Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RealClear media

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

---

Moved from WP:RS/P

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS.Magnus Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - as reliable in their political opinions as left-leaning sources like WaPo. We don't consider a source unreliable because we don't agree with their politics. Biased sources are acceptable. But like all online news sources in today's clickbait environment, we should exercise caution and use common sense. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now per MastCell et al, but I would probably say that pre-2017 content might be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for now. The source has published a few questionable stories relating to the 2020 elections, but its news offerings are on the whole reliable; it should be treated as a mainstream news source. This may change in the future if its bias gets more extreme and starts causing the facts to get distorted.Jancarcu (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now (since at least 2020, and apparently since 2017), or at least "use caution", in light of their decision to ditch their reporting staff and shift from mere bias (which is OK, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES) into conspiracy-theory inaccuracies about several recent events, which I've seen and which MastCell and Aquillion go over above and which other RS called out, as noted above. -sche (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable for news, reliable for sourced opinion, if attributed to it clearly. It might at this point ib time be the best source for its particular place in the spectrum of far-right opinion. The problem with extreme right sources is there is nothing to balance them with, for there are no equally wide-read truly left wing US sources as some of those on the right. The fact that far right sources mostly tell falsehoods is important, and the best way to establish it, is to quote them, not ignore them. There is, for example, no left wing equivalent in readership or influence as Fox. I'm not sure what might correspond to this one on the other side. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable – RealClear has frequently reported false information on many topics, usually in an effort to support the politics of Donald Trump. In the example citation given, it would make more sense for the cited source to be video or transcripts of Jeanine Pirro talking on Fox News. For example, "'Criminal cabal' and Jeanine Pirro's other controversial statements". (It's preferable to obtain video directly from Fox News, rather than a montage of Pirro's comments edited together and posted on YouTube. This example shows that the video in question is available in some form and doesn't require the use of unreliable RealClear media.) --Mr. Lance E Sloan (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable RealClearInvestigations has boldly published stories where others refused to. They have been cited by other outlets and have high quality reporters. Nweil (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable now. As others have noted, RealClearPolitics has made a big shift into the fringe and is now completely unreliable as a source. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. starship.paint (exalt) 09:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliabe per comments above. SlackingViceroy (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via The Real Clear Foundation. Acousmana (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Chetsford. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, they are frequently cited even by FiveThirtyEight, their main competitor. —Wulf (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable - I have seen no evidence of a systemic problem with facts presented by others commenting here. In fact, it appears a large portion of "unreliable" !votes are based on personal opinion as to the opinions - not the reporting. Unless concrete evidence of systematic fabrication is presented, there is no basis upon which to consider this unreliable. Not liking their opinions is not a reason to discount their facts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable particularly per Chetsford. A good indication of an unreliable conservative news source is how they approach medicine and science. RCP demonstrates that they are clearly following the scientific consensus on issues relating to the coronavirus [19]. Their criticism of Biden seems fair and appropriate [20] and backed up with statistics [21], and they even wrote an article quoting some Democrats in their defence against being labelled Socialist [22]. Just because it's "biased" or supports Trump, it doesn't make it unreliable. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

RFC: The Federalist

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

---

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

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

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

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [23]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [24], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [25] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option 2 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [26]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Moved my vote from option 3 to option 2 based on it. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's go back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4 - The fabricated election fraud claims and spurious COVID-19 information are enough to deprecate this source. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is particularly concerning, to me, as that is specifically a type of medical misinformation. Here is a tag they use on their website to flag such articles. A couple examples I have noticed under the tag are: Why I Think The Wuhan Virus Was Likely Man-Made But Escaped By Accident, and Mask Fanatics Have Officially Abandoned Science To Control Your Life. EDIT: Here are some more tags they use on their website to flag COVID-19 related articles: "Pandemic", "masks", "vaccines", "World Health Organization", "COVID-19", "coronavirus", CDC, and "Wuhan Virus". Just in case somebody wants to take a wider sample of what content they publish relating to these matters. --Chillabit (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to suggest deprecating New York Magazine and the Washington Post for saying the same things? —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Would not surprise me with how this noticeboard is turning out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 i.e. oppose deprecation. The Federalist is a significant voice on the Republican right and is therefore usable as opinion. But it is a source for opinion, not for fact. As far as I know, the Daily Mail publishes minimal opinion. feminist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with reluctance and surprise. I came in here ready to !vote Option 3, however, my standard first check is to see if RS reference the source. As I've repeatedly said here, we cannot undertake independent textual analysis of any source to determine its reliability. Our only standard (with a small number of exceptions) is if RS think the source is reliable. The most cursory of checks finds its original reporting recently sourced by FactCheck.org [27] , KIRO-TV [28], The Guardian [29], NBC News [30], and others. Since it also has a physical personality by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes and the appearance of a gatekeeping process, I am only left with my personal, independent analysis to justify a !vote below Option 2, and Wikipedians - including me - are not competent to undertake independent textual analysis of sources. Obviously WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Option 4. It has got markedly worse since the runup to the 2020 US election, and now peddles the Big Lie with abandon. It'sa important to draw a distinction between factual sources with some opinion content, and opinion sources. The Federalist is not a factual source. Its content is all opinion - either a straight retelling of opinion from elsewhere (e.g. the repetition of the lies told from the Odal Rune Stage at CPAC this week) or opinion by its own contributors. We should never be using The Federalist as a source of fact. With the current levels of COVID and election conspiraciost nonsense, we should also raise a very high bar to its use as a primary source for comment: if we want to describe the opinions they publish, then do it based on third party reporting. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories does it for me. Sorry, it's one thing to be biased, but this is medical information that could save lives. Any source has to be reliable for what it says, it what it says can't be trusted as a matte of course it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning 4 Pure opinion that frequently veers into literal fake news, especially with health care and election topics. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4: I've thought this was missing from RSP for a while as an obvious "red or worse" listing. I would have initially thought option 3 but the conspiracy theories around the 2020 U.S. election and COVID-19 pandemic are completely disqualifying from taking this website seriously on anything. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the two biggest issues of the past year in the US (COVID-19 and the election) should totally disqualify a source as RS. NightHeron (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. You can find good and bad in it, but as far as The Federalist is concerned we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It certainly shouldn't be used for factual claims, but no one has presented any evidence that the Federalist falsifies the opinions of its contributors. If a person's opinion is relevant to the article, and that opinion has been published in the Federalist, then the Federalist is an acceptable source to report that opinion. The extra step of complete deprecation is unnecessary. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Seems like a clear call. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The conspiracy theories around the covid-19 and the election fraud says it all.Sea Ane (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The Federalist has repeatedly promoted both the stolen election conspiracy theory (see articles with the "election fraud" tag, per Elliot321) and COVID-19 conspiracy theories (per XOR'easter, Chillabit, and others), thus crossing the threshold for deprecation. — Newslinger talk 06:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per NorthBySouthBaranof, XOR'easter and David Gerard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 a partisan organ of opinion that is widely noted for its conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per its publication of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the 2020 US presidential election.Grnrchst (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. The evidence presented clearly shows that this source repeatedly published false and fabricated information and promotes conspiracy theories. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Newslinger. Chompy Ace 21:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via FDRLST Media Foundation. Acousmana (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Atsme and Chetsford. RS:OPINION definitely applies here, as the source does not differentiate between news and opinion articles. See, for example, three articles about Edward Snowden all published in December: Edward Snowden Is A Hero Who Deserves a Full Pardon by Jordan Schachtel, Edward Snowden Isn’t A Hero And Doesn’t Deserve A Presidential Pardon by Alex Plitsas, and Rand Paul: President Trump Should Pardon Edward Snowden by… Senator Rand Paul). Additionally, their content is frequently featured in the Wall Street Journal’s Notable & Quotable and Best of the Web sections. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I grew up with The Federalist being a standard conservative publication that I read fairly often, but their readership and standards have long since changed and the willingness to publish mistruths and conspiracies. Those preferring option 1 or 2 above have not convinced me of that at all. That said, I don't know that this rises to the Daily Mail level and my reading of the relevant policies/the DM RfC doesn't get me there. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, not terribly opposed to #3. They have outed themselves by perpetuating knowingly-false election fraud propaganda. Whatever past credibility they once had as classic conservatives with at least a reputation for honesty has ben shot. ValarianB (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Is this an option 4 then, or an option 1 for historical content and option 3 for more recent content? Your vote says one thing, but your reasoning says another. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Um, no, I said nothing of the sort. Don't project your own biases upon me, please. The Federalist has become a dumpster fire of purposefully fake news of late, I only have a slight hesitation of putting them all the way down at the bottom of said dumpster alongside the Daily Mail. ValarianB (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  past credibility they once had as classic conservatives with at least a reputation for honesty -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 and acknowledge its bias. If we deprecate every source that praises President Trump and what he stands for, challenges COVID germophobia, and/or questions the legitimacy of the 2020 election, but fail to deprecate all of the left wing sources, it's time to deprecate WP:NPOV as well because nearly all right wing sources do those three things. That said, there's certain things it should be used for, because it is biased in favor of the right. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, but as has been said, kind of okay with option 3 as well. I go back and forth, because it certainly used to be a reliable source, and took a recent decided nosedive. I predict it will pull itself back together, but as it stands right now there's little evidence of that. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 has there been any left-leaning sources rated as unreliable by RS/N yet? Or is this a personal collection of left-leaning activists that dominate this site anyways. Wp:Cabals is totally a conspiracy theory. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Left-leaning sources are rated as unreliable when they are, for example The Canary was rated as unreliable a few days ago, the Daily Star was deprecated last year, Occupy Democrats was deprecated in 2018. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Also Alternet, Daily Kos, and the Palmer Report are not acceptabe sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but irrelevant. The issue is not political lean, but reliability. The Federalist is not a reliable source of fact, it is a political activist site designed and intended to sway opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Of course it involves political lean but not always. I don't want want to bust anybody's bubble but no news source in today's clickbait enviroment is flawless - they took a little more care when it involved printing. It's easy to find the mistakes and misinformation reported by MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC and you'll see plenty, not counting that which was whisked away from public view after they got caught; most was simply ignored. You can start with this list, Rachel Maddow, oh, and Bob Dylan is still alive, and so is Tom Petty, MSNBC misidentifies the race of a suspect, Joy Reid under fire for false election claims, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell retracts and apologizes for thinly sourced Trump finances story. CBS fired 4 executives, and most recent is is the 60 minutes controversy. Hopefully, my point has been made so I don't have to go back and add the links to demonstrate how The NYTimes kept a fake reporter employed for 4 years and had to return a Pulitzer, and also WaPo had to return a Pulitzer for a different fake story. Atsme 💬 📧 17:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Atsme and Chetsford.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

• Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories:[31]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[32]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[33]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [34]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [35] -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

That piece did not actually recommend “that people hold ‘chickenpox’-style parties for the coronavirus”. Rather, it suggested that the government consider establishing controlled infection and quarantine centers. It is not true that it “specifically advised people to go out and get infected”. —Wulf (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I just read the article that NorthbySouthBaronof cited in his iVote - and yes, the headline is sensationalistism but they all do it, and there's bias mixed with spin but they all do it. The article ended with the following: Unless election officials in Michigan and Wisconsin can explain the overnight vote-dumps and, in Michigan, the “typo” that appeared to benefit Biden, and Pennsylvania officials can explain their rationale for counting ballots with no postmark, the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. Was there a follow-up? Regardless, that article is opinion journalism mixed with facts and they all do it. If that's the reason for downgrading this source, then downgrade them all because they all do the same thing except with a different bias and spin because they are writing for their demographics. The main difference is whether they spin right or left. I think people who align with the left can readily see the bias in articles that lean right and vice versa. Bias is not a reason to deprecate or downgrade a RS. That is an IDONTLIKEIT reason, and has nothing to do with CONTEXT or the reliability of a source. The author John Daniel Davidson is a credible journalist, and has had his work published in the WSJ, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, etc. Here is his January 2021 article which speaks to the same topic. Our job is to include such material per DUE using in-text attribution cited to that source. We don't bury it because we don't like what he's saying. We provide ALL significant views, but if we keep downgraded sources just because we don't like what they say and don't align with political perspectives, then we're going to run out of the kinds of sources we need to maintain NPOV, and that would be a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 00:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to me that several of the support votes are suggesting that, while the Federalist may have posted deliberately misleading information about COVID-19 and the aftermath of the 2020 US elections, the site shouldn't be deprecated because so many right-wing sites published that type of information that to deprecate all of them would introduce bias. One obvious solution is that we should prefer secondary sources published after-the-fact instead of contemporaneous news which may contain what people hope rather than what is fact. I feel the views of those who insist in April 2021 that Donald Trump is currently serving as President of the United States can be ignored. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed. As everybody knows, the current US president is Teddy Roosevelt.^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Jewish Chronicle

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

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

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

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no IPSO rulings against The Canary as it is not regulated by them but by IMPRESS. Being regulated by IPSO is generally seen as a sign of reliability, whereas IMPRESS has yet to establish a reputation. If IMPRESS rulings alone were the problem with The Canary, reliability wouldn't be an issue; there were several other issues raised about The Canary - are there other issues with the JC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

No. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed BobFromBrockley's comment here. Yes you are correct about the Canary, IMPRESS is viewed as much stricter than IPSO, fully implementing the Leveson Inquiry. My mistake. IPSO on the other hand regulates such paragons of virtue as The Sun, The Star and the Daily Mail, which are deprecated on this website. IPSO membership is not an indicator of reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this incident, Mayhew's complaint was REJECTED by the press council. Finding ONE incident over the course of 40+ years is hardly evidence of non factual reporting. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

He received a public apology in the High Court. That is a fairly strong indicator of false information being published. However, I agree the problem relates specifically to recent years.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Like Alaexis said there are similar ruling against other UK news outlets. Being member of IPSO give them additional credibility. For example The the Guardian its not part of IPSO at all. Does it mean we should depreciate it? -- Shrike (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Attribute re Labour party(3), Palestinians(3) and Muslims(2) generally. Recent change in ownership not really had time to bed in. But the sources are clear enough:

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/subject/jewish-chronicle/ and https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/press-regulator-finds-jewish-chronicle-guilty-of-multiple-breaches-of-editors-code/ "The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting)." Seems there is another trouble brewing:- https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/03/jewish-chronicle-double-legal-trouble.html Changed my opinion a bit after this piece.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - A paper in publication for nearly 200 years is bound to have some complaints directed against it, and some of them upheld. The fact that it published corrections in response is a point in its favor, not against it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

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

It did not publish "8 false stories". It had 8 complaints upheld against it for inaccurate claims (e.g it claimed a left-wing person was expelled for his anti-Semitic views, when the available evidence did not clearly or explicitly show that) or failure to produce evidence for some of its claims, and it addressed them by publishing corrections. These exaggerations seem to indicate that you are on some sort of personal crusade here. I suggest you let editors, whose input you are presumably soliciting here, provide such input, without bludgeoning them with commentary when they fail to toe your line. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

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

• Option 4 for the Brleft, per Buidhe for the rest; it hasn't always been so reactionary, and for most of its existence has been a paper of record for the community. It's mainly under the current regime that the malleability of facts begins. As Buidhe points out, there's unlikely to be a need to use it as a source ert Islam, except for its own position. ——Serial 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A newspaper which regularly publishes libels, and which has published articles in defense of Islamophobia. The Daily Mail is sensationalist, but unlike the Chronicle it did not accuse charity organizations of having ties to terrorism. I would not want the Chronicle used as a source in any BLP article. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The opening statement is incredibly biased for a RfC, making this RfC inherently flawed. It also contains false statements, for instance link 8 is to JVL's website, a highly criticized organization, saying it lodged a complaint with IPSO. However ISPO actually ruled there was no breach - after investigation. The JC has been facing targeted complaints (by groups accused of antisemitism) in recent years. Despite this, the number of complaints upheld is not particularly large. This is a long running news organization that is highly reputable. As for Interpal's terrorist designation, while the UK's Charity Commission on its own investigation did not find Interpal to be supporting terror, it is still designated as terrorist by the US, dating back to 2003 (Guardian coverage in 2019). Money transfers to Interpal have been blocked in 2020 by HSBC,[36] and their bank accounts were closed by multiple other banks in the past.[37] This is not a black and white situation, and rulings here vary by country.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 A newspaper as old as the Jewish Chronicle is bound to have some complaints from time to time. The press in Britain doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as in the US, so libel lawsuits are much more common there. And the IPSO has been extensively criticized for being an overly bureaucratic regulator. Nevertheless, JC issued corrections and/or full retractions whenever they did make an error, which is a sign of a good WP:NEWSORG. It would probably be a good idea to use attribution for matters concerning the Labour Party. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 but with the caveat that this is strictly within the context we have been asked to consider and is not my judgement of the source’s body of work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The paper is reliable, specifics need to be hammered out on talk pages if a particular author or fact is reliable for a given citation. -- GreenC 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per GreenC, Sir Joseph, and Hippeus. The opening statement of this RfC has false statements (A post on JVL website that was rejected), the newspaper has a very long positive track record. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both, but Option 1 for the newspaper historically as per the discussion above. It would worry me greatly to think that some of the multiple unsubstantiated or false statements they've published only in the last few years were used in a BLP. Volteer1 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for both per Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1. Possibly even Option 4 for reporting on the Labour left, specifically since 2018. (IPSO noted "significant concerns" about the handling of certain complaints and referred the JC to the IPSO Standards department as a result.) 7-8 complaints (with more on the way). in a fairly short period of time is significant for a non-national weekly publication.--DSQ (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 in the topic-areas mentioned. It is unequivocally a WP:BIASED source in those areas (I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise; they're very, very upfront about their policy goals and outright declared that they were seeking to eliminate Labour's leadership), but that alone wouldn't make them be unreliable; and as others have said, a few unrelated IPSO judgments against them wouldn't be unusual. The problem is that they have a significant number of IPSO judgements that all point to very specific unreliability in the context of their bias, which demonstrates a consistent willingness to skip fact-checking and accuracy when it fits their ideological goals; in other words, they show a systematic problem which makes them a poor source to use in those topic-areas. Its track record on other topics does not change this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The fact that it is properly regulated and complies with regulator's decisions is an index of reliability. Some of the breaches are more serious (the first listed) while others less so, so it is not really fair to lump them all together. In the case of the 8th example, IPSO did not uphold the complaint: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=28437-20 Two of the examples relate to British Islamist organisations, so it seems a very big leap to "Islam". If people think two corrected articles on Islamist organisations indeed require additional considerations on topic-specific unreliability, I'd phrase it more narrowly. The more serious issue would be in relation to the left. However, considering the huge volume of articles the JC published about Labour antisemitism in this period, five upehld complaints leading to corrections doesn't amount to an awful lot. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, as BobFromBrockley points out it is properly regulated and has a good reputation, the amount of upheld complaints is small in relation to scope of reporting, and the 8th example is actually a rejected complaint.Nyx86 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's usually reliable but has to be treated with caution on certain hot-button issues, where WP:ATT would apply. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: it's as reliable as any other newspaper on these topics, which is not to say that the origin of information/opinion does not sometimes need to be attributed to the source. It is also not to say that the source does not have a bias (every source does): in this case it has at least an anti-left wing political stance (I don't know enough about its reporting on Islam). Boynamedsue calls it "exceptionally biased"—but I think this whenever I read The Guardian or The Times. What's new? Every source has a strong selective bias (and almost all of those biases clash with my own). The number of complaints seem unsurprising for such a major publication, while the membership of IPSO is a point in its favour. There's a clear fact-checking process with editorial oversight and a corrections process. Bobfrombrockley makes some good points. — Bilorv (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It has double the number of IPSO rulings against it than the deprecated Mail on Sunday, a paper several times its length. The only weekly title with more IPSO rulings against it is the Sunday Times, which again is much, much longer. The crucial difference with other newspapers is that their errors are randomly scattered by topic, whereas every single one of the JC's errors relate to falsehoods published about the British left, including 6 about the same woman! (dealt with as a single case) This shows a systematic pattern of publishing false news about a particular group, rather than the normal errors one finds in the process of news gathering. As for IPSO, well they regulate seven deprecated publications, so membership is no guarantee of reliability. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Further to the questions about IPSO's reliability, I notice that IMPRESS hasn't yet taken forward very many complaints. IPSO has published its external review naming the directors of the funding company and the editors' code commmittee, and IMPRESS will publish its own review in 2022, so at this stage I don't think there are sufficient grounds to make negative comparisons between regulators. At any rate, I'd say membership of either regulator would demonstrate a public commitment to the external regulation of accuracy and ethics. I'm not sure how many IPSO cases we'd expect to see in the seven years since records start in 2014 for a comparable publication from a religious / cultural / ethnic minority in extremely turbulent times, but I counted 17 which struck me as pretty low. As pointed out above, there are rulings in similar vein for other publications which are accepted as credible sources here, so there would need to be more to this proposed deprecation than just rulings. As stated above the opening statement here is out of date - further to the JVL complaint the JC was cleared (see IPSO ruling 28437-20). Moreover, for half the cases against jc.com and a third of those against the Jewish Chronicle in the same timeframe, the ruling was that there had been no breach of the Editor's Code. Meanwhile JC has published and continues to publish articles by left politicians, activists and commentators, so I don't find the claim a track record of systematic hostility convincing. I take all this to indicate that standards are generally being met. In summary the JC seems comparable with other credible sources here. TrabiMechanic (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 As per the responses from Aquillion, Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1 and for all the points Boynamedsue has also made. It has been very faulty concerning its reliability regards many British Left-wing organisations and individuals, Muslims and Islam and Palestinians. Its exalted age and past quality track record on other topics does not give it a free pass. Historically (prior to 2010) and in other areas it might well be Option 1 or 2, but for the specific question of this RfC it is undoubtedly Option 3. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per the analysis by TrabiMechanic and BobFromBrockley. Longstanding organization that has been under an organized attack, and even so the amount of complaints and their contents are not particularly significant.--Droid I am (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 for recent coverage of the British left and Palestine/Palestinians (do not use material from ~2016 onwards and be extremely careful with stuff from around 2010 to around 2016). Option 1 generally reliable for other matters, but strongly consider attributing for content related to Islam/Muslims. This is based on the totality of evidence and comments presented and linked in this thread. The source is clearly currently problematic regarding a specific subject area, and it's long track record does not excuse that. Outside of that single topic area though there is no evidence that it is any less reliable than before. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 for broadly anything coming under the ARBPIA topic area. As has been said, other sources which are as or more reliable have been found to be unreliable or deprecated. It's normal for news organisations to have clear biases, but much of its content is so far beyond the bounds of accuracy as to be propaganda. Rather than just carrying out reportage, it has political agendas. It criticises the Board of Deputies of British Jews, no shrinking violets, for not being hardline enough and, indicating its priority isn't impartiality, calls on the Israeli government to produce better hasbara. Its articles are sloppily written, showing little fact-checking rigour. Writers often show a lack of knowledge. Having been heavily criticised for its editorial standards by the press regulators, the claim that the paper is "well-regulated" is fairly risible. It disregards normal journalistic ethics, altering articles after publishing without noting the changes, sometimes deleting them altogether. On Wikipedia, its content is cited to excessively ram biographical articles of those disliked by supporters of Israel full of uncomplimentary material, editors doing so showing, if anything, the inclination to do the complete opposite in articles on those for whom they have a liking and also not showing any real appreciation for other points of view. Really, I think that the ARBPIA area would probably benefit from setting the bar high on sourcing standards as is done in articles related to Eastern Europe. As many of the sources which take a view opposed to that taken by papers such as the Chronicle have been judged to not be reliable, that means that much non-factual material is presented as fact. In the long term, I expect that much current material sourced to papers such as the Chronicle will be pulled as books become available.

Currently I'm involved in a talkpage discussion involving the reliability of articles inluding one from the Chronicle in which a number of untrue or inaccurate factual statements underlie a claim of antisemitism being made against Kerry-Anne Mendoza, editor of The Canary.

An article which I happen to be reading currently and is I think, through the people and organisations supported, rather telling about the position of the paper on the extremity spectrum. It's by Lee Harpin, whose Jewish Chronicle pieces have, by my count, been on the losing end of at least three recent court cases or press standards complaints for libel. Editors might like to Google: Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS); Saul Freeman (an LAAS member); GnasherJew (its Twitter feed was recently suspended); David Collier[38][39][40]. A couple of potential results which I think are worth reading: [41][42].

Example smear: In January 2010, the Chronicle phoned Jenny Tonge early in the morning for comments on a piece in the Palestine Telegraph, of which she was patron, which mentioned YouTube videos which made claims that an IDF team in Haiti was involved in stealing body organs for transplant. Tonge expressed support for the team and, in response to a question, suggested that, to prevent the allegations going further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry (“To prevent allegations such as these – which have already been posted on YouTube – going any further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti”). The transcript of the phone conversation no longer appears to be on the Chronicle's website, although parts of it are quoted in later articles. The Chronicle then, by stages, transformed Tonge's suggestion as to how to stop the allegations going further into a demand for an independent inquiry: see the headline here, "Tonge: Investigate IDF stealing organs in Haiti"; see the headline and text of the article here, "Nick Clegg has sacked Jenny Tonge as the Lord's health spokesperson over her demands for an investigation into organ trafficking in Haiti by the IDF "; see the blog piece here, "I was lost for words when I read that Jenny Tonge wants Israel to disprove allegations that its medical teams used the opportunity to harvest organs while on a humanitarian mission in Haiti." The smear that Tonge demanded an inquiry has been repeated frequently, making a recent appearance in David Baddiel's book "Jews Don't Count."

The following link is to a current example of a highly biased 'news' article which would skew Wikipedia if used as a source of fact rather than opinion. Note the use of polemical words such as 'denial', 'thrall', 'toxic', 'rampant', 'cancer', 'hate', 'madness' and 'poison'. Note that the BDS movement is controversial, but not the EHRC report (which "proved the Labour Party broke the law in its treatment of Jewish people") or Ian Austin, who is quoted at length, and his organisation Mainstream UK. Article: The Jewish Chronicle - Jake Wallis Simons - EXCLUSIVE: 70% of Labour members still think the party has no problem with Jew hate and don't want Corbyn expelled, 30 March 2021. (For comparison and a different viewpoint, see this article in the Electronic Intifada, a source which was found to be unreliable, partly on the grounds of partisanship, with the probable participation of a number of the contributors here.)

    ←   ZScarpia   02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Hippeus, Dr. Swag Lord, and TrabiMechanic. GretLomborg (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Again, another poster-child for why these "should this source be banned forever for being baddy-bad-bad and saying nasty things about people I like" RFCs should never have been permitted in the first place. There are things that JVL probably isn't the most reliable source on (like, how good is their sports coverage?) but voting any other way on this RFC takes away editors' rights to decide how to use this source in general. IPSO reports taken in isolation aren't a good measure of reliability - you have to compare how many reports JVL received compared to sources regarded as reliable received. Simply having a position that is critical of the left and of Labour is not an indicator of unreliability, not unless the plan is to simply ban right-leaning sources from Wiki. Had this been linked to an actual content dispute (e.g., something specific in an article about Israel-Palestine?) it's very possible that I might vote differently, but the broad scope of this discussion leaves me with only one option. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Now it's very easy to see that Interpal has been designated as such by the US [43], [44]. Alaexis_¿question? 11:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as the UK Charity Commission goes, note that from October 2012 to February 2018 (the Interpal case was concluded in September 2019), it was chaired by William Shawcross. As the article on Shawcross says, "in 2011 he joined the board of the Anglo-Israel Association and was appointed to the board of the Henry Jackson Society." The Henry Jackson Society, rightly or wrongly, is often seen as "a leading exponent of neoconservatism in the UK."[45] Shawross is now part of the consortium which owns The Jewish Chronicle.[46]     ←   ZScarpia   00:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note I have resotored this discussion from the archive as it would benefit from formal closure. I'll list it at WP:ANRFC shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: California Globe

I've been seeing The California Globe, which is owned by Sea of Reeds Media, showing up in some California political articles (currently 27). They generally cover political news with the occasional opinion columns, however the distinction is not apparent within the articles. Therefore, I am asking for community comment on the reliability of the site for future reference. Which of the following describes The California Globe the best?

