with wide spread deprecation. If an uncontroversial fact appears in a deprecated source we need to ask if deprecation was appropriate. Again, it's easy to prove via pictures of old adds, listings of used models for sale etc that the 16 gauge did exist. That such a variant existed is of interest to people who come to the article looking to read about the history of this shotgun. Can you reasonably claim that the article is better for removing that fact? (and again since it turns out the source fails WP:V this is a hypothetical question). Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee:"While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing" - the words "16 gauge" literally never appear in the purported source. That's not just "not strong sourcing", that's false sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I already acknowledged that. Note that the reason for removal the first time was not due to failed WP:V, rather due to the claim that the source can't be used because it was deprecated. Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
We're back to lots of words supported by zero examples that check out, and your only example being a case that doesn't check out and was literally false sourcing that absolutely needed removal. At this point, please just assume the message giving a list of deprecated sources to review is for people who understand how Wikipedia sourcing works - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you know it failed V when you removed it or did you just do a source search? How about this example. This is actually the one I was thinking of when I found the other one. This one doesn't fail V [[7]] (though it is a contributed article which is a problem IHA mentioned). Springee (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My interpretation of RS is that if information is not covered by reliable sources, it is UNDUE on wiki, regardless of whether unreliable sources mention it. I think one exemption people were discussing (in the Daily Mail RFC) was instances where sports scores (that would otherwise automatically be included in sport articles) were maybe only regularly provided by the DM, although I don't know what the consensus was for that edge case. Even so, I don't think there are very many examples of items that are essentially inherently notable enough for inclusion that are also only reported by non-RS. Or are my interpretations completely off? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have two concerns about that. First, the source may not have been considered deprecated at the time. Second, will leaving that material out make a better article? WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. WP:V is policy but WP:RS, while widely accepted isn't a policy and it also doesn't say lesser sources can't be used, only that they should be used judiciously and the nature of the claim and source need to be balanced (ie an uncontroversial claim doesn't require the same sourcing as a controversial one). When dealing with high profile topics it's pretty easy to find robust sources. However, when we start diving into more esoteric subjects it can be harder. That doesn't mean readers aren't interested in the material. In the case of the shotguns I certainly can see that a reader may want to know sales volumes or common variants. One of the big values of a site like Wikipedia is people might come here and learn about the Swift Engineering DB1 (perhaps the second most significant Formula Ford racecars of all time [[8]]). Some information is available in books and articles but other details may not be available on these sites. In the case of uncontroversial facts I don't see an issue with using sources that otherwise might be considered less robust. I understand really being careful about RS when we are dealing with current political topics. However, when dealing with more esoteric topics and uncontroversial claims I think we need to be less dogmatic. One of the values of Wikipedia is that we can have articles on less significant topics. Springee (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Your statements are incoherent. may not have been considered deprecated at the time has never meant it was ever a good source, deprecation just formalises it. WP:RS is a guideline, not policy it is, however, included directly by reference in WP:V as the definer of reliable sources. Thus, a deprecated source is, by strong general consensus, not a reliable source, and thus fails WP:V.
But you've been told this repeatedly - so either you're pretending not to hear it, or (to assume good faith) you literally don't understand it - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't throw out disrespectful claims like I'm pretending not to hear. That can be reversed just as easily. You aren't hearing the concerns of others. My arguments are just fine. The core problem is the deprecation process is being used too liberally and the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options. Editors are saying we should exclude references not because we fear the facts may be wrong (the best reason to exclude any source) but simply because we don't like the source in general terms. That is a fundamental problem. You have no reasonable argument against this so you just say, "well this is how it is" rather than saying why this makes for a better encyclopedia (ie WP:IAR... which is policy). Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If "the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options" means that wikipedia isn't treating outlets that traffic in false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism, and worse as if they were somehow legitimate sources of information, I'm 100% ok with that. There are only 34 pages listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated, and based on what I am seeing in discussions here that's too FEW not too many. For the love of sanity, someone tried to nominate NEWSMAX of all things as "generally reliable" above by virtue of having rising viewership, said viewership coming specifically because it's openly trafficking in falsehoods and conspiracy theories supported by the extreme conservative fringe in the USA. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And you entirely miss a key part of the discussion while creating a straw man. If you have views on Newsmax please add them to that topic. Springee (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If you bothered to read the discussions, you would see I already have. But do, please, elaborate on what sort of "key part of the discussion" you think I missed, and the "straw man" you claim I've created, since your comment is so nonspecific as to be meaningless. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
What straw man? Their argument seems very reasonable to me, much more reasonable than your argument that deprecating a fraction of 1% of the sources used here will somehow limit sourcing options. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The strawman is IHA's suggestion that I'm arguing a controversial source could be used for controversial claims (false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism etc). Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be doing just that, thats an unavoidable consequence of using deprecated sources at all for non-about self. If there is something you would like to clarify from your earlier argument please do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I specifically said uncontroversial claims. Which comments of mine made you think I was suggesting allowing deprecated sources for controversial, non-about self claims? Springee (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the claim is controversial, because it's probably false information. Just to be sure, I did some more looking. Every mention I find for a "Mossberg 500" in a 16-gauge size traces back to people either trying to make eBay sales, looking for parts to convert a different Mossberg, or posting to forums claiming they found one. Some of the postings claim they were only made from 1961-1962, some claim to have serial-numbered ones made in the 1970s. Other listings for the "Mossberg 500B" come out at 20-gauge, not 16-gauge. [9][10] Until I see ACTUAL coverage in a reliable source - or even a product catalog - I think this is an urban legend or a prank, and something that absolutely should not have gotten into Wikipedia in the first place. And that makes it a great example of why leaving deprecated sources in wikipedia is a bad idea because of the likelihood that material sourced to them was bad (as in untrue) information. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Here are pictures of the markings on the firearm and some old add copy [[11]], [[12]], [[13]]. Yes, it is possible all of these images are a hoax but that seems unlikely. Springee (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If you could locate the precise magazine information that'd be a good start on that sourcing. Something that could be put in as an actual citation. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate this non-sequitur even if I don’t entirely understand what you guys are arguing over. Mossberg did briefly make the 500 in 16 gauge, they were uncommon when new and genuine collectors items now (most were sold overseas in places where 12 was illegal due to it being a “military” round). That being said I don’t know of any internet accessible reliable sources which can corroborate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: To catch you up, Springee produced an "example" of what they claimed was a bad use of the Deprecation process, where a Daily Caller "contributor" article sourced to the claim that the 16-gauge Mossberg 500 had been a thing, was removed and replaced with a citation-needed tag. There were MASSIVE source problems, both with it being a "contributor" article (read: WP:SELFPUB) and with it not mentioning a 16-gauge anywhere in the text anyways. At that point Springee started trying to turn it into a "theoretical" argument that there was somehow harm to Wikipedia for removing a source that had so completely failed verifiability from the start and that hadn't supported the text claim in the first place. :(
But just for good faith, I continued to try to find any replacement source, and as of yet I can't find anything definitive that was remotely usable for Wikipedia's standards, which brings us to here. Those page images are at least a starting point to trying to find something but I think wikipedia would need the publishing information for the magazine, year of production, month if possible, in order to produce a citation? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we can say with confidence that the 500 existed in 16 gauge and that it is now discontinued. Here is an add in Field and Stream, 1971 for the Mossberg 500, it shows the 16 gauge as an option [[14]]. Here is a firearms blue book with references [[15]] and another book that says the 16 gauge was discontinued [[16]]. I guess we can attempt to use these sources though I hate to use Google Book references as they often don't allow citing specific pages so future verification can be difficult. Springee (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:FAIT is the relevant information page. And all I'm cautioning is that this is not "run through and just delete the references" job as there is no DEADLINE given per DEPRECATION, though yes, the sooner we've stripped these, the better WP comes across. Editors that want to undertake this should make a good faith effort to see if the information can be sourced otherwise - probably a whole minute or two check - and then proceed to delete if nothing comes up. Removing refs at a pace of one every 5 or 10 seconds is definitely going to trigger bot-like concerns as that's disruptive. As DEPRECATION says, these are not blacklisted sources so some use may be appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You keep invoking this, and it keeps not convincing people. Perhaps if you supplied diffs that you considered clear and convincing evidence - that is, that would convince others - of bot-like actions.
I note you haven't backed up your claim of bot-like actions. Do you have anything to back this claim? Diffs, for example? - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That recently issue over the two China-state papers and their mass remove was clearly where FAIT would be applied, if it were taken to an AN/AE-type action (it didn't) The actions were rapid - too fast to be reasonably human checking each for a replacement or alternative action - and they were considered disruptive by a number of editors.
I'm mentioning this because its criteria that fixing this issue (removing deprecated sources) should not be disruptive and thus human care needs to be in place rather than a bot-like removal process. --Masem (t) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus wasn't with you in your example case either. You're back to casting aspersions on other editors, and consistently being unwilling, unable or both to make a convincing case against them, when consensus has repeatedly been against you on the issue of removing deprecated sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This seems to come across as what is popular vs what stands on principle. Masem's views are very principled but often opposed because they go against what is popular. How often have these removals done anything to objectively improve the article other than "getting rid bad sources"? Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your own argument betrays you, the objective improvement of removing a deprecated source is enough (it is after all as you say an objective improvement). Anything else is just a bonus. I also don’t think you and Masem are on the right side of this argument vis-a-vis principles, improving wikipedia is the highest principle per WP:IAR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your argument takes on faith that any and all content that is sourced to a source that has been voted down is somehow a negative to any article. It seems like would be better to treat that on a more case by case basis rather than assume we are always right. Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
