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

RFC: The Anti-Defamation League

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Before we begin, we would like to provide context for people reading this who may not be familiar with Wikipedia processes. This is a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), a venue where Wikipedia community members discuss the reliability of sources. This discussion, concerning the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an information source, was open to all community members whose accounts are at least 30 days old and who have made at least 500 edits. This discussion was not a vote, nor is this a unilateral decision by us, the three editors who volunteered to close this discussion. Our job is to assess the consensus of the community and produce a summary of the discussion that serves as guidance for editors in discussions going forward. Editors' statements were weighed based on their grounding in Wikipedia policy and guidelines; conclusory statements such as "Too biased" or "Respected organization" were given little weight. This discussion contained a range of perspectives, ranging from those who enthusiastically defended the ADL in all contexts, to those who viewed it as categorically unreliable. Most editors, however, favored some middle ground between those extremes.

The starting point for this RfC is a 2020 consensus that the ADL is generally reliable as a source. This RfC did not seek to overturn that in general, but rather to debate three possible exceptions: regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regarding antisemitism, and regarding their hate symbols database.

It is not disputed here that the ADL is an activist source and a biased source. "Biased" in this context is not an insult: Wikipedia policy understands that all sources have some degree of bias, and even significant bias is not necessarily disqualifying. What matters is the degree to which a source can be relied upon for statements of fact. Statements of opinion are another matter, which complicates this RfC: Many statements that the ADL makes are inherently opinion, and are thus subject to different rules as to when and how they should be cited.

In the first part of this RfC, there is a clear consensus that the ADL is generally unreliable regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [See previous partial close.] The second part extends this consensus to the intersection of antisemitism and the conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic. While the second part in theory encompassed all ADL coverage of antisemitism, much of the discussion focused, explicitly or implicitly, on that intersection. There was insufficient argumentation against the ADL's reliability regarding antisemitism in other contexts; much of the opposition in that regard focused on subjective disagreements as to how far the taint of the Israel-related general unreliability should spread. The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned. We remind editors that source reliability is always a case-by-case matter. RSN's purpose is to answer the general case. The reliability of a given statement by a source, for a given statement in a Wikipedia article, must always be decided by that article's editors.

The third part of the discussion, about the ADL's hate symbol database, was largely unrelated to the first two. Editors' concerns were mostly not about Israel–Palestine issues, but about poor editorial oversight of the database. We are aware that the ADL has taken note of this discussion, which affords a rare opportunity to directly address a source that editors have identified quality-control issues with: If the ADL invests more effort in editorial review of its hate symbol database entries, including bylines and other means of establishing expertise, that would address most of the concerns expressed by the community. Until then, however, the rough consensus here is that the database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history. In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases.

The normal approach for reliability applies to statements of fact. Citing the ADL hate symbol database as an opinion is not a question of reliability, but rather one of due weight. Editors should look at usage by other sources in the context of both the database as a whole and the individual statement. In this regard, there is no consensus against representing the ADL's opinions, and perhaps a weak consensus in favor; as always, case-by-case judgment is critical. We note also that, when editors cite secondary sources that in turn reference the database, it is the secondary sources' reliability that is relevant, not the database's. Statements of opinion should be attributed in-text.

We thank the dozens of participants in this discussion for their work toward building a consensus here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), and Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Due to this discussion's length, the full contents have been moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439.

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 Telegraph on trans issues

What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Jump to:

Survey

Discussion

Proposed moratorium

Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)

Option 3, and I'd vote 4 if I thought deprecating in a single topic area made sense. The Telegraph has lied repeatedly about trans issues. In one case, it promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week, and even when the hoax was proven false they didn't retract or correct any of it. In fact, in the final article in the series it seems to double down on its dubious claim despite it directly being proven false. Also the second article in that series makes several other similar hoax claims that are completely and totally unsourced.

This wasn't a one-off incident either. Here are several more examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues:

1. They regularly ask anti-trans interest groups for comment while calling them subject-matter experts or trying to disguise their affiliation. See here (James Esses is not and has never been a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group), here (the idea that the UN is violating international law with a tweet is pretty transparently ridiculous, and yet they have the person saying that positioned as an expert), and here (anti-trans interest group Sex Matters is positioned as a women's rights group) but there are many many other examples.

2. They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic. And they're not even consistent on this, this is a factual question they don't appear to have a single position on either way. One way or the other they must be saying something false.

3. Here they try very hard to cast doubt on what reading between the lines appears to be a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on. Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.

I'm not just going based off direct evidence either: there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well. I have even more evidence here because it's frankly unending. Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did they promote the litter boxes in schools thing? I can't find it in the articles you linked. The only mention I could find in those articles was them saying it was a hoax? tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes[1] Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? Endwise (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What you're missing is that according to the article on the hoax, it's not just about literal litter boxes but any accommodation for students that identify as animals. Sorry for the lack of clarity, but I partly blame it on the article title and the lead being so strongly focused on this particular iteration of the hoax, when the rest of the article has followed the myth as it's actually evolved. Loki (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no mention of a litter box. The viewpoint seems to be that any mention of a child identifying as an animal is an example of the litterbox hoax.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Addressing a few different points discussed here:

• As noted above, the statement that the Telegraph "promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax" is misleading at best.
  • The Telegraph does not mention that litter boxes were involved in this incident. In fact, this article places the incident in its broader context and denies the hoax:

    Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.