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

— BriefEdits (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (California Globe)

@BriefEdits: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Redrose64:. Sorry for the hassle. I've pared down the statement and tried to make it neutral. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 4 No evidence has been presented why it should be classified as option 4. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry guys. This is my first RfC and I'll remove the fourth option (I just thought it was the default options to list). I'm not too familiar with proper posting procedures and just mimicked the other RfC's I saw on the page. I'll try to adjust it as best I can. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ​No need to apologize. It is perfectly acceptable to offer deprecation (option 4) as an option in an RfC on this noticeboard. Other editors are able to choose a different option if they prefer. Even if you don't list deprecation as an option, editors can still specify deprecation as their preferred option, and it will still count toward the eventual result. Don't be pressured to amend an RfC, as long as it is compliant with the rules in WP:RFCST. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ​Oh I see. I was just flustered, but I will include it again for posterity so all the comments make sense. Thanks for your insight. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure an RFC should be needed here - it is a "news organization" (in quotation marks sarcastically) but it has only 3 real employees, and appears to crowdsource its news with minimal fact checking (including to a high school student in one instance I found). I furthermore find no evidence they have a robust retraction policy nor any place to submit tips/report factual inaccuracies (beyond emails for the editors... which is very odd to have listed on the main page). At most, I think it can be considered possibly reliable for local news, but it does not meet any of the thing I'd look for for any sort of reliability in general. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 and use attribution. The New Jersey Globe, a sister news site of the California Globe, seems to have done media reporting that has been cited by local and national outlets (Politico Fox News, NY Daily News, Philly Voice, the Daily Voice, NJ 101.5) and was taken seriously enough for The Asbury Park Press to fire a reporter. I don't think ownership by Sea of Reeds Media is disqualifying, since a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument would lead me to believe that the New Jersey Globe is likely reliable in its media reporting.

The sort of WP:USEBYOTHERS for The California Globe is different, though I think it's still there. I've found quotes sourced from/credit given to the online news organization in its reporting from the NY Daily News, the Lake County Record-Bee, the New University, and Mojave desert news, The San Joaquin Valley Sun. USA Today has used The California Globe in creating some of its pieces, and USA Today is a perennial reliable source. There are definitely sources that indicate that The California Globe is WP:BIASED, such as The Sacramento Bee. Taken together, it looks like while it's a conservative/partisan news and opinion site, it is still a news and opinion site. My best reading on this that it's partisan and generally reliable, though I wouldn't use it to support WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims owing to its partisan nature. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3, generally unreliable for factual reporting - per the information provided by bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez regarding their methods. They sound flaky AF, to be blunt. That in combination with strong is a disastrous recipe. Especially if they use *crowdsourcing* for information, and their readers are tinfoil hat wearing wingnuts. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. It is a fake news site, in the sense of a site that falsely portrays itself as a news source. It doesn't publish fake news as far as I can see, but there's no original reporting and no proper attribution, so this material is of questionable provenance and the main aim seems to be selling clicks. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The majority of the content on The California Globe is written by either Evan Symon or Katy Grimes, who are also listed as the editors. This is not an adequate editorial process, and makes the site the equivalent of a self-published group blog. The California Globe should not be used for claims about other living persons, per WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." — Newslinger talk 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Newslinger. There is no evidence at all of editorial fact checking. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Newslinger, no evidence of sound editorial practice.--Droid I am (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - As others mentioned, this more seems like an opinion-pushing source than a newspaper with editorial oversight. The first article I check from its first page is dedicated to echoing, in its own voice, a dubious claim, based on some random person's quote that obviously misrepresents an event... Convincing me that 3 is generous. —PaleoNeonate – 07:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 as the comments above, generally unreliable with lack of editorial check.Sea Ane (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Opinion pushing site with no apparent editorial oversightJackattack1597 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - summoned by bot: per Newslinger reasoning I checked the 14 most recent articles under "The Recent Headlines" and found all of them except 2 were write by either Grimes or Symon, the Senior Editor and the Editor in Cheif. The other two articles were written by Chris Micheli who is a lobbyist[47]. If majority of site is writen and edited by same two people, it lacks significant editorial oversite to be reliable. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 The highest that can be said about them is that they aren't bad enough for option 4, but it's effectively a glorified blog really, lacks sufficient editorial controls. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: April 12 closure

Mikehawk10, I see no reason why you would close this RfC this early [48], especially as an involved editor. There is no clear consensus at this stage between Option 3 and Option 4 and it would be better to wait it out a little to have stronger consensus and, as a result, stronger legitimacy down the line. JBchrch (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reopened the RfC per WP:BRD [49]. JBchrch (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good; my bad ok the premature close. I had closed it because the RfC had elapsed and the discussion looked as if it overwhelmingly favored Option 3 (which is not my position but it clearly looks like that of the community), so I could list it at WP:RSP quickly in the case that the community doesn’t like it for use in political articles in California. Obviously you are in the right to revert if you believe that there wasn’t a clear consensus; my thinking was WP:IAR so that the community’s decision could be implemented quickly in order that the community might improve Wikipedia. That being said, WP:IAR generally seems to be best suited for areas that don’t cause conflict among editors owing to ignoring rules. I apologize for that and for the inconvenience it has caused you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem Mikehawk10, it's good to be bold 👍. I just think we have to be careful because the outcomes of WP:RSN RfCs may become "policy" through WP:RSP. However, I believe that it is possible to remove disputed content even before formal closure (if it the consensus is moving in the direction of "unreliable") per WP:ONUS. JBchrch (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

adl.org/blog (Anti-Defamation League Blog)

Something that popped up during the discussion at COI/N. While on RSN, ADL is listed as "reliable", there is only one entry. Should their blog section be separated out just as sources like Fox New, Huffington Post are depending on the section where the contents are listed? Graywalls (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What specific information are you trying to source to the blog? --Jayron32 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• It would probably fall under the "opinion pieces" part of that discussion, as well as the spirit of WP:NEWSBLOG, which would suggest using only with attribution and being cautious when citing it for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:BLP-sensitive statements; additionally, the authorship matters a great deal. That said going by the discussion you linked the issue is more likely to be WP:DUE - the ADL is a very high-profile and influential organization with a strong reputation, meaning its opinions are often due, but it seems like the user there has been inserting it into articles that go beyond the areas where it's considered an authority and into topics where the significance of what the ADL has to say is more tangential. I would generally accord less due weight to its blog, since if something is only covered there, it somewhat implies that the ADL itself isn't giving it as much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What I am trying to establish, in generality is whether or not adl.org/blog should remain together with ADL, or if the blog section should be treated differently.Graywalls (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If the blog publishes the official opinions of the ADL, then it's reliable to the same extent as the ADL is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper and magazine blogs allows "online columns they call blogs," provided "the writers are professionals." Their latest article is "The Women Facing Charges for January 6, 2021" (April 6, 2021), which provides information about the women facing charges for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. I have no reason to believe that the authors have falsified the information in the article and assume it is just as reliable as an article in legacy media. TFD (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd apply my default approach to primary sources of opinion publishing: don't use it. If something on adl.org is genuinely significant it will be referenced in reliable independent secondary sources, which we should cite. If it's not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it's WP:UNDUE. We're not supposed to mine the internets for primary-sourced opinions that make the point we want to make. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What Guy said. It may be reliable per TFD (and I don't see us deprecating ADL) but without independent, secondary sources it's very likely to be challenged as WP:UNDUE. Guy's approach of not using a source that is very likely to be challenged is good practice. Spudlace (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article I linked to is not a primary source of opinion but a reliable secondary source. Let me explain the difference. Our expectation is that facts will be the same in all reliable sources, while opinions expressed in reliable sources may be different. Reliability is solely determined by whether or not we can be confident that the facts are accurate. People providing opinions in reliable sources are not expected to have alternative facts, but to use the same facts and interpret them differently. One source may argue for example that U.S. health care is superior to universal healthcare because it allows greater choice, another may argue it is inferior because it neglects some citizens. We don't expect that the two articles should use different set of facts. We do expect that the authors will have a different set of opinions. Facts can be verified or disproved, while opinions cannot. If we find false information in sources, then we can challenge its reliability. TFD (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• ADL blog doesn't need seperate Perennial Sources entry from its main site. Its reliability would be the same. If the blogposs are opinion pieces, would be covered by guidance on that; if factual piece, the spririt of NEWSBLOG offers some guidance. Normal practice around DUE weight would apply: if the ADL blog is the sole source for something it may not be DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ourcampaigns.com (again)

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

---

At least 1000 articles now cite ourcampaigns.com. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure

To me, the site is clearly WP:UGC and I was challenging it as a reliable source for date of birth on a BLP, but then I looked and saw how often it's referenced in articles. I'd like to have a community consensus to point to before I keep fighting its use on that one article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ballotpedia (which is not an open wiki) is generally a better source for political information of this sort. Some of the Ourcampaigns content (specifically their potential candidates) appears to be speculation by unknown persons. Without more investigation, I won't support deprecating it completely (they do have some control over their content), but it should not be relied upon for BLP info such as a birthdate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should ever be citing OC. Perhaps it can be a resource to find primary sources, but there are much better sites to source election results to because it's UGC. Reywas92^Talk 02:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ourcampaigns shouldn't be cited in articles - and ideally not used at all, but sadly, for sourcing some obscure detailed past election results (for county maps), they're the only realistically available source. At the risk of potentially inaccurate county maps, I feel like it should be allowed for that purpose. Otherwise, no. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I think this is basically a fansite, no better than a blog, and should be removed wherever it is seen. The long-standing issues suggest a mainspace edit filter, at least. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, but don't blacklist because county maps are useful information to link to that are often not found in other sources. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I am a neutral party in this and am not weighing in whatsoever. I am just noting in a clerical capacity that the Feb 2021 link has changed to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC - ourcampaigns.com as I have closed the discussion as having consensus that it is generally unreliable and re-archived the discussion per my latest timestamp. This result has also been listed at WP:Perennial sources. This closure was done per request at WP:ANRFC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC: thrashocore.com

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

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

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (thrashocore.com)

• Option 3 A well done fansite with a mix of album reviews and track listings. I don't see a lot of use of it anyways as a source of factual information since it has little else besides reviews and track listings. Reviews are opinion, and not used as reliable information anyways, and track listings are cited to the work itself. I'm not sure what else someone would use this site for; but on the off chance that there's some chance it might be used for factual information, it probably shouldn't be. --Jayron32 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• See WP:FANSITE. Not a source. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Jayron32. Chompy Ace 09:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per their own site, they're a semicasual bunch of bigtime fans who made their own fan site and did a good job of it. Which is cool, but they aren't reliable nor do they pretend to be. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (thrashocore.com)

• thrashocore.com was first discussed at WikiProject Albums (since archived), but received insufficient participation to gauge sufficient consensus. As such, I am bringing it up here. Pinging the only participant in the previous discussion (excluding myself), @Sergecross73:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  What kind of information are you trying to source to the site (which cannot be found elsewhere)? --Jayron32 13:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: I don’t want to source anything to it. It was brought up as a source to demonstrate notability of an album this past fall. At the time, I said it was probably under SPS as it is a self described zine. I figured that wider discussion of its reliability would be beneficial for future reference should it be mentioned at a discussion. I attempted discussing at WikiProject Albums, but it received insufficient participation, aside from Sergecross73 agreeing it does not appear to be a reliable source. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  An RfC is probably not necessary, if it hasn't been discussed here before. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  What specific thing was being referenced from that site? Was it a track listing? A review written by a known journalist? An interview? --Jayron32 11:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: An album review [50]. Kleim Antyne doesn't exist and there are few results for them in google (not that that is the world though). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A single album review is hard to hang an entire article on. If there's nowhere else to get reliable information about the band from, then there's nothing to write an article about. Even if we take the website as reliable (and a review is not a source of factual information, it's the opinion of the author, so reliability is less of a thing here, we're only concerned with the relevance of the opinion), a review is not factual information to use to write an article around. --Jayron32 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: There were multiple (9) per the previously linked discussion (link) that were either listed at ALBUMAVOID or otherwise appeared in the same boat as this source. I am not a proponent for sourcing this site or saying that their reviews are noteworthy etc. I am just posing the question about the reliability of the site for future reference as I have seen it used at AfD as an example attempting to demonstrate notability. Asking about so many options at once at an RfC isn't the best way to get any sort of a clear result. As sergecross73 stated in the linked discussion, "While they’ve got an editorial staff, any I spot-checked did not have any professional credentials, just “I really love metal” type stuff. It’s more of an enthusiast/fan site. So it doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s RS requirements." Unfortunately, two editors isn't a sufficient consensus to link to or justification to list it at RSP or WP:ALBUMAVOID. I am trying to get consensus (regardless of what that is) so that this can be referred to in future. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Gotcha. --Jayron32 14:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Film Music Reporter

 – Chompy Ace 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Was currently editing an article when I noticed something off. My question is, has there been a discussion on the notability of Film Music Reporter? I've seen articles from the websites being used in major film/television-related pages without any issues, but now the User:Headbomb/unreliable.js script is detecting it as a "generally unreliable source". Just wanted to know if there had been a discussion and/or consensus on the matter. Some Dude From North Carolina 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

When I edited the page Avengers: Endgame, I replaced this source to Screen Rant but User:Favre1fan93 reverted my edit as the edit summary says, "[...] film music reporter is a reliable source". Meaning the edit summary should indicate that Film Music Reporter is a reliable source. Chompy Ace 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just hope it's tagged as such so it isn't highlighted as a "generally unreliable source". Some Dude From North Carolina 00:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, See previous discussions here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Film_Music_Reporter and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_35#Film_Music_Reporter, which actually treated as a self-published source. Unreliable. User:Betty Logan said, "Film Music Reporter looks like an WP:SPS to me, and there is nothing on the site to suggest it has a professional staff, and professional accountability is more or less a requirement for RS", while User:David Gerard said, "Looks dubious even for an SPS. Here's the about page. Comments don't look real either. I'm wondering what this site is for." Chompy Ace 09:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this hasn't really been discussed before, just some brief comments from a few editors in those links. While I agree that there is no clear evidence from the website itself that this is not an SPS, I have used it often and always found it reliable, and a quick search shows that it is used by members of the film music and broader entertainment industries. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

From my experience with the site, at least in regards to soundtrack info, the information they relay seems more or less like press release material. That's generally what I've used the site for, as a source for soundtracks and track listings. I know they make other posts and I can't speak fully to those, but I have not found or had reason to believe the soundtrack ones are unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WION News

I notice that WION News [51] articles are increasingly used as a source on Wikipedia for Asian (geo)political articles. I am new to this page and procedure, so I would appreciate it if someone can help me understand how to get a general review of WION, so its reliability and limitations become established in WP:RSP. Thanks, Morgengave (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgengave, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list, it features those which are repeatedly brought to this noticeboard. WP:RSPCRITERIA states that for a source to be included, it must either have an request for comment on the source's reliability or at least two significant discussions, a discussion being considered significant when there are at least three participants. One is usually advised to go through the archives of this noticeboard to see if a source has already been discussed. At present there is one discussion from October 2020. I'm unsure if it would qualify as a significant discussion, seeing as one of the three who had commented on its reliability has been found to be a sock.