A case by case evaluation of deprecated sources is what you’re disagreeing with, thats what the OP is asking for help doing. 99% of case by case evaluations of deprecated sources are going to end in the removal of the source, there are almost no cases in which a page is better off with a deprecated source and *none* that fall outside about self. Also the content itself generally won't be removed unless theres a BLP concern it will just be tagged with CN, a wholesale removal of non-BLP content isn't occurring and appears to be a straw man of your own devising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
There are the 5 guiding principles and while IAR to improve WP follows WP:5P5, avoiding disruption and editing collaboratively is in WP:5P4, so they are equally highest principles. I'm arguing there needs to be a balance between improving the encyclopedia by removing deprecated sources, and avoiding disruption by trying to find replacements or other solutions for those removals so that articles are not suddenly gutted of information (though sometimes outright removal of information sourceable only to a deprecate source may be required). All this means here is that editors should spend just a few minutes to search Google for possible replacements for each deprecated source use, and if a replacement can be found, swap it out, otherwise, remove the deprecated source and determine if leaving behind a cn tag or removal of the info tied to it is necessary. It may take a bit longer but that minimizes any disruption. --Masem (t) 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I dont know if asking editors without specific knowledge in a certain field to search for replacements is always the best option. For instance I’ve removed The Epoch Times from a number of BLPs of Cantopop stars and had exactly zero success finding a replacement because I dont know which of the niche english language publications that cover Cantopop are reliable and often there is no english language coverage at all (often why the Epoch Times was used in the first place). I think in a non-BLP situation where an editor is outside the areas they feel comfortable editing in tagging so someone more comfortable in that area can check for sources is preferable. Obviously disruption is in the eye of the beholder, I cant deny that some people see removing these sources as disruptive and this is a good opportunity to craft best practices going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't expect editors that seek to remove deprecated sources to have expert field knowledge on the topic they are removing the sources from. Just enough competency to know how to do a quick 2 minute search for info via Google and to make a judgement call of removing a unsourced statement or leaving a CN behind. If I were removing the Chinese-state owned media sources for current systems, this would be two-three minutes in Google News to see if something came up. If it were a topic related to the first half of the 20th century, I'd be over at Google Books as well. If a quick search showed nothing close, then removal would be correct and then its just determining how controversial the unsourced statement is for its removal or flagging as needing a CN.
And yes, what is disruptive is of subjective question, but we know from FAIT and past AE that when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed (one edit every few seconds) when there is a need for human review is clearly bot-like (the case of BetaCommand is the big one here). Is one edit to remove a deprecate source every minute disruptive? I don't know, and it may be appropriate in some cases and not in others, but clearly a minute is enough time for some possible human review to take place so the timing is less likely to trigger concerns of disruptive editing , but other factors may contribute. We just don't want editors blindly removing these on sight without thought, because that is against the spirit of what WP:DEPRECATION means. --Masem (t) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I dont think that happening, at most I see one edit ever few tens of seconds. What editor’s edits are you referring to specifically? Also can we not use the phrase bot-like user? Tbh I think is over the line WP:NPA when used to describe a specific editor. Also technically inaccurate as bots do their work in fractions of a second so saying someone with an edit rate orders of magnitude slower than a bot is bot-like was always stretching reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk)
In my experience its also more like an average of 10 minutes to find and add a proper source (which of course is onerous to require of anyone, wikipedia is a volunteer organization and as such the bare minimum is always acceptable... Simply replacing with a CN tag would appear to be the bare minimum and an efficient use of time), obviously you have to actually read the source before you use it. Do you mean two minutes seriously or figuratively? Actually I guess this isnt our first issue with you and time, do you mean the measures of time you use literately or figuratively? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
We have used "bot-like" in the past at AN/ANI to evaluate whether an editor's actions show any type of human check or not. Its describing behavior, not the editor themselves so it is definitely not a personal attack. (unless of course it has been shown after discussion that the editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner but other editors still keep applying the term, then that borders on harassment). And yes, I feel even 2 minutes in real time is a reasonable minimum, though obviously one can take longer if they have a more vested interest to try to retain information. I can usually tell if a claim is legit or not within 2 minutes with appropriate Google-fu, and if its legit, it may take a bit more time to find the best source to replace. Some may take longer. But I can tell if someone is removing 100s of deprecated sources with 15 seconds between each that I question if they have put any human thought into that; in contrast, having 2 minutes between each of those edits is something in good-faith I would say had some human check before each was done. --Masem (t) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You might want to watch it then "when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed” is a critique of "one" while "when one is making such bot-like speedy changes” would be a critique of the changes. Likewise "editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner” would need to be "editor is not doing their bot-like actions.” Back to the main point: while requiring people to do the best possible job is desirable in some ways its not how wikipedia works, I know of no way to compel editors to do more than the bare minimum. By definition a human doing anything on wikipedia requires human thought, perhaps you meant something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I argue this that "deprecated sources should have never been added in the first place" is a poor starting proposition. There are some, DM being the big one, that probably since the start of WP's existence should not have been used, and thus where there is true. But we have sources like Newsweek which has changed over time, and thus we have had to re-evaluate the source over time. We should not be talking of the addition of sources before a deprecation RFC as "bad", because editors were likely adding those in good faith, and in the case of something like Newsweek, we have to be careful around the period of transition since before 2013, it was a high quality RS that would still be valid sourcing per the RS/P table. Same with Fox News from its recent decision related to politics. So a rush to wipe out all deprecated sources may actually be wiping out valid uses of those sources. Coming from the computer way deprecation is handled, it just means that we have decided from this point forward, these aren't good sources anymore (not necessarily beforehand), we don't want people adding them, and thus we want to replace and/or remove existing uses with human review, but there is no DEADLINE to meet outside of "sooner the better to make WP look good" (an appropriate goal). So FAIT would absolutely apply if this was being done blindly or in a rush. The caution I'm saying here is that this is not a task to turn over to a bot, or to 100% automate with AWB or the like. --Masem (t) 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your overly wordy argument is pretty much eviscerated by the fact that Newsweek's entry is split into two distinct time periods, because the change in quality could be traced to a single event (the sale from The Newsweek Daily Beast Company to IBT Media). For sources like Fox News or Newsmax there is no one "single event"; they have simply demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics, standards, and reliability over time. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that deprecation - or handling deprecation - is more than saying "Oh this source is on RS/P, it needs to go." as per WP:DEPRECATION each case needs a bit of human review: is it actually a case deprecated per RS/P? Can I replace the source easily and avoid removal? If I can't, what do I do with the remaining text - is it contestable or is it a fact that someone may be able to find if I leave a CN behind (obviously not on a BLP page)? This takes some time - a few minutes per instance - and so all I am saying as key is there is nothing that requires us to rush and remove these deprecated sources in a sloppy, disruptive manner as per FAIT. --Masem (t) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Neither Fox News (RSP entry) nor Newsweek (RSP entry) is deprecated. It is possible to make good-faith edits that are contrary to policy: many editors who add deprecated sources are not aware that they are unreliable, but lack of awareness is not a good reason for keeping policy-violating content. No editor is obligated to remove deprecated sources because Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but editors who choose to do so are supported by the verifiability policy, which states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 17:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And especially on BLPs, yes, those removals should be of high priority. But as I point out above, we're talking balancing several of the WP:5P here, verifyability and IAR to improve the work balanced against collaborative editing. Keeping in mind that there are only a limited number of cases that we allow for blowing past 3RR rules (WP:3RRNO), removing deprecated sources is not among them (outside of BLP pages) so these edits must be assumed to be within a consensus-based process and thus should be done with minimal disruption. --Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that until we actually RFC + add a source as deprecated to the RS/P table, all prior insertions of those sources should be assumed to have been done in good faith (though there have been cases of bad faith spamming of bad sources in the past). Not that there were rumblings about getting DM onto the deprecated list earlier than the RFC, and most editors did avoid it, and I'm sure similar cases with RT and the Chinese state-owned media can be said to be similar to this (that some editors knew before the specific deprecation RFC that these were bad). Others are more that the community has now decided these sources aren't good, and thus we should not be rushing to punish prior additions that had been made in good faith when there was no written guidance on that, outside of being a well-versed WPian able to read the tea-leaves on the direction these sources were going.
The one rule that WP:IAR is unable to bypass is consensus. A violation of the verifiability policy without the backing of consensus is just a plain policy violation. All deprecated sources, by definition, have consensus for removal in almost all cases because they have undergone a request for comment confirming that they are unreliable in nearly all circumstances. Whether a policy-violating edit was done in good faith does not change the fact that the edit violated policy, and that is precisely the type of edit WP:FAIT describes as "actions [that] are justified by virtue of being already carried out". — Newslinger talk 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this thought approach is claiming that the addition of a deprecated source prior to its formal deprecation RFC is a policy-violating edit. That is simply not true in part of WP:AGF that at the time the edit was made, editors would not have known they would be deprecated, and that per WP:DEPRECATION that even one deprecated, these are not immediately WP:V-violating sources save for their use on BLPs. Yes, deprecation is retroactive to prior edits, but it has to be remembered that deprecation is not the same as blacklisting (where we would remove the sources with expediency). The FAIT actions I'm cautioning is the rush to remove these without attempts to find alternatives, which is the actions already carried out and overwhelming those that want to try to fix them. There needs to be some onus on those removing to avoid the disruption in their removal and simply asking for a quick human check of possible source replacement is not that much of an onus prior to removal. --Masem (t) 18:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I am not assigning any blame to editors who add deprecated sources before they are deprecated. However, the process of deprecation identifies the content within almost all of the edits that added the deprecated sources as policy-violating. I agree that it would be ideal to search for replacement sources before removing a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