  • The Guardian and PinkNews articles do not show that the story was "directly proven false". The central question here is whether a student truly had a feline identity. These articles do not disprove that. They state that an investigation exonerated the behavior of the teacher and school (reprimanding the students who mocked the idea of a feline identity).
  • In general, pointing to an article from an otherwise reliable source and saying "This story resembles other incidents that were hoaxes, therefore this is also false and an instance of the hoax" is not a sound argument. Consider the example of snuff films. The Wikipedia page says that snuff films are an urban legend because there are videos of people being murdered, but none of them have been sold for profit. But if such a film were to emerge and be sold for profit, and then be reported on by a reliable source, we wouldn't say "This is clearly an example of the snuff film hoax, therefore we should deprecate the source that reported it".
• The Telegraph article describes James Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people. Esses is a counsellor according to this article, which calls him a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists".
• The characterization of this article as "whining" does not appear to be a good-faith summary of the article. The IOC paper's critics raise several issues that, if true, are significant and problematic: small sample size, self-selection bias, failure to control for important variables like hormone treatment and body fat percentage, etc. It is not "whining" to raise these concerns.
• The "even more evidence" linked further down is largely unconvincing in terms of reliability issues. Stories are described as "extremely dodgy", "dubious", and "suspicious", but with no explanation for why this is so. Without further elaboration, this strikes me as precisely what the IOC study's critics are being accused of—complaining about articles with an unfavorable perspective—but from the opposite direction.

Astaire (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It is perhaps important to point out that seemingly the only mention of litterboxes wre this in The Telegraph (search query: "telegraph litterboxes lgbtq") is this article, about the school denying the rumors. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

See above: the litter boxes in schools hoax is about any accommodation, not just litter boxes, and this is clear if you read the examples and not just the lead. Loki (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not the way it is framed in the article or how a reasonable person would understand it.-Boynamedsue (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is? The article uses all the following as examples of the hoax:

• In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.
• In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".
• Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.

"Litter boxes" specifically is the central example of the hoax but it's not the only way it can manifest. Loki (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Let's assume any claim of accomodations for animal-identifying students is a hoax (even though you have been unable to show that despite being pressed on this issue by many people).

Can you provide some actual examples of The Telegraph saying that students identifying as cats receive accomodations? More specifically, some kind of quote? Accommodation is a broad term; a student could self-ID as a variety of things and yet not need individualized accomodations from the school. If your claim is that The Telegraph falsely promoted the idea that students received accomodations for identifying as animals, you should be able to a) point to specific examples of accomodations and b) quote The Telegraph saying that students received those particular accomodations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The articles repeatedly claim that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. That sounds like an accommodation to me, right? Loki (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative rights (such as punishing other students) are not an "accommodation" in the same way as positive rights (such as providing litter boxes). And the litter box hoax article contains no similar stories where students or school officials were punished for refusing to respect any feline identities. This story does not slide into the "litter box hoax" framework as neatly as you want it to. Astaire (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This said it better than I could. Even if the claim that students identifying as animals receive rights to services matching their chosen animal identity is false in every case, that's not even what LokiTheLiar is saying The Telegraph said. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Astaire Okay then, so, was the story true?

Even if you disagree that it's an example of this particular hoax, it's still definitely false reporting every day for a week, right? IMO this "which hoax is it" stuff is a red herring: it sounds compelling but doesn't actually make the Telegraph any more reliable that they promoted a false claim that was merely similar to a well-known hoax rather than an actual example of it. And again, never corrected nor retracted said false claim. And tried to imply it was true even in an article directly mentioning the proof that it was false. Loki (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just now entering the discussion, so I may have missed this, but...what exactly did the Telegraph say that was "proven false"? I'm having a hard time finding it. Pecopteris (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

They claimed multiple times that a student identified as an animal, and that a teacher strongly insulted another student who questioned this identification. None of this is true according to the school itself. It's a misinterpretation of a (real) recording, on which the idea of identifying as an animal was brought up rhetorically to insult a trans student. Loki (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim you're disputing is that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a specific classmate's identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not true at all. The student was reprimanded for attacking another student's very real trans identity using the metaphor of animal identity. Loki (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm getting this straight, @Chess and @LokiTheLiar.

A student at a school (call them student #1) identified as trans. Another student (student #2) objected in some way to acknowledging student #1's trans identity, and rhetorically brought up animal identity...i.e. "if we respect student #1's identity, what's next, does that mean we have to respect animal identity, too?" Then, the teacher reprimanded student #2, and told student #2, essentially, "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that, and it's insensitive and wrong to not respect animal identity."

But the Telegraph missed the "rhetorically" part, and instead inaccurately reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal.

Obviously I am paraphrasing, but do I have the gist correct? Want to make sure I understand the objections before I weigh in on the survey. Thanks. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

One small misunderstanding; the Telegraph never reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal; they only reported that students #2 and #3 were reprimanded for not accepting classmate #1 identifying as an animal, which is true. BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Close, but the teacher didn't say "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that". She just said, essentially, "you're being very disrespectful and you need to stop".