I had participated in the previous discussion, and I would just re-iterate what I had said back then. The outlet as it stands acts as an unofficial outlet of the ruling party in India. It was started in 2016 as an international news counterpart of Zee News and now has an unified editorial staff with it. Neither of these would be reliable as they don't refrain from misinformation. I can see that it is being used in 207 articles per wionews.com   which might need some cleanup. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's much easier to comment if you ask about a specific use of the source. I know that in at least one specific area, the CoVID-19 death toll in China, they have engaged in really crazy speculation, suggesting that there might have been millions of deaths: [52]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Legal Insurrection

• legalinsurrection.com  

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Legal Insurrection's reporting? Acousmana 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information.

• Comment I think this pattern of editors throwing RfC after RfC with no discussion and no examples of source use is really a problem. It seems the effort is to blanket cast sources into bucks of "always good", "never good" etc rather than asking if an individual source article is reliable for the specific claims it is being used for. Additionally, I thought in the past we at least required some examples of how the source was being used before starting a RfC. Perhaps a rule should be no RfC unless there are at least 2 examples of discussions/disputes related to the use of a specific source. Springee (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Its a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

it's a blog, yes, currently cited across 21 articles, one being Shooting of Michael Brown: "Andrew F. Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer focusing on self-defense law, attributed O'Donnell's comments as a straw man because self-defense is a completely independent and sufficient justification for the use of deadly force." Also currently discussed here, about referencing Legal Insurrection in State v. Chauvin. Is bias evident, with respect to a specific narrative that is being constructed around Chauvin's actions in the killing of George Floyd? Acousmana 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A better way to have started this discussion would be to not do the RfC and instead focus on those particular uses. As a blog it's almost certainly not going to be DUE. I think the only exception might be if we can show that the author of the entries qualifies per RSOPINION. To show that either the specific author of the entry or the blog in general would have to be shown to be notable/cited by others. For example a blog entry by Alan Dershowitz would probably be acceptable per RSOPINION. The same may be true of a source like Volokh Conspiracy blog [[53]]. It would have to be an attributed opinion but it may be due in such a circumstance. That doesn't mean Legal Insurrection is due in any of these cases. Springee (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thought preferable to establish Legal Insurrection's general reliability, in terms of the legal opinions offered, instead to dealing with 21 usage instances. Acousmana 12:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't do that with a RfC. Instead search the RSN archives and see if the source has previously been discussed and then ask if it can be used in the article as proposed. As a blog the answer is almost always 3 but if it is also a RSOPPINION then it's interpretation of uncontested facts may be due. Springee (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)]

checked RSN-A before listing, I feel preferable to get wider community input on source at this juncture; save having to revisit usability as source every time a suggestion arises. Acousmana 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What did you find? It looks like this discussion might be relevant [[54]]. It had only limited discussion but Netoholic made a good case for it's use as an expert opinion in that example. Again, this is a case where it would be much better to simply discuss the topic vs start a cold RfC with no upfront discussion. Springee (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

saw that, a single editor's opinion, from 2 years ago, doesn't really add up to much in terms of establishing general reliability. Acousmana 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a blog so it will never have "general reliability" but that doesn't mean it would never be acceptable in some applications. Springee (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a blog. Period. Not reliable, except for the opinion of the blogger. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think this needs an RfC. There are 30 uses, it's a blog with no obvious evidence of meeting RS, it can just be removed. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Per the evidence presented last time (and I'm taking on faith the evidence checks out), this source may be acceptable as a RSOPINION legal commentary. This is especially true if a local talk page consensus supported inclusion. Springee (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

    Springee, if it's not reported in third party sources then it's WP:UNDUE. Primary sourced opinion pieces are something we do not need. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Use it carefully. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Close as unnecessary WP:BLOG seems to cover it, there's no indication that this particular blog is any special problem, and I don't think that WP:RSP should be cluttered with every random blog that comes up. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC Forbes Advisor

A new type of Forbes "Advisor" source that has been proposed to be used and is discussed here Talk:Ethereum#Vis-à-vis_Bitcoin. The source appears to be novel, in that it contains both a contributor and an editor, as well as an advertiser disclaimer (click the "Advertiser Disclosure" link at the top of the page):

The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. To help support our reporting work, and to continue our ability to provide this content for free to our readers, we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site. This compensation comes from two main sources. First, we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers. The compensation we receive for those placements affects how and where advertisers’ offers appear on the site. This site does not include all companies or products available within the market. Second, we also include links to advertisers’ offers in some of our articles; these “affiliate links” may generate income for our site when you click on them. The compensation we receive from advertisers does not influence the recommendations or advice our editorial team provides in our articles or otherwise impact any of the editorial content on Forbes Advisor. While we work hard to provide accurate and up to date information that we think you will find relevant, Forbes Advisor does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Here is a list of our partners who offer products that we have affiliate links for.

There is RSP on related issues at WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON.

QUESTION: RS on Cryptocurrency articles? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Forbes Advisor)

• NON-RS Forbes' disclaimer says "we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site...we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers" This clearly says it is a paid contribution, and regardless if it has been edited by an 'unpaid' editor (noting the editors salary was still paid with the paid content). WP:QUACK QUACK QUACK Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Caution due to potential paid writing. Check their list of disclosed advertisers. Not all their writing appears to be paid and I don't see how this particular instance was. Generally unreliable due to paid writing. I missed a few things here initially. --Chillabit (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Chillabit, the list is incomplete (Below is an example of advertisers who offer products that we have affiliate links for on Forbes Advisor). This specific article has a section entitled How to Buy Ethereum, and has direct links to crypto-exchanges. How is that not an ad? As I explained in my response, they just succeeded in fooling you to confuse it with a legitimate Forbes article. JBchrch (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Forbes, man, how low will they go? From what I could gather, Forbes Advisor publishes articles that present themselves as legitimate financial advice, but which incorporate some form of paid advertisements. It looks like it was specifically designed to blur the lines between journalistic content and advertising: most article are made up of both informative, factually correct content and ads. The problem is that it's impossible to know if what you are reading factually correct, Forbes-grade content or if you are reading the actual ad. Two examples illustrate this. What Is Ethereum And How Does It Work? was, I think, written to sell ads to crypto-exchanges such as Coinbase or Gemini: as such, it mixes correct and useful information about cryptos, with ads. Here, the ad part is obviously the section entitled How to Buy Ethereum combined with the "Featured Cryptocurrency Products" section. Same concept, more or less, with Who Needs A Business Checking Account?. Now look at Marcus By Goldman Sachs Review or American Express National Bank Review: this is pretty much all ad, masquerading as a "review" and pretty much indistinguishable from the more legit content. In my view, any outlet that fails to distinguish clearly and distinctly journalistic content and ads cannot be considered reliable. JBchrch (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable I mentioned this on the Talk page but: I think this particular article is a RS because it was written with editorial oversight per WP:FORBES. Specifically, a Forbes Editor is a co-author (Benjamin Curry). After reviewing Forbes' disclosures, they made clear that they still remained editorial independent and objective. I don't even see where the advertisements are on the page, except for links to other articles with information on how to buy cryptocurrencies. Please note that I am the original editor who cited this article on the Ethereum page. Hocus00 (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• It depends, but edge on unreliable If the article is strictly only written by an Advisor (or as they are still being called Contributors), that's the same original problem with Forbes contributors. That said, it is clear there are staff positions within the "Forbes Advisor" section and articles written by them (eg [55]) and those should be taken as not having the Contributors stigma. Same with those with an Advisor Editor. That would apply to the article in question which has an editor as co-author. But all that said: the bulk of headlines that I see out of this-- I wouldn't call clickbaity but they are of the type intended to seed SEO and draw search results, and many have paper thin content. (eg [56]). Ad in JBchrch's comments that the site related to advertising facets, and I would definitely try to go elsewhere first for the same information. --Masem (t) 13:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: When the publisher distances itself from the accuracy of its own articles, there is little room for a publication to develop reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:REPUTABLE): Forbes Advisor does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. If I have misunderstood what could be legalspeak instead of an editorial disclaimer, there is still the issue of unclear delineation between paid advertising content among its articles as already noted in this discussion. The end result here should be very similar to WP:FORBESCON, with only slightly more (albeit still inconsistent and nontransparent) editorial oversight and therefore marginally more reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. It's advertorial, with the ads mixed in unmarked with the factual content - even if it's written with a staff member. We can't trust advertorial for Wikipedia. The publication is explicitly distancing itself from these articles; we have no reason to take them seriously as sources. File with the contributor blogs - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 I agree with Masem. I'd compare "Forbes Advisor" to Dotdash (RSP entry), as Forbes Advisor seems to primarily consist of SEO-driven reference-type (i.e. tertiary source) articles. feminist (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable since it's difficult to tell paid adverts from anything else. Barca (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Forbes Advisor)

• The disclaimer clearly says "we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site...we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers" This means that someone/something may (probably) have paid for Forbes to write this, and then Forbes will include it. It will lead to the promotion of all kinds of non-notable cryptocurrencies and other investment schemes, regardless if an editor has reviewed the placement's grammar. Specifically, in this case, Hocus00 is using the source to WP:PUFF a comparison of Ethereum to Bitcoin and tomorrow we will have comparisons of Litecoin to Dogecoin, etc. In the past, we have clamped down on these promotion issues with WP:GS/Crypto as well as an informal ban on all crytpocurrency-zine sources, blogs, WP:UGC, etc. This appears a novel attempt to skirt that ban that could also lead to the inclusion of non-notable products and services as notable on WP. It is possible that Forbes recognizes that should this pass it might accomplish an end-run around our currently in place notability filters. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop suggesting that my edit was made to "skirt" the crypto restrictions or puff the Ethereum article. The article appears to comply with WP:FORBES as an Editor was a co-author. If this new type of article is deemed to be unreliable, then so be it. As mentioned on the Ethereum Talk page article, you bullying editors into deleting their edits, posting frivolous Talk page warnings and made-up Wiki policy violations is completely inappropriate. Hocus00 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to Forbes deploying a novel tactic to get contributor content included in wikipedia again. Paid placements by new tokens seeking WP notability could generate good 'advertisement' revenue for forbes... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• They seem to disclose a list of advertisers here. I don't see anything directly cryptocurrency related. That disclaimer link appears to show on all their articles in this section of the site, regardless of topic matter — see here, for example. Have I missed something? --Chillabit (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Advertisers list says "Below is an example of advertisers", it doesnt say it is a complete list of advertisers. However, it seems clear here that the main issue is paid placements, which undermines our attempts at determining WP:DUE. Normally paid placements are advertorials and we dont use them. Right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I did miss a couple things here actually including the "an example of" on that page, thank you. If they had a full list of advertisers specifically disclosed we could probably parse whether individual articles are usable decently well and I would apply a 'caution' label. Doesn't seem to be the case. --Chillabit (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

scottish-places.info: A great source dressed up like a bad one?

On List of power stations in Scotland I noticed a bunch of links to scottish-places.info and the website name got my attention. It goes to the Gazetteer for Scotland's website which is rather old-school and very yellow, and contains some entries that appear almost user-generated in feel.

However, closer examination reveals it to be an academic work by what seem like appropriate leading experts. An FAQ page reveals "specialist authors" are employed (presumably on a voluntary/unpaid basis) to write the articles, that they "try to use multiple sources to substantiate facts", and use impressive primary sources combined with professional experience. It also reveals the two lead academics hold joint editorial control. The editorial team are also all identified.

So on the whole it seems like it may in fact be an excellent source. I can think of many uses for citing pesky details on all sorts of things. But it all hinges on if I'm right that the authors and their results are actually reliable, and if I'm right to conclude it's not self-published. Am I? 92.24.246.11 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Does nobody have an opinion? That's... Not very reassuring. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Idk about this at all but one test is to search in books and see if obvious RS make use of the source and it seems they do Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps just to know I'm not talking utter nonsense. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Results of research: mentioned a lot but no real results

Inspired by poking around here and the perennial sources list, I went off on a very deep (at least to me!) scour to see what I could find by way of other assessments by Wikipedians:

• Nov/Dec 2018 on talk:Orkney: passing reference made to reliability in context of a move request
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Islands by area lists the source as recommended and notes the academic credentials but it's unclear if any discussion was held
• Jan 2008 a question was asked on Wikipedia talk:Notability about the source in the context of using it to establish notability, but no answer specific to the source was given
• Feb 2008 on Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, where it was compared favourable but cautiously ("less prone" to "spurious" settlement entries) to OS resources.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Free Scotland: mentioned once, to support notability (article kept)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Benachally: Same as above, even the same editor (article kept)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolside, Clarkston: Lack of coverage used to suggest lack of notability as part of one user's broader argument (article deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browsburn: lack of coverage noted in passing (article deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Beag: Criticised, if I read the comment correctly, for its depth of coverage
• Here on categories for discussion, used to support an argument, not commented upon further
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crieff Hydro a familiar face uses the source to argue notability, but implies there may be inaccuracies (article kept)
• Oct 2010: mentioned in passing as an example, responded to with unchallenged harsh criticism ("not [a] reputed database")
• March 21: Recently used to contest deletion, but it was an uncontroversial request by the looks of it
• Dec 2018: Again mentioned in a categories for discussion conversation, again by one of the two most familiar faces discussing this source

I have made some minor corrections to my links. All that typing and I never bothered to preview, wow. That's the result of nearly an hour of searching, searching, searching by me. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but it seems to me like there's no clear sense for or against reliability. It's used a lot, but mostly by the same handful of editors. Some concerns have been noted, but other editors seem to see it as excellent. What a mess. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've used that source occasionally in articles. The fact that it's maintained by Edinburgh Uni and the RSGS gives it some sort of academic credibility in my view, although I confess that I don't really know who the contributors are, or how much editorial input the academics who set it up are able to exert. I wouldn't use it to support any kind of contentious assertion, or to back up a claim of notability, but I wouldn't raise my eyebrows very high if I saw it being used to flesh out an article on a building or a river. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems to accord with my own rough view from reading all that plus my own initial look: Great source for fiddly details, but use carefully; too broad in scope for notability arguments and not great for anything controversial. Thanks. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source

Brian Dunning, “science writer and author, and also the Executive Director of Skeptoid Media” has been used as an ostensibly reliable source to support a claim made in the WP Grey alien article. I submit however that Brian Dunning should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

Brian Dunning plead guilty to and was convicted of felony wire fraud (2014), scamming eBay out of an estimated $5 million dollars. With his Skeptoid podcast, Dunning purported to defend the wider public from fraud even while committing fraud himself – indeed, according to many commentators, including blackmailing a co-conspirator and defrauding his own Skeptoid supporters in the same scam. A further indication of Dunning’s character and reliability has been highlighted, also from within his own constituency: “I did not think it was right to gloat when the cultural opposition falters or ceases to be an issue as when Sylvia Browne died. I do not think it proper, or rational to gloat when a skeptic has faltered either.”