If the content is not supported by any cited reliable sources, then it can be removed under the verifiability policy. If no reliable sources are available for the content, then it should be removed. But if an alternative reliable source is available, then it would be preferable to cite the reliable source instead, and ensure that the wording of the content is consistent with the reliable source. — Newslinger talk 02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
So what happened here was not okay, in your words? One editor bluntly removing text with the claim "source deprecated" and started editwarring to keep the text out when I started adding first source requests and then sources. The Banner talk 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Banner: Thats a WP:BLP case so the criteria for removing it is much more solid, no sourced information was removed either. If you want to work on sourcing unsourced text in a BLP use the history instead of edit warring unsourced contentious information into a BLP. From BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” (emphasis mine) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@ImTheIP: Regarding "The next year the political majority changes and the source is undeprecated.” Can you give a few examples of this happening? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This comment is based on the false premise that sources are deprecated for "political" reasons and not because they habitually publish incorrect information and fall far short of WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Long Beach Post News

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

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

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

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the South China Morning Post (SCMP)? The South China Morning Post has been cited around 7,000 times on Wikipedia per scmp.com HTTPS links HTTP links

Responses (SCMP)

I have changed by vote to a 1/2 to make my opinion more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert: I brought up Lin Nguyen since the entry for Der Spiegel does say it's generally notable but to avoid articles by Claas Relotius specifically. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Right-o. Yes a similar note for SCMP would be fine. Burrobert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Bigotry against people from the mainland and Mandarin-speakers is a well-known issue in Hong Kong. SCMP writing about it doesn't undermine their reliability as a source. Are we going to start deprecating sources because they cover issues that some editors perceive as being "pro-China"? In case anyone needs reminding, this is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia, or a European encyclopedia, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know the source at all, so I can not comment on specifics. In general, deprecation should be reserved for clear cut, “worst of the worst” situations. Even “we could do better” level sources should not be deprecated. That said, if we CAN do better, we should. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a high opinion of the SCMP and labelling it option 2 for "additional considerations apply" is more a reflection of the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong than the SCMP itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Wait, perennial sources tells us what opinions can be referenced? Who has the audacity to prescribe acceptable opinion here? It's one thing to rate the factual reliability of sources, but saying which opinions are acceptable is something else entirely. Some editors may like the opinion columns of their favorite newspaper of record, some editors may think those columns are complete garbage. WP:RSN really has no business declaring some opinions good and others bad. What matters for opinion is WP:WEIGHT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: This came up in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1 where I had suggested including an opinion from a columnist of RT but other editors rejected the idea because RT was unconsidered unreliable for controversial topics, straight reporting and opinion pieces alike. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of examples. Some of their views and thoughts are hugely troubling to me. In many cases, they were following the rheotic of the HKSAR government. Not saying it is not ok to support the government, but in most cases, they were just discrediting the opposition without solid proof, or they intentionally discussed only one side of the problem.
  • [22][23]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
  • [24]: This one states that the "rioters" "lies" but didn't address the issues behind the police's lack of credibility or discussed why the police's claims were not accepted.
  • [25]: the title itself is ridiculous enough already. They also followed the rhetoic that the voting stations will be vandalised by the protesters (which obviously didn't happened on that day).
  • [26]: calling opposition lawmakers clowns without recognising that the pro-Beijing bloc is exercising tyranny of the majority as there is no universal suffrage for the LegCo election.
  • [27]: Supporting Carrie Lam to delay the election because it gives time for people to "cool off". The way to "take a break from politics" is to postpone an election?
  • [28]: And what happened on the next day was that the protesters and the ethnic minorities were offering support to each other when the protesters passed through Chungking Mansions.
  • Therefore, with so many problematic statements, I find it is really hard to consider these opinion pieces as usable. OceanHok (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Update over the last two weeks I've watched SCMP closely, the only major difference I can detect is a large shift in their tone when covering Taiwan. This makes sense given that Taiwan is the core national security concern of the PRC/CCP. As a result of this shift I would consider them a less reliable source when it comes to Taiwan but the unreliability is coming from the language they choose to use and the facts they choose to disclose rather than active disinformation or anything truly disqualifying like that. Obviously this effects stories about politics, defense, and the like more than a story about a new restaurant or something like that. However I would say additional considerations apply to coverage of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop your WP:SOAPBOXing (more about ending free expression) and actually produce a link which comments explicitly on the SCMP. Neither of your BBC links does that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (SCMP)