BilledMammal above is incorrect, here's the direct quote of what they said: A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation is also saying that the prime minister resigned. Loki (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep using The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation, but the equivalent hypothetical would be The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

In addition, at the time of publication, no one knew whether the classmate actually identified as a cat or not, and as such there was clearly no issue with them not taking a stance on whether the classmate did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk)

If you really insist, I will use the longer example, because it clearly doesn't make a lick of difference. You cannot make a false claim not false or not a claim by adding more subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A question to all participants. Where can we see a full, accurate and reliable transcript of this video, or even better the full unedited video itself? Vegan416 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The best option is the Daily Mail's one which has captions but is edited to have scary music on top of it. [2] WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated for a reason though, so I'd take anything not substantiated by another source with a grain of salt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've placed a transcript here if you don't want to sit through the Daily Mail vid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Void_if_removed/sandbox/Catgate_transcript Void if removed (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pecopteris: Pretty much. I think the teacher was less clear than you're making it out to be, but you have the gist of it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are two examples referring to extreme non-litter tray accommodations in our article, but the point is that they were not true. Hence the word "hoax". The Telegraph does not make any claim of accommodations, merely stating that children were called despicable for refusing to identify a classmate (who it does not specify is real or hypothetical) as a cat.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki, please stop moving this down to discussion; you don't get to present your arguments and deny those who disagree with those arguments the opportunity to reject them in context.

As a general rule, if you are going to hat or move something, the highest level reply included within the hatting or moving should be one you made. For example, you could move 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC), but not 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC). BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you won't let me move a discussion that's several pages long down to the Discussion section where it clearly belongs.

Let me ping an uninvolved admin to settle this. @ScottishFinnishRadish, twice now I have tried to move this incredibly long thread responding to my !vote to the Discussion section. Twice now BilledMammal has brought it back up, and this time they're accusing me of attempting to eke out some sort of advantage by doing this. Could you please settle where it belongs? Loki (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki, I don’t see you moving your own rebuttals to others !votes down to discussion.

As I said, if you want to shorten this, do so from your own replies; allow the immediate rebuttals to stand, and move your replies to those rebuttals, and all conversation from those replies, down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I put comments I expect are going to lead to long threads in the discussion section in the first place. But I do and have moved other threads many times without regard to whether or not it helps "my side". Honestly the idea you think this is partisan is baffling and is indicative of a huge WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.

I'm not moving just my comments down because that wouldn't help. There are five responses to my !vote, counting this thread, and one of them is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. If you want I can move the whole thread including the !vote down and re-vote, but that would make several other people's !votes not make a lot of sense in context so I'd rather not do that either.

(Why did you put this in the Survey section, by the way? It's clearly not a !vote, you could have put it in Discussion and pinged me.) Loki (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, we might as well leave everything as-is and just stop making the wall of text bigger. If anyone has more to say about this thread, just put it in the discussion section and ping everyone from this thread. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The general rule, when refactoring a discussion you are involved in, is don't refactor in a way that gives you the last word.

As for just moving down just your comments, and the responses to your comments, it would reduce the length of the responses from ~2600 to ~800. For context, the length of your !vote is ~800. If your concern is length, I'm not sure how removing ~1800 words wouldn't help.

No objection to moving this discussion over refactoring down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

At least 3 editors have independently brought the !vote out of the moving/collapsing now. I hope that we can take that as consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Given editors are taking Loki's claims at face value, apparently without reading this - probably because it is collapsed - I'm uncollapsing it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that and have collapsed it again. The biggest chunks of rebuttal text, including Chess's (the most cited!), are outside of this !vote. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

See Daveosaurus' !vote. Regardless, there is no basis for this collapse under WP:TPO; please stop. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it was caused by this !vote being collapsed due to the overwhelming amount of Option 1 arguments others have referenced, but whatever. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The Telegraph is generally unreliable for topics involving transgender people, matters, etc. There is extensive evidence that the Telegraph's coverage of trans topics defies relevant academic consensus around the reality of trans experience and existence and favors sensationalist parroting of rumors without contextualizing the content as unreliable rumors. Secondary sources, including scholarly pieces published by academic presses Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury Publishing as well as conventional journalism, have reported on this unreliability. This unreliability cannot be reduced to a "bias" that editors are expected to filter out when citing the coverage. A "bias" is an implied frown or favor; it's not a failure to get facts right or a disregard for academic consensus. The Telegraph's coverage entails the latter. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. It was extensively proven that The Telegraph constantly propagates blatant lies and misinformation regarding transgender topics. Skyshiftertalk 03:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 We're not quite at Option 4 yet on trans topics in particular, but we're rapidly approaching that with The Telegraphs seeming turn toward Daily Mail esque misinformation when it comes to topics involving transgender people. Actively promoting extreme fringe people without including their pseudoscience position in their articles, making up incidents and conversations that didn't actually occur in events involving trans people and gender identity and then trying to pass things off as "well, the things we said could be true and may still be true" is some high level gaslighting nonsense from a supposed mainstream news source. Like I said, we're not quite at Option 4 yet, but I feel like we're teetering on a knife's edge and one more extreme case of this sort from the paper would push it over. Silverseren^C 03:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The evidence provided here by Loki distorts the articles and mainly hinges on The Telegraph not taking a pro-trans viewpoint, same as the last RfC. [3] The Telegraph never said students have litterboxes in schools, did proper journalistic due-diligence on the possibly cat-identifying student, quoting opposing views on a subject is standard journalism, and saying that "trans women aren't biological women" doesn't make it unreliable. A drug that the manufacturer states could be harmful to breastfeeding babies does in fact make chestmilk less safe and a self-selected study of 69 people does not conclusively prove that trans women are worse at sports than cis women.