I would like thank the community and ask for a consideration of this matter. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, Dunning is a respected expert on this topic. His issues with eBay are not as simple as appears on the surface: he was basically stitched up, but acknowledged that he should have realised that what he was doing was impermissible. That's not relevant to his expertise on the subject of ufology folklore. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: what are your sources for these claims? - Scarpy (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy, I think it's all; covered at Brian Dunning (author). I should note that I first knew him as a FileMaker Pro guru, I listened to Skeptoid for about a year but stopped after his conviction because I was uncomfortable with the lack of judgment it implied. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I have to agree with Scarpy. What are the sources you rely upon for that assessment? If it is Dunning’s explanation (then talk to the guilty and and they will always plead their innocence to you), please see A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation

And Dunning is certainly not a reliable source, his DDT fail is a perfect example.

Nor is he particularly respected by his own supporters, who tend toward outrage. “The outrage, however, comes from knowing that I enjoyed Skeptoid enough to do the $4/month donation for several months, finally caving to Dunning’s frequent postscript pleas for money. The donation requests were interesting, since Skeptoid once billed itself as “the only podcast that does not accept donations or sponsors,”

And a duplicitous hypocrite… In an interview with Alex Tsarkis, after Tsarkis has questioned Dunning about why he will not debate his opponents, Dunning argues the principle that it is easy to throw out false or misleading “one-liners”, but to prove them false often takes a great deal of time and effort.

“They’re [whoever Dunning’s opponent of the moment is] not limited to anything. They can say whatever the heck they want. They can throw that stuff out way faster and make it up way quicker than I could ever keep up with or respond to. I’ve found that many debates go that way. I attend a debate sometimes. I watch them.”

However, a few minutes later, after Dunning has engaged in the precise practice that he has just berated his opponents for, Alex Tsakiris politely notes Dunning’s hypocrisy: “You are fulfilling [laughs], you are fulfilling your prophesy about debate. You just laid out about ten points there that would have to be deconstructed and handled one at a time.

A few minutes later, Alex Tsakiris notes Dunning’s habit of lying by omission: “So you just mentioned Scargle’s commentary. Why don’t you mention Nelson’s response to it, published in the Journal for Scientific Exploration, a peer-review journal that he wrote a response to that? Or, the additional papers that have been published since then as a response to it? We have two folks debating here. Don’t we want to hear both sides of the debate?

Brian Dunning: Certainly. I don’t have that in front of me. I can’t read that for you right now.

Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s also an interesting context that do you remember where Scargle’s criticism, where that’s published? It’s published in the same Journal for Scientific Exploration that Nelson and Raden published their articles…”

Dunning is implacably biased…and the problem with Dunnings wilful ignorance of (potentially) falsifying evidence is that one must forever after be fact-checking whatever the man says. Demonstrably the man cannot be relied upon to provide an honest appraisal of whatever he is talking about.

Oh, and Guy, just because you know someone as a "guru" in one field (Filemaker), does not make them an expert in ufology, nor in FileMaker apparently... Dunnings self-proclaimed qualifications as revealed in his FBI interview prior to his charging and conviction (Dunning plead Guilty btw ETA: ...and he went to prison):

”Summary from FBI record of interview 19 June 2007 which records Dunning's statements: / 1. He has had very little formal education. / 2. He does not have a college degree. (He quit college.) / 3. He attended classes at BYU, UCLA, and UC Irvine. / 4. He is not an experienced administrator. 5. He depended on employees at Rackspace to do most of his technical server work. / 6. He does not have any formal training in computer science or any related technical field. 7. His [claimed] expertise in Filemaker Pro is self-learned.”Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, see also poisoning the well. This has nothing to do with his reputation as an investigator of claimed paranormal phenomena. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. For anyone interested, context for this section of RSN is available here, here, here, and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Comment. Sorry JoJo Anthrax, you forgot to indicate the primary context, that is here in relation to here.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, you made the claim that Dunning was some sort of "guru" - I was merely pointing to some pertinent facts to indicate Dunning might not be a "guru" after all. Those facts were directly relevant to the point you raised.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, I get it, you hate what Dunning says and are looking for a reason not to include it. My comment stands: he is a well known and respected figure within the skeptical community, and this is in his wheelhouse. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, you are an unreliable judge. That is, your opinions are biased - you termed Dunning a “guru”. Clearly, he is not a “guru” in anything.

You also claimed Dunning was “stitched up” – when he actually plead guilty, was convicted and was sent to prison. He also had a co-conspirator who he tried to blackmail - and who was also convicted and got an even lengthier sentence. That bias of yours, alone, disqualifies you from any input into a decision in this matter, let alone the following considerations.

And where are your sources for that claim? You don’t seem to grasp WP guidelines. If you want to make claims such as "stitched up, “this is his wheelhouse”, etc., you need to provide reliable sources for you claims. All claims require evidence, and unless you can supply that evidence, we are entitled to dismiss your claims as unfounded.

You also stated Dunning “is a respected figure within the skeptical community” However, my sources cited above come from within the skeptical community and they seem to be somewhat outraged, as they should be, as every thinking skeptic should be (you should see what some of the skeptical forums have to say about him - would you like me to supply more sources in that direction?). Yet you seem to laud the man, a convicted felon, convicted for fraud (!) no less, perpetrated on his own followers as well as eBay, as some kind of hero.

Further, with your poisoning of the well statement “you hate what Dunning says,” means you do not “get it" at all. You totally misjudge my character and purpose - go to at my talk page for example or read my comments on the Grey alien article in question, or the the article I constructed in my sandbox… (have you done any of those things btw?) ...besides, you have presented no evidence for that claim, which is in fact the commission of the fallacy of ad hominem. All claims require evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence, then we are entitled to dismiss them as unfounded.

So on those grounds I do not accept your ”my comment stands". Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What we can say, for sure, is that Dunning's fraud conviction is totally irrelevant to whether he's a subject matter expert, as it would be for any other person. If, to take a random example, Klaus von Klitzing was to be found guilty of fraud tomorrow, would it make him no longer an expert in quantum physics? Of course it wouldn't, that would be silly. The only thing that decides whether Dunning is reliable or not is whether he is described as such in reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A counter example: Jan Schön Schön scandal was considered to be a shining star of condensed matter physics. He was later found to have faked his work and is now not considered to be an expert on anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

With all due respect, this strikes me not so much as a counter example and more of a non sequitur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a real counter example to a fictional speculation. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

The Dunning question is: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in another area?

You gave an example of: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in that same area?

Totally different questions. That is why it is non sequitur. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. It is clear that Skeptoid or Dunning cannot be considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that eBay fraud has nothing to do with source reliability. For the earlier episodes/material of Skeptoid, I think we'd have to abide by the rules for self-published sources because it's not clear what oversight Dunning had in his research and his main academic qualification is in engineering. On the pro side, Skeptoid 1. now has a board of directors, presumably meaning its information is not sourced to one person's judgment, 2. and Dunning's work has been syndicated/republished and covered by reliable news sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wingedserif, just to clarify, Dunning doesn't have any academic qualifications. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• On Wikipedia, especially for fringe topics, WP:PARITY matters. Dunning is notable for reality-based criticism and can generally be used as such. WP:ATTRIBUTE as necessary if controversial. —PaleoNeonate – 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Guy, Black Kite, and PaleoNeonate. Attribution as necessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Point of order: Again and again in the discussion above I am seeing the word "convicted". See our article on Conviction. The correct term is "pled guilty as part of a plea bargain", See our article on Plea bargain. The reason this makes a difference is that there are two common cases where what someone agrees to in a plea bargain is radically different from what the result would have been in a fair trial.

1. Case one: The jury would have almost certainly convicted on charge A but to save court time and costs and to avoid the possibility of acquittal the prosecutor offers a plea deal for lesser charge B. This may also happen if the defendant has information the police wants or is willing to pay back money that would otherwise be safe in an offshore account. Low level drug dealers often get a far lesser charge, zero time and no fine if they cooperate in bringing down the big fish.
2. Case two: The jury would have almost certainly not convicted on charge A but the prosecutor offers a plea deal where the accused gets a far lesser punishment. Imagine if you were accused of crime A which you didn't commit. You are given a chance to go to trial and serve 40 years if convicted, or plead to a lesser charge and get six months probation. Your lawyer says that you will probably win in court but that you are rolling the dice with a jury. Also, whichever way it goes you will lose your life savings in legal fees and spend months on the front page. Remember, in this imaginary scenario you are 100% innocent. Are you sure you would take a chance on the 40 year deal?

For these reasons we should always specify whether someone accepted a plea deal or was convicted in a trial. It is an important distinction.--Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is actually relevant to the disucssion, but pleading guilty does not mean you are not then convicted. When you enter a plea of guilty a judgment is entered without a trial, but you are still convicted of the charge you plead guilty to. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't correct. A guilty plea is often followed by a conviction but not always. For example, it may be followed by adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which may be followed by dismissal after adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This happens when a decision is made to put off the convict/dismiss decision for a certain amount of time and if you keep out of trouble during that time, complete drug rehabilitation, or some other condition, your case is dismissed. Always check to see if there was an actual convicyion instead of assuming that there is one besed upon a guilty plea, Even if there is a conviction after the guilty plea it is important to distinguish a conviction by plea bargain from a conviction by trial. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• All interesting, but in this case it was followed by a conviction and 15 months imprisionment. Thus saying he was convicted of fraud is accurate. You can, if you wish, say that he was convicted after pleading guilty, but both the statement "he was convicted of fraud" and "he entered into a plea bargin" are true. - Bilby (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not to lengthen a digression, but I have to side with Bilby here. It is quite correct that dispositions other than conviction are possible after a plea, but where the disposition includes conviction it seems appropriate to couch it in those terms. Cheers. 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. Imagine that we were using OJ Simpson as a reliable source on something football-related, Bill Cosby on something comedy-related, or Harvey Weinstein on something movie-related. Would they become any less expert because they committed crimes unrelated to their fields of expertise? Brian Dunning is a well respected as a skeptic, even by people who say that they now have no respect for him as a person. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm finding this a bit difficult to answer. Is he reliable in regard to any fringe topic? No - that's far too broad. Is he reliable in terms of the history of UFOs? That depends on what expertise he has in the field, but given that I'm not aware of academic qualifications needed to be a UFOlogist, I'm leaning towards saying he is as qualified as anyone else can claim to be. Is Skeptoid reliable? It's a podcast, and seems to be (like many podcasts) self published, so it isn't reliable for BLPs, and has made at least one significant error in the past, so I'd be wary of using it in general. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There is no connection between the conviction and the texts used as sources. If you want him to be classified as unreliable, you will have to find a much better reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution To be honest, I am not a big fan of the man personally, but Skeptoid has been cited and seems well-known. I don't know that it has been cited enough for general blanket reliability, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution. Here is the sentence that we are being asked to determine if Dunning is a reliable source for: According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later. Dunning continues to be quoted by news and media as a scientific skeptic and subject matter expert: [57], [58], [59], so yes, he's a WP:RS for what he's being used for. As Guy Macon said, someone doesn't become any less of an expert because of a crime unrelated to their field [60]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I am sorry, but I cannot sit idly by while complete and utter fabrications in Dunning’s defence are promulgated.

Dunning directly admitted he was guilty on numerous public occasions and in official FBI interviews. For example: and ”Dunning pleaded guilty on April 15, 2013, to a Superseding Information charging him with wire fraud. In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program. The parties stipulated for sentence purposes that between $200,000 and $400,000 of those commissions were the result of the fraudulent scheme.”

A critical analysis of Dunning’s statement in his own defence can be found here.

And if you are still in any doubt about whose version of events to believe, the court documents are available. For example (a selection):

…and if you are still in any doubt as to Dunning’s or Skeptoid’s character and reliability, please see

Other references you may find useful:

Hopefully by injecting some facts into the debate, we can forestall all misleading speculative opinion about Dunning and Skeptiod that is being promulgated above. Facts matter. Opinion not supported by reliable references may be dismissed as unfounded (and the old excuse that "Oh, we all knew him as a good guy, the life of the party, a pillar of the community, a stalwart for the cause... was said also about many wife beaters and serial killers ...the neighbors and colleagues are always surprised and many go into denial - a pattern I see repeated above. However, it is not a valid argument on which to base a judgement in any case, let alone this one.

The man is a convicted fraudster who has admitted his guilt. One cannot claim to be fighting fraud on behalf of the public while committing fraud at the same time and expect to be taken seriously as a credible source of information. On all the evidence above the man is utterly unreliable. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from an obviously neutral and dispassionate observer who clearly has no emotional stake in the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. As per Guy Macon, Guy, Black Kite, and PaleoNeonate above Heiro 06:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for stuff like grey aliens. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, just need to add this then I'll shut up again.