I think Burrobert raises a good point regarding analogous biases in American papers of record; I'm reminded of allegations in John L. Hess's memoir that NYT systematically privileged the US government's perspectives in its coverage of the Vietnam war and myriad other issues during his career there (and this was published before the Second Iraq War). Nonetheless, I think that with the better way to address these issues is to treat papers of record with a greater degree of scrutiny, rather than twisting what "generally reliable" means. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat newspapers of record (and all newspapers) with serious scrutiny: the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War is an extraordinary demonstration of the importance of that principle. However, as I note above, what we've actually been doing at the perennial sources list is casting doubt or prohibiting the use of newspapers in the United States (e.g. the Grayzone) or internationally (e.g. Xinhua, RT, the Times of India) whose political or national orientations fall outside the narrow center of Anglo-American politics. Sometimes it's unclear whether consensus was even achieved for a given outlet [34]. Furthermore it's bizarre to watch national outlets come under attack here, at an international encyclopedia, as respective governments find themselves in increased geopolitical conflict with the United States. It's both within our mandate and power as editors to be able to understand these conflicts, not participate in them ourselves. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem with The Grayzone is that it has this strange "anti-imperialist" worldview where everything that western governments do is bad and anything that Maduro / Assad / Putin / Xi does is good. Of course neither of these perspectives is true, and nor is their reverse. I would support calling a RfC on Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Televisión Martí and Alhurra as these are directly controlled by the US govt, and I am unsure about their editorial independence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I'd be happy with an RFC of all of those US government-controlled publications WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Given Grayzone responded to being depreciated with a "You can't handle the truth!" meltdown that included calling Katherine Maher a "veteran regime-change operative" it is pretty obvious they operate in a different reality to the rest of us. Compared to the platonic ideal of a Reliable Source everything is going to fall short. That doesn't mean every source is equally (un)reliable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We deprecated the newspaper without consensus on the basis of a few flimsy articles from much weaker sources, and flimsy reasoning from editors who didn't demonstrate even a modicum of the competence of the journalists they were criticizing. The close was particularly egregious. As for their reaction to being deprecated, much found in their two articles on the topic is excellent [35][36]. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? You’re going to lay it all on the line for TGZ? Please tell me this guy is pulling my leg and isnt going nuclear over a shit-tier source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The deprecation close [37] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [38][39][40][41][42][43]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [44], another from The Daily Beast [45] (which our own list calls "a biased or opinionated source"), and lastly an article about the contents of a conversation that Max Blumenthal had with Karen Greenberg on the politically sensitive topic of torture in the US and Israel [46]. Importantly, from the perspective of our own governance, the close did not conform to any consensus that emerged from the deprecation discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
So you agree that TGZ is a shit-tier source and you're just quibbling about procedure? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that and I wouldn't be caught dead using such language here. In agreement with the rough consensus of the RfC discussion [47], the Grayzone is an opinionated source that is usable on Wikipedia, and in certain instances, where its views or reporting have been contested, it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good example of why news sources like SCMP are important in giving a global (as opposed to American or Western European) perspective on issues. Compare these two headlines:

The SCMP does mention criticism of the mainland's involvement in coronavirus testing in Hong Kong (there's an image of protesters about 3/4 of the way through the article), but the focus of the article is on how the testing is being carried out. The NY Times article approaches the issue entirely from the perspective of worries about the influence of the "Chinese Communist Party" [sic]. This is something one very often encounters in Western reporting on China - there's a very strong political angle on all the reporting. For issues such as this, I have much more trust that the SCMP will provide a relatively neutral and comprehensive view of the topic. That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China. That's precisely where it is most valuable, as a reasonable and well-informed counterpoint to sometimes distorted reporting in Western media. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not one person has voted option 4, therefore your contention that anyone is trying to deprecate the SCMP is preposterous. Please make arguments about reality rather than constructing fanciful straw men to tilt at. Also whats with the sic? I’m not seeing an error in Chinese Communist Party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
A fair number of people have voted to discourage use of the SCMP for topics related to Hong Kong. Those are precisely the topics in which the SCMP's reporting is more extensive and neutral than that of newspapers like the New York Times. I'm arguing that it is in precisely these contentious topics that usage of SCMP is important for a globally balanced, neutral view. As for the [sic], the name of the ruling party of China is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. I see that the Wikipedia article was moved a few weeks ago (which might be in line with WP:COMMONNAME, given how often Western sources get the name wrong), and that you voted for the move. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" have pretty much the same meaning, just different ways of translating it. The CCP prefers the first translation but most third party entities prefer the second. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't want the discussion about the name of the CPC to overshadow my actual point above - which is to compare reporting by the NYT and SCMP. The two articles I cite are illustrative of a trend, in which many Western news sources take strong political angles on Chinese topics. In the above NYT example, plans to offer coronavirus tests to every person in Hong Kong become primarily a story about Hong Kongers being spooked by the CPC. The SCMP covers the issue in a much saner way, as primarily a story about coronavirus testing, that also involves some protests. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Your core argument was "That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China.” despite nobody voting or arguing for WP:DEPRECATE. The SCMP and NYT might frame a story differently but they’re both reliable, can you imagine if there was no difference in framing between reliable sources? Everyone would write almost exactly the same story and we’d all be worse off for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanity Fair partisanship

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

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

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

We don't care if it's biased, but we do care about accuracy and factuality. Extreme bias tends to affect that, but a source can be somewhat biased and still accurate, hence the difference between how we tend to rate right- and left-leaning sources. At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources. So accuracy, not bias, is how we judge sources. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources." I have no idea where you got this from and whether it is blatantly false or not (you didn't cite anything), and I don't know who you're speaking for when you say "we" for "rating sources". Anyway my point is to ask whether the site should be considered generally reliable or biased. Rfc if necessary. Wqwt (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects, Wqwt: as you yourself point out, the previous discussions were about celebrity BLPs, which is probably why conclusions weren't reached outside of popular culture coverage.
Which stories Vanity Fair chooses to advertise on their web site sidebar, and their titles, has nothing whatsoever to do with the publication's reliability as a source. As our headline article notes even of major front-page titles, It is generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors.
The 2004 article you refer to, cited in our Bush v. Gore SCOTUS case article, is in no way written like an essay. Its author is David Margolick, a law school graduate and legal affairs reporter at The New York Times before joining Vanity Fair in the late twentieth century, where he is now a contributing editor, not just a reporter. He is also the author of multiple published books about Supreme Court cases.
So, thanks to this discussion, IMO we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”. By all means, RfC away, though I think the fact that after Valjean's explanation you still seem to regard “generally reliable” and “biased” as antonyms, or something, may indicate you're not prepared to present such a question in the context of Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects" - nor does it imply it is reliable for other subjects. Thus the point of me posting here to gather consensus. "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”." Again, who is 'we"? Is your view automatically editor consensus? Wqwt (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Even as far as the bulleted opinions at the bottom of this discussion, note at the top of the page it says, While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
If you go to delete cited material at this article, you can make any argument you want; but of course, since you opened up this discussion and linked to it from the article talk page, by that point an absolutely mountainous pile of evidence supporting the reliability of VF will probably have accumulated, which anyone disagreeing with you can simply cut and paste (though linking here again is probably better) if you still take the position that VF is not a reliable source. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
If the claims in the Vanity Fair article about Bush v. Gore are accurate, there probably should be other, more scholarly sources to support them. If you can find better sources, please use them; as this was one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of recent years, plenty of sources should be available. As for what interviewees may have said about the internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, please consider that if the VF article is the only source for those comments, including those comments may be undue emphasis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd certainly concur that more, better sources is always better; but if other sources have not also pursued the question of internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, that doesn't make the information reported by VF a WP:UNDUE minority viewpoint like the flat Earth concept: a majority of sources would need to be arguing the opposite, that there was great harmony among SCOTUS justices with no internal disputes, (edit: and specifically in this case, which was 5–4 in the final opinion against the remedy) for VF to be an insignificant minority viewpoint in that case.
Similarly, under the WP:PROPORTION subsection, you'd need to have an effective argument that the overall significance to the article topic, the significance of disputes among SCOTUS justices about a particular case to the article about that particular case, was so insignificant as to support exclusion, to justify a deletion of the cited facts under WP:UNDUE. “Undue emphasis” is often used in quite the underpants gnomes fashion but it has a very specific meaning in the WP:NPOV policy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

How is this an argument for its reliability? Wqwt (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Struthious Bandersnatch that "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it 'generally reliable'." -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks Valjean. Please take a look at the Ad Fontes entry at WP:RSP. You'll see that consensus does not view it as typically useful for these discussions. Jlevi (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
That chart makes for some interesting reading. First it says any source that has an accuracy score over 32 is generally good, over 24 is acceptable. VF is about 35 so it clears the generally good line. However, Newsmax is 31.76 which all but rounds up into the "generally good" category and the Epoch Times is 37. Quillette is 36.80. The Daily Mail is interestingly 31 but just about centered in terms of bias. I can see why editors argue against following the site too closely, it certainly doesn't align with how we choose to treat sources here. Springee (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Science as Culture

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

One source stood out to me: [53]Food Fight! The Swedish Low-Carb/High Fat (LCHF) Movement and the Turning of Science Popularisation Against the Scientists Published in Science as Culture.