To go point-by-point (starting with the 0th), The Telegraph never promoted the "litterboxes in schools" hoax. The articles cited by LokiTheLiar claimed students identified as animals, not that they requested accommodation in the form of litterboxes. The first claim is much more believable than the second, and was based on a recorded conversation in which a teacher at Rye College asserted a student was offended because their identity as a cat was questioned.

Specifically, this controversy was because a student was reprimanded for not accepting that a classmate of theirs could identify as a cat. This student recorded the conversation and leaked it to the media. The contents of the conversation itself implied that a classmate *did* identify as a cat, which Pink News acknowledged. In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?” [4] And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. [5] While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said: Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way” in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals. [6]

It's bizarre to claim that The Telegraph knowingly spread false information when the contents of the recording the story was based on indicated that a student did identify as a cat, and the school did not even dispute the truthfulness of the allegation. How were they supposed to know that this was false when they published the story?

If Loki wants to refute my point that The Telegraph said that animal-identifying students are getting litterboxes in schools, merely provide a quote from the article saying so.

In response to Loki's first point, that quoting anti-transgender activist groups makes The Telegraph unreliable, this is standard journalistic practice. A newspaper giving both sides of the story does not make it unreliable. Loki's standard, that The Telegraph should not quote any anti-trans activists when covering transgender-related topics, is untenable. The Telegraph does not misrepresent Esses' affiliation by describing him as a therapist, only as a spokesperson for a group of therapists.

In more detail, James Esses is a spokesperson for Thoughtful Therapists. He is passionate about this issue because he was thrown out of his master's program for holding gender-critical beliefs. [7] [8] One does not have to be a therapist to be an activist about therapy. Should the Amazon Labor Union be deplatformed because it's chief organizer, Chris Smalls, was fired from his job at Amazon?

In the first article cited by Loki [9], the article accurately describes Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people The article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology.

The second article provides a quote saying that the tweet Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity. contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. [10] While Loki describes this as pretty transparently ridiculous, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females [11] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.

The third article says that Sex Matters is a women's rights group. They advocate for what they see as women's rights, which they don't view as including trans women. At best, this demonstrates that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical viewpoint since they're adopting the preferred verbiage of such. This isn't a factual distortion and isn't very WP:FRINGE given that the UN says women's rights refer to ciswomen's rights.

On Loki's 2nd point, the statement that trans women are women or that trans men are men is a litmus test for agreement with the transgender movement. It's a commonly-held political position, one held by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women [12] and the Education Secretary of the UK [13]. Proposing to designate The Telegraph as unreliable on that basis alone is illogical since by that logic we should get rid of Reem Alsalem. But the sources Loki provided don't even authoritatively state that trans women aren't women.

Loki's first source [14] says that It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards. It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women.

Loki's second source says that a 13-year-old socially transitioned without the mother of such knowing. [15] The Cass Review, a systemic review of evidence in the field of transgender medicine, points out the same concerns on page 160, point 12.16, and says that socially transitioning young girls could reinforce feelings of gender incongruence. Saying that a socially transitioned 13-year-old might not really be trans is not saying that "trans women are not women" and that is not asserted in the article.

Loki's third source[16] does dispute that trans women are women, but appears to be an outside opinion piece from Richard Garside, who "is the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies". That's not an official policy of the newspaper, and per WP:OPINION, opinion pieces already have a lower standard of reliability.

Loki's fourth source[17] says that there is a distinction between biological sex and gender, then acknowledges that students can change gender, i.e. be transgender.

It is telling that Loki did not provide any quotes from these articles despite the claim that they all "alleged directly" this claim. If they make these direct allegations, one should be able to provide quotes for the ones I have refuted.

For Loki's third point, the first article just reports that transgender women can produce milk to feed babies and an NHS trust says that this is equivalent to normal breastmilk. [18] Then it discusses how the patient leaflet for the drug used to facilitate this, Motilium, says Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. [It] should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary. I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph?

The second article for Loki's third point[19] quotes Dr. Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, saying that the study compared unathletic trans women to athletic cis women. [20] It had a self-selected participant base of 69 volunteers responding to a social media advertisement. The claim is that the study is poor-quality research funded to advance a viewpoint. Loki says that the second article is anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what WP:MEDRS tells us to do. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.

Please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective. Future comments should be more specific because otherwise they are unfalsifiable generalities Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I'll add on, that in your linked page you acknowledge that your problem with Thoughtful Therapists isn't that it's being inaccurately described, but that The Telegraph uses biased phrasing in favour of it. They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".