Let’s take a closer look at LuckyLouie's referenced links. Dunning says Nostrodamus was unreliable. That is what makes him a reliable source? My 10 yr old could have told you that about Nostrodamus, but I wouldn’t trust him with scientific skepticism. Dunning says the best explanation for the “WOW!” signal is a radio signal from the direction of Saggitarius? That is mere unsupported speculation. But notice something? The WOW! signal was a radio signal and it did come from a particular direction …so in essence Dunning has said nothing at all. Is it that that makes him a reliable source? And Dunning says the US Navy Videos are an optical illusion? So, let me get this straight, all the people involved, including the pilots and the technicians and scientific support staff – that is, the technical expertise, might and resources of the US Navy, could not work out what the objects were, but Dunning breezes in and claims they were an optical illusions? “Oh,” the Navy says, slapping their collective palms to a forehead, “why didn’t we think of that! This Dunning guy must be an absolute genius!” Perhaps Dunning should speak to the pilots and witnesses who were actually involved? Given everyone actually involved is at odds with Dunning, your reference in this regard shows Dunning to be completely unreliable. He speculates an entirely implausible explanation that flies in the face of all the evidence and is not supported by any evidence itself. Just because Dunning claims something, does not make his claim valid. All claims require evidence. Dunning rarely supplies evidence for any of his wild speculations. Is it that that makes him reliable?

And then, what is this? Dunning said about his prison sentence ,“…he likened to life in a college dorm”. Soooo obviously no regrets then …and privileged much? Poor him. And ” Dunning recommends “getting in front” of the story and being completely open about one’s criminal record.”. Oh please, he has obfuscated and has been utterly disingenuous and self-serving about it.

Please. Can we just stick to the facts and apply some critical thought. There is nothing in what Lucky Louie linked to that might indicate Dunning as a reliable source – in fact, quite the opposite.

ETA: Sorry to Guy Macon, but Dunning committed fraud. And that is directly related to his alleged field of expertise. Moreover, if you claim Dunning is well respected, then you will be able to produce the reliable sources that say so. And precisely who are the people who have no respect for Dunning as a person, yet maintain respect for him as a skeptic? This is Wikipedia. I have been lead to believe (in no uncertain terms) that WP requires that all claims are verifiable by reliable sources. What is good for the goose must also be good for the gander, surely? Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh I don't believe this. I just noticed ...LuckyLouie is lying by ommission. It is actually this statement that Dunning is being relied on to support.

"In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous. The alleged abductees, Betty and Barney Hill, claimed that in 1961, alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer. Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system). Betty thereafter began to refer to them as Zeta Reticulans. According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later."

I really don't appreciate such tactics and I don't believe Wikipedia should tolerate them either. Particularly in that I trusted Lucky Louie to at least be fair minded. I am sorry this debate seems to have taken such a negative turn, but that is not my doing. Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References (Skeptoid)

Sources

The Daily Poster

Is ‘’The Daily Poster’’ RS? Thinking specifically in the case of this article. https://www.dailyposter.com/p/a-glimmer-of-hope-for-those-saddled - Scarpy (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a substack publication founded by David Sirota. It has one more editor and several contributors. I think we should be guided by WP:USEBYOTHERS and I managed to find at least one such usage [61]. I'm not a big fan of fact checkers but MediaBiasFactCheck rate The Daily Poster High on factual reporting [62]. On the other hand, it should probably be possible to find a better source for factual claims. Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Similar to The Dispatch, probably. The Daily Poster has many established journalists as editors and contributors, a good sign. But just the same, as Horse Eye's Back mentioned in the last discussion, "... the Dispatch and similar Substack-style outlets are probably in a similar place now as some 'new media' outlets were 5-7 years ago. There is some indication that good journalism might come out of them, and there are some specific outlets about which I am optimistic. However, there is absolutely zero track record on them". Jlevi (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Astrodatabank, TV Guide, Ranker.com, Google Arts & Culture reliable?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Question about sources

FYI

 – I've changed the title Kleinpecan (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have some questions about sources: Are biographies of living people on Astrodatabank and Tvguide(Fast facts) considered reliable ? Also are Celebrity lists on Ranker.com a good source to verify notability that could be added as a reference ? What about Google Arts&Culture? Are online exhibitions created by partner cultural organizations,that have been reviewed and published by Google team, considered secondary sources even if the museum is associated with the subject? Many Thanks--Montavanelli (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2021

Hello Montavanelli and welcome to the Teahouse (this was at the Teahouse when I started writing)! General tip: Check WP:RSP or search the archives at WP:RSN for questions like this, that can help. WP:RSN is also dedicated to these particular questions. On to specifics.

• Astrodatabank No, see WP:USERG.
• Tvguide Should be ok, see WP:RSP.
• Ranker.com Per the hits I checked at [63], probably not.
• Google Arts&Culture Not familiar with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång , Thanks for your reply. How about sources like bios from the directory of Experimental Cinema, or in depth articles from Newspapers such as Il Piccolo or broadcast interviews from here ? Articles coming from specialized Journalism on blogs like this , this , this or this would be considered a reliable source? How about Thrive Global?.Thanks a lot if you can clarify.--Montavanelli (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Montavanelli, Experimental Cinema says "Feel free to collaborate sending us information about events in your area, publications, your creations, or writing on and expanding our wiki section." So that seems WP:USERG too. Il Piccolo seems like an ordinary newspaper, probably ok. Interviews can be ok for some stuff, consider Wikipedia:Interviews. Blogs, see WP:BLOG. TG doesn't seem like media per se, about itself or its clients it would be WP:PRIMARY. If you intend to write about living people you should also check WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång thanks for the advice. Can I submit an article draft here to check the reliabilty of the sources with experienced editors?--Montavanelli (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Also are fdb.pl and filmweb considered reliable?--Montavanelli (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

University Hospital Mannheim

This article has been edited primarily by a SPA with possible COI. Before I take a scalpel to the article given their unresponsiveness to talk page message, I'd like to know whether the community considers any of primary sourcing for this article is acceptable.

• Source is used throughout article: "Research focus areas". Retrieved 2021-03-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

• Ranking site which I do not know how to assess: "Die Zeit: Medicine ranking". Retrieved 2011-03-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Appreciate any input

Slywriter (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

'Die Zeit' is a regular broadsheet paper in Germany (a weekly one) with a good reputation, i would say. The particular link is from 'Zeit Campus' (link to German wiki article], a bi monthly magazine for students by the same publisher. According to the german wiki article, it has an editorial staff and is not free like other comparable publications. It uses young as well as veteran journalists working on the broadsheet and some guest contributions by notable scientists (notable enough for wiki articles anyway). It would not be a primary source as it has no connection to any university. More like a general guide, amongst other things, from what i gathered. Just to give some context on the latter. The first most certainly is primary though. Hope that helps at least a little bit and saves you lot some time coming to a conclusion about the reliability of it. 91.96.163.88 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Daily Sabah and Hürryet for Turkish nationality/citizenship of Kurdish refugees from Turkey

Currently there is an RfC on the topic at Hamdi Ulukaya, a successful Businessman living in the USA who has according to some sources has a Turkish citizenship, but for sure a Kurdish nationality/background as he often elaborates of the Turkish oppression of Kurds as a reason for why he fled to the USA and as is also stated in numerous articles of his. The RfC filer Clear Looking Glass prefers Turkish nationalist newspapers of the likes of Daily Sabah and Hürryiet to the New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal in order to present him as Turkish, even only removed the Wall Street Journal, which I added before without changing the content and only included to show there exists another POV. As to me, to source the nationality/citizenship of Kurdish refugees, no Daily Sabah or Hürryet should be allowed, specially under the currently flawed Press Freedom in Turkey.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Of coure not but we shouldn't be calling him a "Kurdish refugee" either. Is WP:RS/N needed to resolve this? Have there been other disputes about using these sources to source claims about nationality/citizenship? Unless it's a repeat problem we wouldn't deprecate but non-controversial sources may be preferred by some editors. Most non-controversial sources are using "Kurdish immigrant from Turkey". Hurriyet seems ok. This article about the death threats he has received from the far right in the US for his preferential hiring practice of immigrants [64]. Spudlace (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want a solution for the RS. Not about the Lead. For this is there is RfC. They edit warred Daily Sabah and Hürryet back in over Wall Street Journal etc. and I mentioned this was not appropriate at the Article talk page. They are quite determined to use these sources to edit war them back in. Then Kurdish immigrant from Turkey is not good for the lead. I'd go with Kurdish-American businessman, but this option was later removed by the filer.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned on the talk page that there are sources that also refer to him as being "Kurdish" or "Kurdish-born" or a "Kurd from Turkey" etc, just as there are sources from the websites you've mentioned (like The NYT, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc) describing him as being "Turkish" or "Turkish-born" or "Turkish American". After reading more about the Daily Sabah, I'm now not sure about using the source. But as "Spudlace" said, Hurryiet seems okay. Pardon me for getting off topic, but I'm not trying to present him as only being "Turkish". I’m aware of his citizenship, situation, ethnicity, etc. But that’s being discussed in the appropriate pages. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

A request regarding RFCs

It is not uncommon for this noticeboard to have multiple RFCs running at the same time. This is fine. However, because we tend to set up our RFCs using the same subheadding format ("Survey option 1", "Survey option 2", "Discussion", etc), it can become confusing as to which RFC a comment is being added to.

I suggest that we need to better disambiguate our subheadings - In an RFC about "source X", the subheadings should be something like: Source X RFC - survey option 1... while those for source Y would have subheadings such as: Source Y RFC - Discussion. This simple fix would quickly separate the comments related to X and Y (and Z etc) when checking our watchlists... and would help us keep track of which RFCs people are commenting upon. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This sounds great to me. Jlevi (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, I've literally just changed a subheading from "Survey" to "Survey (California Globe)" for exactly these reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion and one that editors should feel free to implement themselves if other editors forget or don't know to do this. (Personally, I'd like us to discourage so many RfCs being opened, especially for sources that have not been previously discussed and have not yet proven to be especially contentious. That would also help with the issue that has been raised in this suggestion.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also agree with that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Star-Ledger op-ed

The question related to the article on The Hurricane (1999 film). I used an op-ed published by the Star Ledger. <https://www.nj.com/opinion/2014/04/spare_us_the_lies_about_the_late_hurricane_carter_mulshine.html> This piece was written by a columnist employed by the paper and identified by name. It is not being used to establish facts other than the fact that he criticized the film for historical accuracy errors. Since the paper is clearly a RS, the author is an identified employee of the source,clearly identified as opinion and the piece is being used to verify the statements attributed to the author (WP:RSEDITORIAL) I think it is usable. Another editor questions the inclusion <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hurricane_(1999_film)&diff=1017790123&oldid=1017788561> because the author is conservative and makes statements that are opinion. What I am using the source for is to support the sentence "The Star-Ledger discussed the film's inaccuracies about Carter's earlier incarceration and the depiction of the Giardello fight." Those inaccuracies and the depiction of the fight are supported by other RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really a reliability issue. You don't have a magic "get out of consensus free" card here. The source may be reliable in general, and the opinion piece may be correctly quoted and cited, but you would still need to establish that it is relevant to the article in question. In saying that, I'm not saying it is NOT relevant text, and in saying THAT I am also not saying that it is relevant text; if there is an objection to the text on relevance grounds, you'll need to establish consensus that it is relevant; having a reliable citation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for including something in an article. Good luck, but it's not really an issue of reliability here. It's an opinion, and the relevance of the opinion is established by other means that any sort of reliability test. --Jayron32 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wasn't looking for a magic card. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. The editor that contested it cited "This column is not something I would regard as a reliable source for facts on the accuracy of the film." That's why I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 that this is not an RSN issue. If you do get consensus to include the info, the opinions should probably be attributed to the author instead of the paper. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Star-Ledger is certainly a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG, but the op-ed would definitely constitute opinion. In other words, it's totally OK to use it for attributed opinion. That being said, not all opinion pieces published in newspapers constitute due weight, though that isn't an RSN discussion, as previous editors have pointed out; discussion on due weight is more appropriate on the article talk page than here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently I wasn't clear. I understand that merely being in a RS doesn't mean it belongs in an article. The editor that contested it did so with the comment "This column is not something I would regard as a reliable source for facts on the accuracy of the film.". That's why I brought it here. First I wanted to discuss the reliability, then deal with the rest. It's pointless to discuss weight and other things if the source is ultimately not going to qualify as a RS, right? Step one: Establish reliablity. Step two: Determine relevance. Step three: Determine weight. I'm here about step one. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  With new emphasis: "This column is not something I would regard as a reliable source for facts on the accuracy of the film." Since the column is an op-ed, that editor is correct. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  But you aren't using the source to cite factual inaccuracies. The statement you wrote says that Star-Ledger's op-ed section noted the factual inaccuracies. That's different than saying that there were factual inaccuracies. The one is paraphrasing or quoting the Star Ledger's statement, and the other speaks in Wikipedia's voice. The Star Ledger's opinion on the matter may or may not be relevant, but the factual part of the statement is that "The Star Ledger said X". There is no presumption that "X" itself is correct. --Jayron32 18:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• So actually using more specific info from them makes a difference for this discussion? Ok, I can do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. In other words, it's totally fine to write that the op-ed author said that the stuff was not accurate, provided that the commentary is attributed to the author. There also might be some leeway in citing the writer for facts if the article's author is a subject-matter expert (we allow self-published sources from subject matter expert to be cited for facts, and I don't see a meaningful reason that reliability would be different for an op-ed written by an SME). At the same time, it doesn't appear that the columnist for the Star-Ledger is an SME. (On a side note, it also wouldn't be correct to say "The Star Ledger said x", since columnists and op-ed writers do not represent the view of the Star-Ledger itself. If the content is due weight, it would be better to say "Person A, a columnist for the Star-Ledger, argued that X was false/misleading/other descriptors for Y reasons." The structure isn't super strict here, but you should be clear that the columnist isn't speaking on behalf of the paper when attributing opinions.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Aren't op-eds from the staff considered part of the editorial voice of the paper? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Sometimes columnists that work at the same paper disagree, and a single column doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board. Newspapers will publish opinion pieces that they disagree with sometimes (USA Today makes a habit of publishing a piece to oppose its editorials, for example). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging all the editors involved in this discussion: @Jayron32, Firefangledfeathers, Mikehawk10, and Niteshift36: I actually have a problem with most of that "Accuracy" section because of poor sources (except for the info on the Giardello fight, which is well-sourced). It seems like the rest of the section is built on some sketchy sources combined with some WP:SYNTHESIS, with the purpose of making Rubin Carter seem like he really committed three murders, which, as I pointed out on the article talk page, is something the legal system decided he was wrongfully convicted of. I started with the Star-Ledger sentence because that was the most egregious example. I would appreciate, if anyone has the time, if some more eyes could look at the other statements made in that section and see if the sources support it. I personally don't think the section is good as it stands right now. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What you call poor sources are all reliable sources. Irish Times, the Guardian, Star-Ledger are all reliable sources. Larry Elder is a notable columnist and so his syndicated column is reliable, even if you don't like the outlet that carried it. I won't address your implication of innocence here, since this is about reliable sources and not content. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Coda Story

Coda Story is a 501(c)3 U.S.-based non-profit news organization with offices in New York City and Tbilisi, Georgia. It is a member of the Global Investigative Journalism Network and the Institute for Nonprofit News. Which of the following describes Coda Story the best?