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

Other papers in Science as Culture:[54]

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

The Guardian (Nigeria)

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

I've run across it a few times, and their article quality seems to vary greatly. Their lack of linking the author's name to further information about the person/source is a serious hindrance to determining the reliability of individual articles.
I'd consider the ref you link as promotional human-interest piece with little encyclopedic value alone that demonstrates little if any weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Their articles seem to vary, some are of acceptable quality in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
In 1988 The New York Times described it as "Nigeria's most respected newspaper" [55] though that was more than 3 decades ago and I don't know what the status of it is now. It's Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is a broadsheet style paper but that isn't necessarily an indication of reliability. Really this warrants attention from someone who knows more about the Nigerian media landscape than me. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Reporters Without Borders, Nigeria ranks in the lower half of countries for press freedom[56] (worse than 114 other countries), considerably worse than nearby Ghana (30). This impacts the accuracy that Nigerian journalists are able to provide. (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all. I think it's safe to say we have a consensus that this source needs to be used only with care. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've definitely looked at The Guardian (Nigeria) in many drafts as a RS, as I would for Vanguard and other Nigerian dailies. However, if there is concern about its reliability, I can definitely hold back. El komodos drago, you asked for someone who knows the Nigerian media landscape better, let me bring in Celestina007, AfC's resident Nigeria expert. I respect their opinion on this topic. Bkissin (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to this @Bkissin, I’d like to say without an iota of doubt that the Guardian Nigeria is definitely a reliable source as they possess a reputation for fact checking and possess editorial oversight and also state clearly when an article is written by a guest editor or a sponsored post. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax

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.
Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. This RfC falls very clearly into that description - there are only two voices among 41 supporting anything other than Option #3 or #4. Neither of these advances any grounds for considering Newsmax reliable other than popularity. There is a clear consensus that Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" The only question, therefore, is whether the deprecation procedure requirements are fulfilled. The arguments in favor of deprecation have a clear preponderance so the strength of the objecting arguments becomes very important. In this discussion, however, the arguments for Option #3 and/or against deprecation are mainly objections to the deprecation process itself or to the frequency of deprecation's usage. Since the deprecation process is currently community-approved, these are not barriers to the consensus position. There is therefore a moderately-clear consensus for Option # 4 - deprecation (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Newsmax

Which option best describes the reliability of Newsmax?

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

Survey: Newsmax

  1. "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
  2. "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda. [57]
  3. "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
  4. "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.
Given the sheer unreliability of Newsmax, it should probably be in the same Deprecated category as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, and The Epoch Times. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
NewsGuard's analysis is not positive. [58] Schazjmd (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
"Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards." Yikes indeed. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you have some better sources than media matters? PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Following up on Schazjmd's comment, Ad Fontes Media (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/) rates the reliability of Newsmax at 31.76. For comparison, similarly positioned sources on Wikipedia that are already deprecated include the following:
  1. RT / Russia Today: 30.65
  2. OANN: 29.91
  3. Epoch Times: 37.35
  4. Zero Hedge: 32.53
  5. Breitbart: 27.74
  6. Daily Caller: 27.73
I know that Ad Fontes is listed as "should not be used in article space" because it is self-published, but it may be valuable information for analysis here. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Right but do we have other RS calling Newsmax those things. I personally like adontes for bias reports, not so much for reliability personally. PackMecEng (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: the poster of this (who moved it over from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) does not appear to understand wikipedia policy on sourcing, but there is a larger problem in that Newsmax - despite sharing similarities in both lack of credibility and a pattern of propagating falsehoods - is sitting at "no consensus" level and looking at the last discussion [59], @JzG: made the excellent observation that this status is because "what that means is that it's a crappy source but conservatives like it, basically." Even in 2013, it was looked at as unreliable [60] and I think at this point it would serve Wikipedia well to settle this status with the other sources it is so highly similar to that are already deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is editor opinion alone is not enough to deprecate a source. We need secondary sources giving examples and backing it up or it boils down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
all I want is this to be discussed because they are the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election and they are gaining in popularity. What IHateAccounts points out is that they don’t like there coverage of current events so it must be disinformation and propaganda. The only exception that I would buy into at this time is that they are not a reliable source for anything related to vaccine because they have peddled stories with questionable claims. To blanket state that they are wrong does in fact boil down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think the other MSM gets it wrong on a lot of things but that doesn’t make them an unreliable source. BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: you may want to read The Guardian's coverage of Newsmax as part of "The misinformation media machine amplifying Trump's election lies" [61]

Also, Daily Beast: "An even more overt suggestion of a deep-state plot to infect the president, however, came from Greg Kelly, a former Fox News personality who now hosts a show on Newsmax TV, the little-watched right-wing cable network run by longtime Trump pal Chris Ruddy." [62] The issue is that Newsmax is an unreliable source, that promotes conspiracy theories and other falsehoods. The fact that it's flown under the radar with few discussions until now is probably, as JzG suggested, because it was already listed as a crappy source and most reasonable editors stayed away from it, but simply leaving it there isn't wise given what it does and its lack of journalistic integrity. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