[21] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it can be and is both. Loki (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that[...] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.

It should be noted that this position paper states the following on it's last page:

The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization.

See also United Nations special rapporteur.Flounder fillet (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, since I wrote this already, here's The Telegraph making a similar mistake and the BBCs better coverage of the same situation. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I think that this response, despite being long, doesn't have a lot of substance. A couple of quick points:

First, the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't necessarily about litter boxes specifically but any accommodation. A teacher defending an animal identity and punishing other students for questioning it certainly is an accommodation and the Telegraph repeatedly made this claim in those articles. And regardless of whether it was an example of the hoax, the fact of the matter is that it is definitely and unambiguously false, and the Telegraph repeated it over and over again and never retracted or corrected it.

Second, I specifically do not think that quoting anti-trans activist groups makes the Telegraph unreliable per se. What I'm objecting to is hiding the nature of those anti-trans activist groups, and also quoting them repeatedly as experts, and usually without any reference to pro-trans activist groups at all.

Third, I agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false. But it's clearly misleading because it makes it seem that he is a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is a reliable professional organization when neither is true: he got kicked out of his program for bigotry of the sort that he is being quoted to repeat, and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans activist group which clearly does not require you to be any sort of psychotherapy professional to be a member given that James Esses is a member. Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading. It would be like describing Andrew Wakefield as "a well-known doctor": not technically false but clearly misleading.

Fourth, as Flounder fillet said that's Reem Alsalem's own personal opinion and is honestly not directly related here anyway. The claim being made here is ridiculous no matter what Reem Alsalem thinks. The UN cannot violate international law with a tweet.

Fifth, see Talk:Trans_woman/Definitions for an exhaustive list of sources on the matter of trans women being women. TL;DR no matter how much you think it's gender ideology or whatever, saying that trans women are men is very much not in keeping with reliable sources. I think your close interpretation of these sources to deny that they are calling trans women men or trans men women is pretty clearly untrue. As briefly as I can manage: in the first article it's the headline and the first sentence among other times, second article calls the transmasculine subject of the article a girl repeatedly, the fourth article calls people binding their breasts "girls". The third article you concede but say is opinion is marked in the URL as news, and not marked as opinion in any way. So it's either news, or the Telegraph is mixing opinion and news, which would make it unreliable generally and not just for trans issues. Being from a writer that does not usually write for the Telegraph does not make something opinion.

Sixth, for my third point you're trying to make us focus on the trees and ignore the forest. (Honestly, I think that's the whole reply, but especially on this point.) Yeah if you ignore that the NHS is officially saying a medical statement you can make it look dubious. You can also make a whole study look dubious if you quote one doctor and a bunch of non-experts. Here at Wikipedia, we wouldn't say that a single doctor's professional opinion is even WP:MEDRS but for the Telegraph it's apparently better than a study. Loki (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't literally about litter boxes is both untrue and irrelevant to the point, which is that The Telegraph did their journalist due diligence. They had a recording where a) the teacher said a student identified as a cat, and b) the school didn't deny that in their initial statement. Only a week later did the school deny the story after intense media pressure, but no one other than the school ever denied a student ID'd as a cat. If your claim is WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL, show why the fact-checking of the source was deficient, because even reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, and the most evidence you have the Telegraph made a mistake is the school's denial after the article came out.

On your 2nd and 3rd points, the purpose of designating a source as unreliable is to prevent using it in articles. Citing a reliable source for what it implies (and does not directly support) can already be challenged and removed from articles per WP:Verifiability. Since you acknowledge that the false claims you've drawn from the Telegraph are only misleading implications, designating the Telegraph as WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL is redundant as those claims already cannot be cited. Please give directly supported claims from The Telegraph that are false and could be cited under our reliability policies if the source was declared WP:GREL.

On your 4th point we will have to agree to disagree over whether United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Reem Alsalem is a WP:FRINGE perspective on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, since you acknowledge she agrees with the claims Women's Declaration International made against the tweet.

On your 5th point, I've explained how articles 1, 2, and 4 are saying that the definition of "trans women" is too wide, not that "trans women =/= women". I'm not going to go in circles on whether taking the position "trans women are women" is a good litmus test to apply to reliable sources, we've both written our views. Article 3 is either a single example of an opinion miscategorized as a news piece (which I believe happened) or it's a regular news article and the only factual error you've pointed out is it saying trans women aren't women.