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

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Coda Story)

• Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Coda Story is a non-profit news outlet that has recently won the European Press Prize for Distinguished reporting for its coverage of a particular Xinjiang issue and Columbia University's Alfred I. Dupont Award for a radio documentary that it had produced in partnership with the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. Its journalism has been republished in Rappler (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, etc.), as well as The Atlantic, and NBC News, each of which are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP. Foreign Policy describes Coda Story as an editorial partner and has explicitly recommended Coda Story as a source for news on Xinjiang and Soviet forced labor camps. Politifact and Poynter have used reporting from Coda Story in their fact checks and reporting on COVID-19 disinformation (1 2 3). Its reporting has also been cited in Pakistan's Dawn, and republished in Israel's Haaretz as well as in the UK's The Guardian. In addition, the organization has a detailed editorial policy that includes a policy for corrections and it appears that there is editorial oversight in the content that it creates and a public corrections policy.

The recognition of its reliability by a diversity of reliable news sources across several countries, who gone so far as to directly republish and cite reporting from Coda Story for facts, when coupled with multiple awards received for its journalism lead me to conclude that Coda Story is a high quality, generally reliable news organization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• RfCs are only for perennial sources, so this RfC is inappropriate: Looking through the archives, I cannot find any previous discussion of Coda Story. @Mikehawk10: Do you have a specific question about reliability of Coda Story in a particular context? If so, then ask that specific question. However, this RfC is premature and should be closed without further ado. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • RfCs are perfectly appropriate where there are disputes over the reliability of the source, as they bring in outside editors. The source is used in over a dozen articles on Wikipedia, so it might be useful and proper to get input from the community on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how RfCs work here. This is a forum for questions about reliability of specific sources in specific contexts. If a source is repeatedly discussed, then there can be an RfC. A standard RfC here is supposed to begin by listing previous discussions of the source - there are none. If you have a specific question, then explain the claim you want to make, and link to the specific article you're citing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to the pertinent rule/guideline/instruction regarding RfCs on this page? I know it can be hard to judge intent on the internet. I am asking not to challenge you, but because I want to learn! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule, guideline, or instruction that forbids RfCs on this page. There is a note in the banner on the top of the page that provides "a common format for writing the RfC question", although the format is optional. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: RSN is supposed to focus on use of sources in context, not in general. The header at the top of this page explains that posts are supposed to include:

• Source. The book or web page being used as the source.
• Article: The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used.
• Content: The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports.

The header notes that, In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. There is a long-standing understanding on RSN that this refers to sources that are perennially discussed, and that the point of the RfC is to include the source in WP:RSP. A recent discussion of the misuse of RfCs can be found here. Still, even with an RfC, one is supposed to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Mikehawk10 has not done so.

Based on my interaction with Mikehawk10 at Talk:Uyghur genocide, I think that this RfC is a round-about way of asking whether a specific piece published by Coda Story can be used to make a specific, highly controversial claim (labeling living persons "genocide deniers" for questioning the US government's allegations that China is committing a genocide against the Uyghurs). Mikehawk10 should explain that context, but they have chosen not to do so. I suspect that there would be more scrutiny of this request if Mikehawk10 were to explain to editors here what the actual proposed use of this source is. Instead, we have a vague discussion about Coda Story in general, with no idea about the very specific context that actually motivated this request. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I would support a meta-RFC on clarifying the language in the header. We might also tweak the language at WP:RSPCRITERIA to "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, AND an uninterrupted request for comment" (that AND is currently an OR). I sympathize with your (and others') point about RFC spam. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Also, the notion that RfCs are "only for perennial sources" seems to be confused, seeing as the fact that a source is not on the WP:RSP board doesn't preclude us from having an RfC regarding its reliability. Otherwise there could... never be new perennial sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's plainly not the case. If a source is repeatedly (you might even say "perenially") discussed here, then there can be an RfC. "Perennial sources" at WP:RSP are "perennial" because they've been repeatedly discussed at WP:RSN, not because there's been an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • Is someone disputing the reliability? Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Selfstudier: It appears that Thucydides411 is challenging the reliability of reporting regarding The Grayzone on Talk:Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If your specific question is about use of a piece in "Coda Story" to label people "genocide deniers" or something similar, then you should ask that specific question. RSN RfCs are for sources that have been repeatedly discussed. They're not to be used whenever there's a discussion anywhere about whether or not to use a specific source for a specific claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thucydides411 on this one. If you have a question about whether a source can be used for a specific claim, and it's not a perennial source, you should usually start by asking that specific question, especially if the issue is that it is potentially WP:EXCEPTIONAL or BLP-sensitive; avoiding mentioning the specific claim under discussion, in a situation where the people you're in a dispute with have specifically raised questions of bias, WP:BLP, and other things very specific to what you're trying to cite, comes across as a bit eyebrow-raising in a way that makes the RFC mostly useless to answer the actual question you're trying to answer. You're asking a question with a seemingly obvious answer, with (as far as I can tell) the intent to then try to turn it around and use it as the answer to something less-obvious, in a context where many of the people who answered the RFC may not have accepted the source's use even if they think it is generally reliable. Even with a generally-reliable source, the question of whether they can be used as the sole source for something that is both exceptional and BLP-sensitive should require specific consideration, especially in a context where it might be WP:BIASED - a bare "generally reliable" isn't going to answer the hidden question you're trying to resolve here, not when the objection is very specific to the claim you're trying to cite and you didn't make that clear when bringing it to the noticeboard. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Summoned by bot. I'd never heard of them, and had to read up a bit (and add their logo to their article). They are a minor publication, and don't show up on the media bias charts [[65]] that have been recently floating around. But, from reading their site, and their related Wikipedia article, Coda Media, it seems that they are neutral and don't have an obvious political agenda. I'd use their articles as sources for my articles. In general, I'd trust them. That being said, no publication is perfect, and everything has to be considered on a case by case basis. For example, Jayson Blair didn't cause the NY Times to lose their reliability - it just took a temporary hit. So I agree with Thucydides411 that if this is for a specific article and a specific claim, you're better off being more specific with your request for comment. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality: Coda Story is funded by the US government, through the National Endowment for Democracy (created in the 1980s to give overt support to pro-American political groups overseas, such as opponents of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua). But I think that this RfC is actually prompted by a very specific question about a proposed use of a particular Coda Story piece for a specific claim in a specific article. Rather than running an RfC on a small outlet that's never been discussed at RSN, that specific question should be posed, so editors can weigh in on the actual proposed use of the source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And this is where the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument comes in; if it's widely used in reliable sources for without comment for facts, then we have established that reliable sources believe the source to be reliable. Direct republication is one of the strongest ways of conveying confidence in a publication's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1- I also dislike when users jump straight into an RfC for a source that has never been discussed before. However, it doesn't look like this RfC is gonna be withdrawn anytime soon. Coda seems to have a pretty solid editorial team and I see no evidence of failed fact-checks/promoting falsehoods. Nieman Lab speaks well of it, and it's frequently cited by reliable sources as Mikehawk pointed out. I don't see a strong ideological bias either. In-text attribution may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Coda Story (from Coda Media) is an acclaimed publication with a track record for reliable coverage of international news. In addition to the awards that Mikehawk10 mentioned, Coda Story was also a finalist for the 2016 Excellence and Innovation in Visual Digital Storytelling, Small Newsroom, award from the Online News Association for its reporting on homophobic violence in Kyrgyzstan, and a nominee for the 2018 European Press Prize Innovation Award for its documentary on the persecution of social media users in Russia.
  Coda Story has collaborated on stories with a large number of reliable sources. Adding to Mikehawk10's list, Coda Story has also partnered with The Moscow Times (scroll to "Media Partners" at the footer), the Mail & Guardian, and Wired (RSP entry). A full list of partners is on its About page. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have not heard of them but I can't see any obvious reason not to accept this source, it seems better than many I come across.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per arguments already made above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. If there is a dispute between editors the onus is on them to prove it should be deprecated, but obviously be cautious with BLPs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC per my objections above; see here for the actual dispute at issue. It is clear that this RFC is actually being used in an effort to get an answer on whether a source can be used for a specific claim that is patiently both WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLP-sensitive (and which therefore requires specific consideration), in a context where it can reasonably be considered WP:BIASED, and in a situation where nobody seems to have challenged the general reliability of the source - the actual objections there are related to WP:DUE and whether the source actually supports the statements it is being used for, yet it is obvious that, by asking for an answer to a much more straightforward question that nobody has actually raised, Mikehawk10 hopes to turn around and use that to override those very specific objections. Reliability is contextual, and while we use broad assessments of reliability for sources that come up frequently, this is a case where the context is particularly important; I would also argue that while there are a ton of sources that are so unreliable as to be barely useful outside of WP:ABOUTSELF exceptions, very, very few sources are so reliable as to be universally usable, unattributed, for any claim in any context; this source, generally reliable or not, is obviously not one of them. The claim in question, which relates to the US policy position on the Uyghur genocide and people who have questioned it, directly cuts at the source's own bias, since it is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which exists to advance US interests. Based on that I would answer the unstated question that this source - which, while probably reliable in a general sense, is also patiently WP:BIASED - absolutely cannot be used to describe or characterize positions on the Uyghur genocide without in-line citation that specifically identifies its funding, and is probably WP:UNDUE even with that in-line citation. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per the above discussion. Sea Ane (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pauline Montagna

Does anyone have any information concerning:

• Montagna, Pauline (2021-03-08). "Slavery in Medieval Italy". Medium. Retrieved 2021-04-14.

What little I found states Montagna has a BA in history.? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Montagna seems to primarily be a hobbyist writer who dabbles in speculative historical fiction and sometimes historical writing. The cited source itself has a couple of historical errors in it, so I wouldn't consider her writing significantly reliable, as she's more of a hobbyist form what I can gather. The linked source does cite Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy by Sally McKee, so you might want to seek that out if you're looking to use this information in an article from a reliable source, as that comes from an academic source (you can read it here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232851490_Domestic_Slavery_in_Renaissance_Italy1) Deku link (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless there are sources within it that are useful, I would say it probably doesn't pass muster. I would say that Medium is on the same level as Blogspot or Wordpress (maybe on a good day the Forbes contributor section). I think that the site basically lets anyone publish pieces. I welcome people proving me wrong. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

macrotrends net (2)

• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#macrotrends.net
• closed ANI discussion: here as long as it's not archived
• plus a particular user in question: Guillermo_Alonso_Martínez_Espinoza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pinging Timtempleton. The ANI discussion ended up with blocking the user in question, who has added a great number of refs to macrotrends net, but I think the question whether macrotrends is a reliable source has been left unanswered. So, here I am re-posting it again (macrotrends has been discussed here before in 2018, but there was no real resolution tbh). Is macrotrends.net a reliable source? And if not, someone would have to go through all of GAME's recent edits adding it I suppose.

-- Mvbaron (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: Thank you for reaching out. This is something that has been bothering me also. There are two issues here. The first is that the site seems to be simply an aggregator of financial data, but there’s very little information about their ownership. But they are selling access to something that is otherwise free. Their agenda is suspect. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but at any point any one of those links could be turned into an ad. I think it would be preferable to use an original site such as the SEC’s financial posting page. The second issue is that this seems to clearly have been an effort to raise the visibility of the site. By leaving those links there, we are rewarding this bad behavior and are encouraging others to come back and keep trying to do this same thing. So even if the site isn’t automatically blocked, like .xyz domains, there should be a note to avoid links to macrotrends dot net whenever possible. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Hmm, yeah I just wanted to be clear about the status of the site as well. about the two things: (ad 1) I think I saw "premium products" in the ToS but I thought most of the data on the site was free. Not sure if premium content is against WP:RS tho. Another thing: macrotrends states that they take their data from zacksdata.com [66] I'm not sure about the status of that site either tbh. (ad 2) Yeah I'm allergic against refspam too, but I suppose it depends on what comes out here... Mvbaron (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre

1. Sources (nb. these are AR-language articles but the Google translate version of them is relatively clear albeit with the usual warning that it may appear clear but still be a mistranslation):

• Asharq Al-Awsat (2001): [67]: Article title: "The only resistance who survived the Al-Zararia massacre tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat the details of the confrontations with the Israelis"
• Al Akhbar (2018): [68]: Article title: "Zrariyeh ... the witness and the martyr"
  

2. Article: Zrarieh massacre.

3. Content: At present these are the only sources potentially showing WP:LASTING coverage of this "massacre" as required by WP:EVENT. However whether or not these are reliable sources independent of the subject is disputed (see AFD discussion here). FOARP (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat)

• To take the Al Akhbar translation here, I cannot see major contradictions between what it says about the attack and the available English sources. Arab News says the source is pro Hezbollah and "among the most read and respected newspapers in Lebanon". So perhaps a bit of bias but otherwise OK.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real reason to doubt the London based Asharq Al-Awsat translation other than for matters Saudi related which this is not.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• To also recap objections to these sources from the AFD argument: they are eye-witness accounts from "resistance" participants written in propagandistic language ("martyrs", "entity", "murderers", etc.) and not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat is one of the most well known Arabic newspapers on the planet. See for example this NYT rundown of Arabic news sources for why the idea that it is unreliable or not independent to an Israeli raid in Lebanon is not accurate. Al-Akhbar is on the same level as many Israeli sources, yes it uses language that represents a POV (martyr, resistance), whereas Israeli sources often use language that represents the diametrically opposed POV (terrorist, etc.), but POV does not make a source unreliable. See no reason these dont qualify as WP:NEWSORG given there are no sources brought that demonstrate any issue with their reliability, just an editor disliking their politics. Im not all that enamored with the politics of the Times of Israel or the Jerusalem Post, but they remain widely used on our pages as reliable sources. nableezy - 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat has substantially documented issues, including issues regarding their factual reporting (our article about them describes a particularly egregious incident in 2016), and should probably not be considered reliable. Al-Akhbar is openly pro-Hezbollah, and reliable sources that discuss them consistently mention their biases, so statements sourced to them should at a bare minimum be attributed as is standard with openly biased sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Is arealnews.com a reliable source?