See that is kind of what I mean here. Do we have a source that does not require an asterisk when we use them. Both the Guardian and Daily Beast have the biased or opinionated source tag. PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I’d urge someone to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual.BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: There are several issues with your claims, starting with your lack of understanding of wikipedia policy, and your continued attempts to portray reliable secondary sources as "sides". To make something perfectly clear, though: my objection to Newsmax is not because I "don't like" them, my objection is that - again, just as with Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, The Epoch Times - they are factually unreliable. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
FrontPageMag is itself a discredited source; the fact that something has a particular level of viewership or readership has nothing to do with reliability. Lots of people can all be wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I’m not making the argument that they should be considered reliable because of their viewership, merely I’m arguing that they should be reconsidered because they are becoming a bigger player in the news market. I only used frontpage as a reference because Newsmax had the same article on their site and I thought it would be wrong to post their own article, Neilsons ratings put it above those other outlets BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You might find it helpful to review WP:RS if you haven't read it in a while. "Number of people who read/view a source" is not an indicator of reliability. Instead, we focus on things such as the publisher's reputation for fact-checking, policies and practices related to correcting errors, and similar mechanisms and policies. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m not arguing that it’s is a factor in its reliability, merely pointing out that this discussion should be had because they are becoming a bigger player. WP:RSP has them listed as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: No, you're pretty transparently trying to argue that Newsmax should somehow be considered "reliable" merely because it is rising in ratings, which is an illegitimate argument. Further, Newsmax is currently (and has a history of) blatantly trying to spread falsehoods [63]. It appears that when you say "the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election", the "other side" you are referring to is simply false information:
"On Newsmax, voter fraud innuendo is everywhere. Conspiracy theory chatter is constant. And perhaps most importantly, Joe Biden is not the president-elect. The channel is tapping into a real vein of rage on the right."
"Over the weekend Newsmax pointedly said it had not called the race -- which was a meaningless claim since the channel doesn't have a decision desk. But the channel's hosts keep repeating this claim anyway, and it is sticking. If Fox is merely dabbling in election denialism, Newsmax is doubling down on it. "
"Taking a big picture view, Newsmax's sudden gains are about demand meeting supply. There is a demand for content that swears Biden is not president-elect; that Trump is not a loser; that Trump might even win a second term. Al Schmidt, the Republican city commissioner of Philadelphia, touched on the demand side when he told CNN's John Berman: "One thing I can't comprehend is how hungry people are to consume lies and to consume information that is not true." Think of Newsmax as the supply side."
I think it would be an absolutely terrible thing for Wikipedia to suddenly pronounce that outlets that peddle in false information were suddenly "reliable" simply because they had seen a ratings boost. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: I guess we will have to agree to disagree because, Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect until the electoral college votes (although I’m not opposed to articles referencing him as that), the allegations of voter fraud are neither valid or invalid because they have yet to be settled in court. To be perfectly clear, I believe Joe Biden has won this election so this is not some campaign to try to change that. You cannot say that readers and viewers are consuming lies and information that is not true when the outcome of those "lies" has yet to be officially determined. My goal in all of this was to make sure that the election article can have sourced information from newsmax to cover the disputes by the Trump campaign because they are covering it in depth regardless of how one feels about them. BlackBird1008 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, you need to read wikipedia policies thoroughly. The things that Newsmax is trying to promote are all things that have been fact checked and quite thoroughly debunked by actual reliable sources. A "foot in the door" gambit, false equivalence arguments, and other attempts to try to shoehorn in Newsmax's absolutely unreliable and WP:FRINGE promotion of conspiracy theories and false information do not serve wikipedia well. Your assertion that "Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect..." is not consistent with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and indicates that your goal is to insert factually false information into Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I am trying to do, at no time did I say I would try to include false information. Failure to document the legal challenges of this election would be considered revisionism by omission. Simply calling them false and disinformation is not accurate because nothing has been settled. After the court cases are completed, then we can say factually and with certainty that the fraud claims were false if the courts rule that way. I’m not trying to change any article, I’m trying to find a path to add to it with a source that doesn’t have a predetermined outcome already decided. And finally , regardless of a Wikipedia consensus or what any RS says, per the constitution, Joe Biden is not the president elect until the electoral college votes, that cannot be disputed, but like I said, I’m not trying to change that in any article because that has already been decided by consensus. (my last word because this discussion is going nowhere) BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: You appear still to not have read the policies regarding reliable sources. There are numerous reliable sources that document the legal challenges being launched by the trump campaign quite accurately. Those legal challenges are well documented, to reliable sources that do not engage in the promotion of conspiracy theories or fraudulent claims, at 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Controversies and List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election to name just two pages. Attempting to include FALSE information by promoting as dubious an outlet as Newsmax would do a disservice to Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Despite certain editors' desperate attempts to paint an incomplete or misleading picture, we have more coverage today. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/fox-news-newsmax-competition/index.html
"Newsmax and One America News — which falsely claim Trump won the 2020 election — are two of the biggest beneficiaries of Trump and his supporters' ire. The channels' ratings have surged in recent days.
"Although Biden won the election — a fact Trump acknowledged Sunday — Greg Kelly, the highest-rated host on Newsmax, claims that Trump will prevail and that he will be president for another four years. The network has gone from about 100,000 viewers a day on a good day to about one million viewers per night for Kelly's show."
""Fox has never seen competition like this," CNN's chief media correspondent Brian Stelter said on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "There is demand for a fictional universe.... Reliable news sources are mostly moving on to cover President-elect Biden. There is an entire constellation of websites and talk shows that are in denial just like Trump.""
The picture is pretty clear at this point. While Newsmax is seeing increased viewership, it is gaining viewers specifically because those viewers want to hear things that are at odds with facts and reality. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think your posts might be better-received here if you cited specific policies that you thought your interlocutor was arguing in contravention of, rather than saying repeatedly that they should "read Wikipedia policies" (of which there are hundreds of thousands of words of text, most of them totally irrelevant to the issue at hand). jp×g 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Pay to display is a pretty audacious thing for a newspaper that was paid $20,000 a month to run propaganda for the Chinese government to complain about. Though don't think that is exclusive to the Wall Street Journal, the other two big broadsheets do the same.[64] And while we are on the subject of Russian propaganda supplements, The Daily Telegraph still seems to carry Russia: Beyond the Headlines. None of them are unreliable because of it, just the content inside. I'm not saying that NewsMax is reliable, I'm just saying that 'source X republished source Y which is unreliable' is generally a reason to have another look at source Y and is very rarely a problem with source X. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you're conflating two different things. Some major newspapers have run paid advertising inserts funded by the Chinese government, but that's different from presenting foreign propaganda in a way that makes it appear as if it might be actual site content. Otherwise we might as well say that all media are unreliable because they're paid to carry advertising, some of which is of dubious quality or accuracy. MastCell Talk 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: Your comment is definitely casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax "should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" based on fallacious arguments that rising viewership stats equate to reliability and that the promotion of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and false information counts as an equally valid "different viewpoint" to the facts as reported in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
That you claim there's no evidence that Newsmax is being used or would be used, when this discussion was opened by someone demanding Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it, is facially absurd. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: Once again, you completely miss the mark on my motives, my motives are purely to give access to a source that is covering the allegations of fraud from a different perspective than what the other MSM is giving. At no time did I "demand" it be labeled as reliable nor did I say that because its gaining viewership it must be reliable. I simply thought it should be reconsidered because it is getting more popular. As I have told you before, I will accept the consensus decision even if I disagree because that's how wikipedia works. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum." Those were your words from above. I believe I have accurately represented what you said; you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) is "widely ignored". You miss (or maybe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) the part where this "perspective" (or maybe alternative facts?) is "widely ignored by other reliable sources" because REAL reliable sources have to meet at least a basic floor value for accuracy and fact checking. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You are confusing support for this source (I offer none as I think it's a poor source) with concerns regarding the entire deprecation process. I feel it should be a requirement that before any source can be deprecated those advocating deprecation need to show there is otherwise a problem with wide spread use of the source. Else we should handle things as we did for many years, on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: "The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it", I at no point demanded them be considered reliable. "you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) (Your opinion) is "widely ignored" (My opinion). You misrepresent my motives and claim my opinion of a "perspective being ignored" is wrong because it doesn't align with your perspective aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also will make it clear...again, I do not think Trump will succeed in overturning this election nor am I trying to put false information into any article. I only brought up newsmax because they are not universally dismissing these claims as false because all the facts will not be available until these cases are resolved. If the consensus is that this source does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, then so be it. I Suggested that they be reconsidered because its getting a bigger following, I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable. (last word in this discussion because its going nowhere and is unproductive) BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008:, your wordings:
  1. "I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable."
  2. "I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints as their viewership has increased post election."
You DID, in fact, say what you are now denying you said. The pixels are literally still on this page. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: Ill reply only because since you have nothing better to do than make me look like something I'm not, here is the first line I wrote in this discussion "With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source". The word reconsidered is not synonymous with demand. When I say I believe or I think, that means it's my opinion which I'm still allowed to have in the United States. When I say its because they no longer represent fringe viewpoints, its because they don't, they are becoming more mainstream (aka not fringe) regardless of how you view them. I really don't see why you have the obsession with WP:BLUDGEON ing this to death, disagree and move on. BlackBird1008 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. For a procedure as serious as deprecation (which it looks like this is heading towards), it seems reasonable to allow time for evidence to come forward in the time allotted. It seems unlikely in this case, but it is possible that strong counter-arguments will emerge. Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
"The explosive claim that ISIS fighters had been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border was refuted within 24 hours and yet only 20 percent of news organizations that wrote an initial story came back to it. It’s possible that the partisan element of the claim led some conservative outlets to fail to update their articles with denials from top Obama officials. However, this is an aspect that requires more research."
Given that the paper itself seems unsure what conclusion to reach regarding this issue, it seems going too far for us to deprecate this sourced based on this publishing, especially given that it's not seen as so damning for BuzzFeed or Fox News. A variety of other publications are named doing similar things regarding other false-and-debunked statements: The Week, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
To conclude, it seems likely to me that this source is pretty darn rotten--I'll check back in after I finish looking at the other references discussed. But when I look at one of the sources used to establish this claim here, it seems weaker than I expected given how vigorously folks are referencing it. So I'm not prepared to go for deprecation at this point, given that it would seem to apply deprecation of a whole range of other sources if we are to hold them to the same standard. Again, I predict that I'll switch to "deprecate" after I review other sources linked here, but looking at this first source makes it clear that I'll need to evaluate them closely.
One thing that would aid those arguing for retention of this source: does Newsmax ever produce original material? I'm not seeing that yet, so it makes me lean towards saying "deprecate: nothing lost here". Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The New Media and the ‘Anchor Baby’ Boom paper does not itself describe the anchor baby framing as disinformation. The main purpose of the paper is to track the spread of the concept (and it's quite a cool paper). Indeed, the paper describes how the anchor baby concept appeared throughout many mainstream news sources, indicating that it is probably not 'false' from the perspective of Wikipedia. This certainly may be indication of bias of the source, but the 'anchor baby' framing device is more of an interpretive method than a direct statement of facts in any case. Aquillion describes the paper as "describ[ing] it [Newsmax] as spreading fringe ideas in an effort to make them mainstream". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the paper, but I don't think this is admissible for claims about reliability. By very virtue of these claims appearing throughout mainstream sources, this is rather complicated from that perspective, and it seems better to just interpret this paper as a discussion of bias propagation, rather than of misinformation propagation. Jlevi (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing the Facebook disinformation paper now. In general, we don't weigh social media posts of outlets in establishing their reliability. The paper notes that they are explicitly looking at social media posts and not news articles: "First, Sobieraj and Berry (2011)and Nithyanand et al. (2017) studied political discourses in media outlets (e.g., cable news) and Reddit respectively, whereas our work studied user responses to extreme conservative and liberal disinformation in Facebook." In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, the study looked primarily at user comments for sentiment analysis. I don't think this paper adds heavily to our interpretation of this source's reliability. Jlevi (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like this might be heading for a snow close. To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that. ​ Jlevi (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: I think I understand but can you please verify this is what you mean? Aquillion's provided academic sources are from 2015 [65], 2011 [66], 2018 [67], 2018 [68], and 2019 [69] respectively, all of which would definitionally have to be arguments "prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I have addressed each of these sources other than this one in my comments earlier in this thread. Having read them, I believe that these sources speak not about reliability of Newsmax articles, but rather about bias, tone, and framing devices. In addition, one of the cited sources appears to be not about Newsmax articles, but rather about Facebook comments on Newsmax posts (if I'm interpreting it correctly). Thus, though it's pretty clear that Newsmax is unreliable prior to 2020, I do not believe current arguments make a convincing case for deprecation prior to 2020. On the other hand, the arguments regarding the 2020 election coverage as grounds for deprecation are quite good. Is that clear? Jlevi (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This is pretty clear: "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:... the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." We waste so much time because we fail to deal with them appropriately. -- Valjean (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Newsmax