Your sixth point doesn't explain how the Telegraph was wrong in saying the Motilium patient leaflet contradicts the NHS guidance nor does it address why the Telegraph was wrong in saying that the IOC study had a small sample size and a discrepancy in fitness between the trans athletes and the cis athletes. If the Telegraph isn't wrong, why does quoting these views make the Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, although I'm open to Option 2. So far, I don't think any of the arguments made stand up to Chess's rebuttal statement. Looking forward to seeing a counter-rebuttal. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 There is clearly no presence of a litter box hoax in the linked articles. The Telegraph made a largely accurate report of that situation. The rest of the complaint is simply a protest about the political positions of the Telegraph. Sources have political positions, we can only reject them when they publish false content. The milk thing, again, they don't say anything false, and I am deeply uncomfortable with wikipedia mandating holding a political position that transmen are men and transwomen are women as a barrier for RS. Obviously, the Telegraph has a strong bias when it discusses trans topics, and that is something we should be aware of, just as we should when we read something from the Pink News. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. See my reply above disputing many of the arguments made for lowering reliability. A good argument has been made for bias, but a much weaker argument has been made for reliability concerns. Astaire (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Biased source for this topic, but clearly reliable (as demonstrated by Chess above). Pavlor (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: In summary, practically of Loki’s third-party sources of the Telegraph amounts to bias, not of unreliability. If sources take a position of X or Y on certain controversial areas, not is not indicative of reliability in those areas. I believe the only instances of true factually errors came from the two IPSO complaints. However, this “evidence” undermines the OP’s argument that the Telegraph is unreliable since the IPSO noted how quickly and responsibly the Telegraph fixed their errors. I brought up how the Telegraph is a noted newspaper of record. This is not to say newspapers can’t make mistakes. Rather, it signifies that for some time—over 150 years in this case—the newspaper has been a beacon of peak journalistic performance. It would take mountains of solid evidence to overturn the Telegraph’s status of a newspaper of record. Such evidence has not been presented. This is a clear slippery-slope RfC that has the potential to overturn many of our other most ironclad RSs—such as the Times and the Economist—into sources equivalent to tabloid media. What a shame that would be. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Strong evidence has been presented that Telegraph is not generally reliable on this topic, with its extreme bias leading it to report in misleading way. But I do not yet see enough evidence to consider it generally unreliable on this topic. My view is that this is a contentious topic where we should only use the very best of sources and/or triangulate reliable but biased sources, and so the presumption should be against using the Telegraph anyway, so I'd be comfortable with option 3, but I think we need a stronger evidence base from other reliable sources before designating it generally unreliable, let alone deprecating it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. I'm disappointed to see the opening vote on this RfC repeat several points that were rebutted in the RFCBEFORE discussion. @Chess: has done a good job of addressing them. Many of the points seem to fundamentally conflate bias and reliability. We are told there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Wikipedia considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has alleged directly that trans women are men. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be unreliable. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically false. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are generally reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Wikipedia. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think something you say here is the key to all the recent RfC's on news sources and trans issues. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.--Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: In the discussion earlier I was leaning towards “additional considerations” and I'm not personally a fan of the Telegraph’s spin so I wouldn't lose sleep over Option 2, but I have found the comments about the difference between bias and unreliability persuasive.

Most of the provided evidence hinges on a misrepresentation of the "cat" story. The Telegraph categorically did not promote the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth:

Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.

The only aspect of the story that actually seems in any doubt is as to whether there actually was a child in the school who did identify as a cat, or whether this was a hypothetical thrown up in the classroom discussion, and it was ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the recorded conversation - and subsequently denied by the school. Everything else is AFAICT pretty factually reported, albeit biased, and audio of the incident was widely available so anyone can confirm this. The "cat-identification" portion is almost irrelevant in the context of the actual discussion, in which a teacher tells a class of students that there are three human sexes, and labels a child despicable for disagreeing as well as suggesting they should leave the school. These are reported accurately, eg.:

She added that "there is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones"

The teacher said that "if you don’t like it you need to go to a different school", adding: "I’m reporting you to [senior staff], you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson."

All of this is true and verifiable and acknowledged by the school:

The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be "reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future".

So again - the only aspect of the story that is exaggerated is that there was an actual child literally identifying as a cat in that class, which does not seem to be true, but is also - despite the headlines - a minor aspect of the story and nothing to do with the "litter box" hoax at all. Dismissing it as such serves to obscure than the vast majority of the story - as reported elsewhere - was nothing to do with the cat-identification and actually to do with poor handling of a sensitive subject, and it was this handling which prompted a snap inspection. The fact that media across the spectrum focused on the specific detail of the cat virtually to the exclusion of the entire rest of the story, and that politicians and pundits made much hay with that, is a universal failure and merely representative of silly season to my mind. Additionally, the "rebuttal" is misrepresented - as the Guardian makes clear, the Ofsted inspection did not look at this specific incident, and since the school has already conceded it happened and took action, saying this is "proven false" is, frankly, a misrepresentation. The inspection found that, whatever the failures in this case, they were not systemic.

Some comments about the other points.

• We decide whether a group is "anti-trans" based on how reliable sources refer to them. Deciding a priori that a group is “anti-trans” and that any source that does not denigrate them as such is “unreliable” is begging the question, and POV. Not only that, this sort of reasoning will act like a ratchet, steadily removing all sources except those that adhere to a preconceived POV. This is a rare, non-fallacious slippery slope. Sex Matters are a registered charity, and if reliable sources refer to them as “women’s rights group” then that is how Wikipedia should refer to them, or at the most present different opinionated labels in an attempt to balance a divisive subject. Deciding the Telegraph is factually unreliable for not strongly espousing a particular subjective POV is to elevate one specific POV to the level of fact, and a blanket decision at the source reliability level on that basis will inevitably entrench that POV across the entirety of Wikipedia, and lend weight to further RFCs argued on the same grounds. This is a concerning move indeed.