I am working on this draft and I was searching on the web for more sources when I find his bio. Here's a link to the website. I don't know if this is reliable so can someone tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVcode (talk • contribs)

Doesn't seem reliable. Looks as though it brands itself as a blog more than as a serious news organization. --Aknell4 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No. It's a random Wordpress-powered aggregator/blog. No way of knowing who writes their content, or where it comes from. Don't go near it. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Brazil the same as Rolling Stone?

Is this the official Rolling Stone Brazil? If so, does it carry the same status as Rolling Stone? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Purely going from the websites (I have no particular prior knowledge), I see that they've got different publishers (Perfil in Brazil, Penske Business Media for the English-language website). The English-language site articles always seem to have bylines, but the Brazilian site has lots of articles without them; those that do have bylines all have Portuguese names, so it's obviously not just a translation of the English-language website. I can't tell whether it's really part of the same organisation in any meaningful way, or if they've sold rights to use the name to another company.

Different publisher, different authors, presumably different editorial team - I think it would have to be assessed separately in terms of reliability. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia has an article about Rolling Stone Brasil which confirms that rollingstone.uol.com.br is the official website for this magazine. According to a 2006 article from O Globo, there used to be a pirated Brazilian version of Rolling Stone that was created in 1972 without permission from Rolling Stone, but the Rolling Stone Brasil that launched in 2006 is an official international edition of Rolling Stone. O Globo reports, "As a non–United States edition, the Brazilian 'Rolling Stone' will have half of the content translated from its American parent, and half produced by the local newsroom." ("A exemplo das edições fora dos Estados Unidos, a 'Rolling Stone' brasileira terá metade do conteúdo traduzido de sua matriz americana, e metade produzido pela redação local.") This is a standard practice for all international editions of Rolling Stone, which "typically reproduce 50 percent to 80 percent of the American version of the magazine, in their own languages, and supplement the rest with local content".

The publisher of the 2006 version of Rolling Stone Brasil is Spring Communications (Spring Comunicação), a media company also known for its acquisition of the broadcast network of the Brazilian media conglomerate Grupo Abril and for its ownership of the technology-oriented Loading TV channel. According to the Portuguese Wikipedia article (without a cited source), in 2018, Rolling Stone Brasil was sold to Grupo Perfil. (I can't confirm the date of the sale, but the website of Rolling Stone Brasil does state that it is currently owned by Grupo Perfil.) Grupo Perfil owns a number of publications, including the tabloid newspaper Perfil, the women's magazine Caras, the entertainment magazine Contigo!, and the history magazine Adventures in History (Aventuras na História). Rolling Stone Brasil then became online-only and opened a sister site, Rolling Stone Country (rollingstonecountry.uol.com.br). — Newslinger talk 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Should journalists be discounted as reliable sources on historic topics because they're journalists?

Running into a curious issue with the article on World War II era American diplomat Leland B. Morris.

As with anything from the past, we can only learn about historic events based on writers, researchers, documenters and other forms of communicators, sometimes primary but mostly secondary. In this case we have the case of a pivital moment in world history - the moment the United States was officially notified on the German declaration of war against the United States. It was when Joachim von Ribbentrop handed the formal declaration of war to Morris.

In 2016 I included the following content...

Upon handing Morris the declaration, Ribbentrop said, "Your President has wanted this war, now he has it."

Naturally it was sourced, in this case the book A World to Gain The Battle for Global Domination and why America Entered WWII [69] by author Thomas Toughill. (The other two sources were just added today.)

In January 2021, editor Beyond My Ken removed this content simply stating the source was not reliable.[70]

Not knowing why Beyond My Ken challenged Tourghill, I restored the content with the source and added two more sources, the books 1941: The Year Germany Lost the War' by highly respected journalist Andrew Nagorski and Seven Days of Infamy by author Nicholas Best.

Beyond My Ken reverted again yet again. On the talk page to justify their removal of the content, they wrote original research things like "I have never come across in my reading on the subject" and dismissing the authors reliability by opining that the authors "are not subject experts, both journalists, again with no reputation or credibility regarding the history of World War II." (Their full text can be read here.)

I'm finding this all curious. Not only is the editor making the assumption and judgment that these journalists are not experts on the topics they are covering, this is striking the principle of the role of journalists and their research and critical analysis abilities.

If there is a journalist or author who has a negative reputation for shoddy research, liberties with historic facts or simply bad writing, I understand the reason to discount them. But in this case there is nothing presented by the editor of a sort. As a matter of fact, external reliable sources like the the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, give ‘1941’ Review: The Year Hitler Lost the War excellent reviews [71][72]. Likewise, the Christian Science Monitor and Kirkus Reviews give Seven Days of Infamy: Pearl Harbor Across the World excellent reviews. [73][74]

Accolades by reliable sources are reputation and credibility setting.

So here are the questions:

1. Is the above content not allowed based on the editor's opinion of the multiple published sources?

2. Are we to ignore the accolades of reliable sources on other sources and ban historic content if the sources are considered "journalists"?

Oakshade (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• The question is ridiculous as posed. Journalists are, of course, very frequently extremely reliable sources under many circumstances, but when it comes to the incident in question, a story which sounds and feels apocryphal, only the most reliable sources should be used. Further, bringing this here when the discussion on talk page has only just started is highly inappropriate. RSN is not a substitute for consensus building on the article talk page. A trout for Oakshade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is a highly productive editor and I agree with their analyses much of the time, but not this time. In this case, we have three books by three notable journalists who also write books about history. At least two of the books received positive reviews in reliable sources. It may be true that articles in peer reviewed history journals and books by academic historians published by university presses are superior sources, but that does not mean that other sources are therefore unreliable. In this case, we are reporting on what happened in a December, 1941 meeting between an American diplomat and a Nazi diplomat, in the biography of the American. No grand, sweeping claims are being made that would affect the narrative of the early days of American involvement of World War II, and I believe that the account of this conversation that appeared in three presumably reliable books ought to be accepted as reliable. Of course, if Beyond My Ken can bring forth reliable sources that offer a different contradictory account of the Morris-Ribbentrop meeting in Berlin, we will be obligated to wrestle with the contradictions. Or, if Beyond My Ken can provide links to reviews that call the accuracy of these books into question, then that is worth discussing. Absent any such contradictory information, I believe that the content should be considered reliably sourced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not when the story feels like one of those "factoids" that you get fed in the "documentaries" on the History Channel. Then, when it starts to smell a little you need real quality sourcing, and non-subject experts just won't be sufficient. I have asked on the article talk page -- where this discussion should rightfully be taking place -- for what sources the authors of the three books in question gave for their information, if any. There's only a limited number of people who could have heard the remark (if it took place), and one of them has to be the ultimate source, so who do these three non-specialists say that it came from? Journalists and general non-fiction authors are only as good as their sources -- academics, too, but they always cite those sources, so we can verify their information. Have these authors done that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliability seems like a relevant question here however. Is the journalist in question reliable or not? If yes, then why would you think the quote is fake? That would mean they aren't reliable as a journalist and the entire source as a whole is questionable. Silverseren^C 01:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I said above, it really all depends where they got their information from. Is it a verifiable and reliable source, or are they simply recycling the kind of apocryphal anecdotes that float around these subjects all the time? Since they're not experts on the subject, their reliability as journalists is about how accurately they repeat what they've read or been told, but our concern is how accurate the information is in the first place, so where did they read it, or who told it to them? That is key. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take that trout and fry it up for lunch tomorrow, and garnish it with sliced almonds, lemon wedges and parsley. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hah!Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Additions - Just for added information, we also have historian Richard Collier who supports this content and he includes the original German ("Ihr Präsident hat diesen Krieg gewollt ; jetzt hat er ihn") in the book The Road to Pearl Harbor--1941 (p. 236) as does historian Ross Gregory in his book America 1941 A Nation at the Crossroads (p. 289).
  More support for the content is from the American diplomat George Kennan penned Memoirs 1925-1950 which also includes Ribbintrop's original German. No sources put Kennan at the Morris-Ribbintrop meeting but Kennan was working closely with Morris at the US Embassy in Berlin during those dates. These authors don't use footnotes as the editor challenging this content is demanding (Gregory does but I can't read the footnotes in the limited access), but again, this goes to the principle challenge of journalistic reliability. Oakshade (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?

 – — Newslinger talk 02:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News

 – — Newslinger talk 03:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

WaPo has retracted a massive controversial story around the election. It's extremely unusual for a news source to retract a news story fo this caliber. It's not the first time supposedly reliable sources have been forced to retract stories (first hit after a 30 sec search). I doubt the wikiactivist cabal will actually care, but if outlets like Fox News have been given a lower rating, I don't see how WaPo can be objectively be given full trust by a website that is supposed to be encyclopedic. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a correction, not a retraction, and it's what reputable organizations do when they publish things that turn out to be wrong. Unlike, say, The Federalist, which still proudly declares that "Democrats are trying to steal the election". The material difference between Trump saying "find the fraud" and asserting that there was "dishonesty" in the vote, and between Trump saying the official would be "a national hero" and saying she had "the most important job in the country right now" is negligible at best. Several quotes were incorrect, but the thrust of the story is still true, and in fact proven by the release of the tape - Trump attempted to personally pressure a state election official into doing what he wanted her to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this even a massive controversial story? I'm not an American but I've never heard of this before even though I had heard a lot about this before. There seem to be 2 factors of significance here. One is that the request to find votes (not "find the votes" which AFAICT, no reputable source has ever said was said) was much more controversial. That story came out before this one on "find the fraud". Two is that this story only came out of the Capitol Hill riots. So while I'm sure it gained a reasonable interest, I don't think it was as massive as you suggest. As further evidence quite a few crazy sources and forums an the like are incorrectly reporting that the Washington Post retracted the story on finding votes even though that's just silly as the audio has been there for them to listen to all this time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, WaPo has been consistently inaccurate for a long period of time. The Covington affair is one example. It's russian propaganda article is another. Should be unreliable.Nweil (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nweil, what do you propose? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § Washington Post and CNN that was closed with consensus against your position. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation is a single instance for which there was a specific outcome. The other is an explanatory note after some websites complained following WaPo's coverage of a third parties investigation, and that third party subsequently removed those sites from the list unrelated to WaPo. Other instances brought up during the recent RSN were tiny proportion of their overall output when compared with the repeated regular issues with Fox and affiliates. Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, Newslinger. WaPo has gone so far left I barely recognize it. I didn't renew my subscription when it came due, and it appears that maybe I wasn't the only one because WaPo came back with an offer too cheap to refuse. I subscribed but only because WP needs the diversity. I've already made my position known about the current rating system and provided plenty of valid criticism - they reflect a strong political bias. Leftist opinion sources, regardless of how far left, are more readily accepted as reliable whereas right leaning opinion sources are constantly challenged and downgraded for all the wrong reasons, most of which are based on aspersions and opinion, not actual facts, and certainly nothing that doesn't apply equally to sources on other sides of the political spectrum. We're shooting ourselves in the foot, and to avoid totally crippling ourselves, it's probably going to require an ArbCom case to get these issues resolved. For one thing, the current rating system has not been vetted by the wider community and is nothing more than an essay but is treated like policy. I'd like to see a more reliable rating system overall - one that doesn't favor one ideology over another, and that will require a pragmatic review of the current ratings from a NPOV. As things are now, I see a clear and present danger to WP's neutrality because this process is homogenizing the encyclopedia to the point of reflecting a single POV. An article that was published back in December 2016 by Bloomberg speaks volumes, keeping in mind things weren't nearly as bad as they are now: ”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” Atsme 💬 📧 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source that describes The Washington Post as "far left". Based on this discussion and the March discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 § Washington Post and CNN, the consensus is that The Washington Post is still considered generally reliable. If you have new information about this source that leads you to believe otherwise, you are welcome to start a new discussion about The Washington Post on the reliable sources noticeboard.

If an editor does not like this list, they are not obligated to use it. However, consensus is a Wikipedia policy, and the consensus found in past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard still applies regardless of whether the editor chooses to refer to this list. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the discussion here or on RSN? I thought that is what we were doing here - discussing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion does not focus on the analysis of previous noticeboard discussions, I've moved it from WT:RSP to this noticeboard. If you have any new information to share, please go ahead. — Newslinger talk 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources like WaPo publish massive volumes of information, and statistically any such source will make occasional errors, and sometimes big ones. The hallmark of a good source is whether they publish corrections, which WaPo has. This is how good journalism has always worked. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to regard WaPo as other than one of the most reliable news outlets. Their willingness to correct a story on the basis of new information received months later enhances their reputation for integrity and reliability. How many news outlets which also published the original story later published corrections? Comparing WaPo to Fox is ridiculous. Zero^talk 01:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is an important point. Compare to Fox, where side shows are voluntarily mixed in to clearly push propaganda including science denialism that will not be retracted or corrected (false equivalence to compare them and this explains why Fox has a different assessment). —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Surely we're not forgetting WaPo's shoddy reporting of Nicholas Sandman, and how they settled out of court. CNN was right there on the shoddy reporting list, too. It is inexcusable - he was a kid. That did it for me. Better sources are available. Has this discussion ended or was it moved? Atsme 💬 📧 23:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)