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

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

@Valjean: You lost me at Brian Stelter as an extremely reliable source, he is just another opinionated pundit. And no offense, because I value everyone’s right to their opinion, but I find it hard for you to consider Newsmax fairly based on your essay User:Valjean/Essay/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. I understand the criteria for WP:RS and if we can’t come to a consensus based on those criteria, then so be it. That’s why we have these discussions. In my opinion, there has not been enough evidence to exclude their coverage of this election as unreliable. There may be branches of their organization, such as Newsmax Health, that should be depricated based on their coverage of vaccines. That can happen without deprecating their news section. It is also my opinion that their coverage of the election is within the bounds of the facts as we know them. The allegations they are covering have not been investigated and the facts have not been settled. It seems that conservative news organizations are automatically deemed unreliable on Wikipedia while known left leaning news organizations are given a pass with little resistance. I’d like to see that change however I also understand that consensus is key to keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. BlackBird1008 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The "basic criteria" for RS are accuracy and fact-checking. If a source disagrees with ALL the mainstream media, that's a red flag; be cautious. Newsmax pushes false narratives and supports Trump's counterfactual agenda on election results, vaccines, COVID-19, climate change, and pushes conspiracy theories (Red flags are favorable use of these words and phrases: Russiagate, Spygate, Steele dossier is fake and debunked, investigations are a Russia hoax, no collusion at all, "I'm the victim of a witchhunt," etc.).
Newsmax, along with Trump, are on the wrong side of history and facts, and what's relevant for Wikipedia and this discussion, on the wrong side of RS on these issues. (Read our articles and the RS they use. We are supposed to agree with RS and follow the evidence, including if and when they "change their minds." That is our obligation as editors. Opposition to RS is opposition to our policies here.) Newsmax and other fringe sources (Breitbart, Daily Caller, New York Post, Daily Mail, Fox News talking heads, Washington Times, American Thinker, The Federalist, etc.) provide the lying contrast (truth vs. lies) to what factual RS say, and we do not give such counterfactual, contrasting, views and sources any weight here because they are not accurate. They are false. We use better sources. That's why we only allow the use of deprecated sources, without undue self-justification, in their own articles. The mainstream view from RS always gets more weight (the last word). -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Unproductive personalized comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you are sourcing to a newsletter opinion article for all that? You used to be really good at trying to use the best RS. Now it's partisan things like this and sourcing things to Twitter.[71] PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please focus on content, not contributor. Politrukki (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you are starting to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. It is not necessary to reply personally to every single point you disagree with; if the arguments are flawed in the way you say, someone else will see it and say something. (And if you are the only one who does, it is likely that your points are not as strong as you believe them to be.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is true actually on the bludgeoning claim. Also yes someone else could call out bad arguments, or I could take a second and do it myself. There is nothing wrong with that. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own. That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
OMG! You know perfectly well that the tweet itself is not the RS. It contained the RS quote. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No it did not. You cannot use as unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
BS. That was a talk page comment not intended to be used as is in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
BLP applies everywhere. Using unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP, even on a talk page is not acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There was zero BLP violation in that comment with the tweet. Look at the tweet. For article content I could have used many RS, such as this one. -- Valjean (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
How about here where you just post a bunch of twitter links. You really should stop doing that, again Twitter is not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I clearly stated in that thread that they were not the RS, but they pointed to them. (Any editor with a collaborative mindset would be able to figure out what to do, if they were so inclined.) At the time I couldn't elaborate and had to run. -- Valjean (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If you did not have time to post actual RS it probably could of waited. That is especially true since all the tweets appear to go to the same article. Finally we all have a collaborative mindset here right? Who does not? PackMecEng (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't need you to act like my babysitter. Not everyone has a collaborative mindset. Some try to understand (and stay quiet if they don't) and some just complain and criticize, without any attempt to be flexible. Their criticism is not constructive. They create more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

  1. A source gaining a sizable increase in viewership is a reason to reconsider its reliability.
  2. Wikipedia should generally consider the reliability of a source in the context of other sources that share its opinions as well as in the abstract to determine whether it is reliable.
  3. It does not follow from either of these things, or from a viewership of 287,000 that a source is reliable. 30 million Americans don't believe in the moon landings[72] and yet we still report them as fact because that is what is verifiable.