• Irrespective of whether that makes a source unreliable, the complaints about calling trans women "men" don't seem to be supported by the supplied links.

• On the breastfeeding story - where is a factual error here? And the opener strongly overstates the status of “a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on” in criticising The Telegraph:

The letter leaked to Policy Exchange is here, and no-one disputes its veracity. The letter responds to questions raised over the use of the phrase “human milk”, which they defend as intended to be non-gender biased, as part of their policy on “Perinatal Care for Trans and Non-Binary People”. Then in a specific response to a question which uses the unpleasant phrase “male secretions” they make the claim that induced lactation produces milk “comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby”. They do not outright say this specifically applies to trans women, but this is implied by the five citations. The first four relate solely to lactation induction in females, where such a claim may well be true (though one is a very limited two-person pilot study, and another is a “La Leche League” info page that just references the same citations).

However the fifth citation makes it clear they are applying the same language to trans women. This references a single case study, with a single trans woman participant, with absolutely no sample control. That is, a trans woman, with a partner who had given birth and was at that time breastfeeding - and initially expressing milk too. The participant would deliver samples they themselves had allegedly produced at home - with no supervision or observation - for testing, and the results were limited.

Four samples of expressed human milk were frozen and supplied for analysis. Each 40-ml sample was obtained from full breast pumpings pooled over a 24-hr period, collected approximately once each month, starting 129 days after initiation of domperidone and 56 days after initiation of pumping.

the quantity of expressed milk was low in comparison to what would be needed to sustain infant growth independently

Nutritionally, our participant’s milk was quite robust with higher values for all macronutrients and average calories over 20 kcals per 30 ml. Other important characteristics of human milk, including micronutrients and bioactive factors, were not assessed.

So based on a totally uncontrolled and unverified sample size of one, obtained under an honour system with no source verification, with inadequate volumes and incomplete nutritional testing, it is wishful thinking to consider that a “medical fact”. This is an atrocious standard of evidence, and an NHS Trust shoehorning this in as part of a response to a policy query is, frankly, bizarre.

What is however misleading in The Telegraph's reporting is that they segue from talking about induced lactation in trans women to this claim:

It also references a 2022 study that found “milk testosterone concentrations” were under 1 per cent with “no observable side effects” in the babies.

What they don't make clear in the source is this was referring to a trans man. Now, they don't outright say anything false, but arguably by omission let an ill-informed reader assume they're still talking about trans women, so I think this is marginal. But an obfuscated claim like this does not come close to making them "generally unreliable", rather exactly the sort of biased elision that editors need to be wary of with any biased source.

The objection here seems yet again that the Telegraph reported the story at all, not that it was wrong or in any significant way unreliable. And even if it were, when would we cite this article?

I have no doubt that The Telegraph have their own interest in focusing on and generating such inflammatory stories - but they aren't notably unreliable more than any other biased source IMO. They are biased in what stories they choose to report on and how they choose to present them and what they choose to leave out, but virtually none of what's been presented here amounts to false information. That this cherry-picked handful of coverage spanning years is supposedly the strongest evidence, I find highly unpersuasive. Void if removed (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just since it is relevant - the BBC complaints unit has this week upheld a complaint of inaccuracy about it's own reporting of the story mentioned in point 3, which confirms that this is not at all a "medical fact", and actually concurs with the telegraph reporting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/the-context-bbc-news-channel-19-february-2024 Void if removed (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The Telegraph has gone far beyond bias and into unreliability, from the above RFCbefore they advocate for conversion therapy. From [22] we have the quote "A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat." from which it is clear that the telegraph says someone at the school identifies as a cat. From [23] we have constant misgendering of a child (honestly I can't remember an article where they respect the gender of a trans child) and the quote "citing the most comprehensive study of the impact of binders to date, which found that more than 97 per cent of adults who use them suffer health problems as a result." which seems to be mentioning [24] where the most 5 reported health problems were backpain (53.8%), overheating (53.5%), chest pain (48.8%), shortness of breath(46.6%) and itchiness (44.9%). I think one could get similar health problems (in terms of severity) from people who consistently wear high heals and possibly at a higher frequency. Another point people seem to be bringing up is that it is normal (and best practice) for newspapers to bring activists or campaigners from both sides on any issue, whilst true the telegraph doesn't do this. They rarely balance with a campaigner or activist from stonewall or mermaids or any number of local groups, somehow they always manage to bring in an activist from Safe Sex Matter, Thoughtful Therapists, Safe Schools alliance, Protect and Teach and more. They also promote the myth that most children with gender dysphoria will desist and are in fact gay in some kind [25](one example) a myth based on studies that assume any gender nonconformity is the same as gender dysphoria and based on outdated definitions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — LunaHasArrived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The claim that anybody has ever identified as a cat appears to be culture war bullshit. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/01/30/how-furries-got-swept-up-in-anti-trans-litter-box-rumors/