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

@El komodos drago: Fair enough, all I wanted was this discussion to happen even if the majority disagree with me. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem, it's reasonable that this discussion happens even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes. I should have been around to raise these things when MintPress happened but hey 🤷‍♂️. Well, all the best, El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes" Those are some pretty weird aspersions you're casting, care to clarify? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so my apologies on the first point, NewsGuard isn't actually run by the Atlantic Council just run by ex-Atlantic Council and US government communication strategist types. For instance Richard Stengel, self-described chief propagandist [73] and Atlantic Council distinguished fellow [74], is on its advisory board. [75] While I know we have deprecated it, if you want a good rundown of some of the rest of its links backed up by references to NewsGuard's own website MintPress News did a good rundown of it. [76] Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red. As such if we are looking for an independent or neutral source for media reliability basically anyone other than NewsGuard such as either Ad Fontes or Media Bias/Fact Check would be better.
As for paid propaganda supplements, the Wall Stree Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph have all run Russia: Beyond The Headlines (paid for by the Russian government) and China Watch (paid for by the Chinese government). [77] If we applied the idea that running paid propaganda made a source automatically unreliable then we would have to deprecate a bunch of top tier RSes globally. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red." Wow, that's way into conspiracy theory territory. And yes, I read the Mintpress article, but I don't find anything of substance there; it appears more to be just complaining about being held to task for publishing falsehoods.
The biggest problem I can find real, reliable sources having with Newsguard is that if anything their bar to give a website a green label is too low [78][79]; noting that they still manage to give Fox News a green label DESPITE falling to a 69.5 rating, failing to issue corrections, failing to gather and present information responsibly, and failing to handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly. [80] IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The reason the bar is set so low for Fox News and the Daily Mail is because they toe the line, report, say, that a reporter from a commercial Russian news channel with a minority Russian government stake doing a piece to camera outside the base of a... controversial British army unit is a "spy". [81] It may sound like conspiracy theorism but if you have a look at where it places the bar for different sources it seems pretty evident that they differ depending on whether the source is friendly to US interests or not. As I said, I think the view that MintPress News is unreliable is wrong. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Definitely a relevant question. The ethical lines are twofold: first, is it clearly labeled as paid content and second, is it something that goes WAY over the line in terms of falsehoods?
My student newspaper's ad department got in trouble for accepting a set of "paid inserts" by the cult of scientology some years ago. The problem wasn't the inserts, it was that the cult went behind their backs and had the "Paid Advertisement" banner stripped off by the printing company. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that provided the content is clearly marked it shouldn't count. For starters, China Watch and Russia Beyond are probably not the model of accuracy. Secondly, viewing a source as unreliable because it in someway associates with another unreliable source can quickly lead to many other sources being unreliable. For instance, a while ago we decided that AlterNet was unreliable. Now I know nothing about AlterNet and can't say whether that was the right decision or not. But then when we had to decide on MintPress we deprecated that partly because it republished from AlterNet. Then when we talked about The Greyzone we decided that was unreliable partly because it cited MintPress News. If my memory serves me right we literally discussed a single story when we decided on Greyzone. Now we are using links to Greyzone to deem unreliable other sources. If AlterNet suddenly turned out to be the model of factual accuracy we'd have to reconsider 3 or 4 sources on WP:RSP. This can lead to really circular logic (Source A is unreliable because no reliable source cites it. Source B is unreliable because it cites Source A). El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing here [82] that matches your claim that "we deprecated Mintpress partly because it republished from AlterNet". I do see one mention that they republished no less than 340 articles from ZeroHedge, one of the worst disinformation sites available online and furthermore, a blog, which demonstrated that Mintpress had no reliability standards and was not bothering to fact-check what they republished? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, I got the two confused. I know nothing about ZeroHedge, and I'm glad you are confident that ZeroHedge is a "disinformation site". I'm just saying that viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish could very quickly spiral into a situation where we are deciding the fate of half a dozen sources on the back of the actions of one of them. Thank-you for correcting me, El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
El komodos drago, "viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish..." is not what we do. Their bias is not a factor. We view sources as unreliable because they republish counterfactual content. It is facts, not bias, which we look at. (Obviously, extreme bias is noticed, because it's a red flag. Extreme bias tends to affect reliability.) Start noticing how those who get their views from unreliable sources will invariably deny the above (no matter how many times we explain this to them) and claim that their favored version and sources have been rejected because of the political bias of editors, rather than the fact that experienced editors usually reject sources because they are not factual, as our policies require us to do. There is a reason why controversial articles are often partially protected. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Valjean: I was not talking about bias there, or anywhere else in my discussions on this subject. My problem is that regardless of accuracy, clearly marked republished content should not count towards whether or not a source is reliable. I do not know the specifics of this case because they are behind the WSJ's paywall but I am making a broad point that we at this noticeboard have started employing some very circular logic about what is not a reliable source and are increasingly looking at linkages as tenuous as who they share readers with instead of what their actual publishing policies are. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
My question was does newsmax mark it, or does it claim it as its own?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The relevant details are behind the WSJ's paywall so I can't answer that. But I think this is the right question. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Okay, it looks like this isn't accurate but I wouldn't swear by the reliability of any of those sources. Finding the truth about any news story in America is like swimming through treacle because the left-wing media and the right-wing media live in their own little bubbles and a large chunk of them can't be trusted to tell the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Only one of those seems to mention Newsmax, and none (as far as I can tell) say anything about it reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
NewsMax states Georgia Democrat operative Stacey Abrams effectively placed a preemptive block of signature verification on ballots in Georgia's hand recount based on a claim from Trump and a republican Representative. The above sources say that this is rubbish. As I said, I can't see anyone reputable who settles this one way or the other but a lack of coverage from reputable sources seems to indicate that it is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think El komodos was trying to make an oblique repetition of the OP's claim that Newsmax provides some kind of reliable "alternative perspective", and then realized they stuck their foot in it by not really checking for more reliable coverage such as this: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/trump-launches-attack-georgia-governor-counties-work-recount-votes/RVKWG2SDFBEWRID75ST4AJRGW4/ After a further review, however, the analysis is showing exactly how bad Newsmax truly is. Responsible outlets - and even some that are considered less reliable by Wikipedia, such as Newsweek - correctly note that Trump's accusations are unevidenced and place them in the context of the various conspiracy theories that Trump, his administration, and his followers have bandied about. Newsmax chooses to completely omit context and necessary information, instead just breathlessly repeating the accusations made by Trump and by his campaign employee Doug Collins. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It was actually in response to BlackBird's request to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual but I should have been clearer about it in the original post. I was hopping that there would be an RS that roundly proved or debunked the claim but unfortunately there wasn't. WSB-TV doesn't actually say that Trump's claim was wrong and it doesn't have an RSP or MB/FC. But they look reliable and their tone of doubt is distinct. (plus it sounds outlandish so there is that). El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The American Conservative commented on the 'list of junk sources' article (link). They didn't like it very much. Jlevi (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies would seem to apply, especially for low-reliability sites such as TAC that purvey ridiculous nonsense stories like this that start out by misrepresenting a photo and get LESS factual as they go on: [83]. But this discussion isn't about TAC, which is rated "for attributed opinions" only. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sure, I agree. I include it not for review of this source, but because the article's hilarious in the context of this discussion. Probably too FORUM-y and tangential for this context, I'll admit. Jlevi (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NewsMax: Close?

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

It's snowing. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder: proposed Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I second (third? fourth?) the motion. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
To help out here is a quick count:
  1. 31 responses for Option 4 (Deprecate). I don't know that I need to go through all of these but I think these highlights are indicative, if others confirm:
  1. Schazjmd linked to Newsguard's analysis which described Newsmax as ""Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards.""
  2. Numerically, Ad Fontes Media places Newsmax's reliability rating in the same general range as other, already-Deprecated sources such as RT / Russia Today, The Epoch Times, Breitbart, Zero Hedge and the Daily Caller.
  3. Aquillion provided multiple academic papers regarding Newsmax as "as a source that has repeatedly repeated false claims from another outlet (The Washington Free Beacon, which should probably also be depreciated) without fact-checking or verification, apparently for ideological reasons, and without a retraction or follow-up when it was found to be false", "a misinformation source", and ""junk news" classification, which is defined as These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information.".
  4. Mastcell provided multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources, including The Guardian, Daily Beast and Wall Street Journal, showing that Newsmax launders propaganda and promulgates misinformation.
  5. Other responses generally tracked back to these ("Option 4: Per Acousmana, Aquillion, MatnetteD, MastCell, Hemiauchenia and others." -Magnus Dominus) or indicated incredulity that someone could see Newsmax as reliable in any way ("Option 4, deprecate. Would really hope that they aren't being used now to source anything in the Wikipedia. Newsmax has a decades-long track record of false news." - ValarianB, "Option 4 We have NEVER considered them reliable afaik, and they've gotten even worse over time." - Volunteer Marek, "Option 4, but this should hardlyt be necessary: no competent Wikipedian would use Newsmax as a source, surely?" - JzG)
  1. 6 responses for Option 3 (Generally Unreliable)
  1. Springee, whose argument against Option 4 is "the wide spread use of the deprecation process. It has gone too far and needs to be stopped."
  2. Jlevi, who wrote "Option 3 (maybe 4) Clearly a poor source. Might not be such an aggressively poor source as to require deprecation. I need to look further..." but I can't find where they came to a firm conclusion one way or the other.
Updated, JLevi writes "To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that."
  1. TFD, who wrote that they "see no evidence that they publish false or fabricated information beyond what reliable sources do."
  2. Adoring Nanny, who wrote "I think we over-use deprecation."
  3. ExcitedEngineer, who wrote "Whether we like it or not, unreliable people saying unreliable things in unreliable media are no longer at the fringe of political discourse", arguing that a WP:RSOPINION option should preclude deprecation.
  4. El Komodos Drago, who proposed to split the baby: "Option 3 for NewsMax website on the principle of generally opposing deprecation, Option 4 for NewsMax TV broadcasts because it seems particularly egregious, Option 2 for NewsMax magazine, nothing here seems to cover them but pushing generally unreliable on the grounds that neither of the other sources are."
  1. 0 for Option 2 (Unclear)
  2. 2 for Option 1 (Generally Reliable); only commenters for this were Blackbird1008, the original proposer, and Yurivict.
Please let me know if I got something wrong in my count or if there is disagreement to my synopsis. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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.
More