The Telegraph has reported Birbalsingh as a factual source on this thoroughly-refuted bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The deciding factor for me is that The Telegraph has presented fringe voices as authoritative, and at times promoted pseudoscience. That pushes it from being biased towards being unreliable. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Since my preferred answer "Do not make such over-generalizations It should be case by case, and in the context of the text which it is being used to support" is not on the list. And in majority of those cases, the answer is "yes". North8000 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Option 2 is also good.North8000 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 This is the Telegraphs leader column today. Meanwhile, the Telegraphs columnists include the notorious "gender-critical" activist Julie Bindel "Trans activists and their allies can be the most horrendous tyrants" plus 30 or more anti-trans rants. Look at that page and tell me "this is a reliable source". Oh and then there's this and this and this and this (which appears to be false) and this is all in the last few weeks. Seriously, if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Did you intend to delete Chess’s comment of 19:33? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not being funny, but all of those are just opinions you disagree with, none of it is factually wrong. Your vote here is so far from our policies, I'm not sure if it should even be counted by the closer.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"None of it is factually wrong". Even if you were correct, which you aren't, do you think it shows that the newspaper can be trusted on the topic? It clearly can't. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well thats the rub isnt it. Our sourcing policies do not require us as editors to personally trust the sources, only that they fulfil the criteria for reliability we have set. I distrust the Telegraph because its a mouthpiece for Tory scumbags, but thats not actually against any of our policies. If only it were. Per Chess, pretty much all the rest of the evidence to me shows bias, but not unreliability (as we have defined it), so I am going to have to regretfully go with option 1. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think there is factual inaccuracy, could you say what it is? Whether I like what it writes (and I usually don't) doesn't make any odds at all.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You make the point for us. It's an opinion. A fringe one, that screams out of every single word of coverage on the topic. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That last one misrepresents the findings of the Cass review, on top of whatever else is going on there. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS already recommends against using normally reliable news sources to explain complicated medical studies; what does designating The Telegraph as unreliable add here? Even so, I dispute that The Telegraph is inaccurate. The Telegraph's article says Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.

Page 32, paragraph 78 of the Cass Review itself[26] says: Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.

The Cass Review also says on page 164 that Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.

It's not a misrepresentation of the Cass Review to say socially transitioning could cause feelings of gender incongruence, and there should be clinical involvement in the decision-making process instead of a child unilaterally deciding to socially transition without any advice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The SNP government has kept controversial guidance, which calls on teachers to “be affirming” to children who say they are trans and endorses “social transition”, in place despite the recent findings of the Cass review.

Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. This is not the first time, nor the most severe such incident. See this and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/under-25s-trans-care-must-be-slower-says-cass-report/ (visible URL intentional), where the Telegraph states that the report recommends some sort of restrictions on GAC for under-25s and not just for minors. This is false. Additionally, Telegraph coverage of the Cass Review caused problems at the Cass Review article, at the talk page of which the idea for this RfC started. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is not to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how.

If you refuse to say what you believe what the findings of the Cass Review are, it's impossible for other editors to engage with your point and weigh it.

Deciding to criticize two unrelated articles doesn't affect the reliability of the first article, it just confuses the discussion.

But to address your point anyways, WP:RSHEADLINE says that headlines aren't reliable, so the "visible URL" containing the headline isn't citable in articles anyways (this is the only specific part of the article you bothered to say is unreliable). Additionally, those two articles were published the day before the official release of the report and the day of the report being released respectively. WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news, especially when summarizing a newly-released scientific publication. If you look into what the Cass Review says, on page 224, it says that 17 year olds are getting aged out of their childhood transgender care providers and that a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition.

That's the only other inaccuracy I could guess you were referring to; and it did recommend that under 25s not be subject to sudden changes in their care. This fits with the word "slow" which can refer to taking a longer time to complete an action (in this case the action being a transition to adult services).

A source having minor errors in an ambiguous situation during a breaking news story doesn't make it unreliable; it's already possible to exclude those two articles under WP:RSBREAKING without designating the Telegraph as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of not looking insane, I would like to state for the record that I agree with your understanding of the stance taken by the Cass Review final report. Anyways, with the two articles not being relevant to this discussion due to WP:RSBREAKING, this discussion about a nitpick is now meaningless and I concede and drop my point for the sake of not making this RfC swell faster than it needs to. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In your last 4 links, do you plan on including a quote or any specific context about what is false about those stories? That would be useful in conjunction with reliable sources that describe the specific claims as being false.

Just dumping a bunch of links and asserting that it appears to be false without any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough when you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that a newspaper, which under its own byline (let alone its choice of bigotry in its opinion columns) posts wildly biased material, is probably not the best one to trust on the topic. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you've conceded that your evidence does not show that The Telegraph publishes false information. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, please. There is evidence in this discussion that the DT posts misinformation on the topic. And if you think that a newspaper that posts stuff like Bindel's, or like this on a regular basis (did you look at the link I provided?) can in any way be reliable on trans issues is simply delusional. Yes, the DT does - very occasionally - print more balanced articles on the subject, but it's very noticeable that they usually still come with an agenda. Judging a newspaper on its own material - and that's material printed under its own byline as well as by its motley collection of "columnists" is hardly a massive leap. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for collecting the links. You've got a stronger stomach than I have to be able to wade through that much bile. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Their reporting simply doesn't show the respect for facts and getting things right that is required. We've seen plenty of examples of them getting things very wrong; I don't think anyone's pointed to them getting things right, though. Like, it's easy to dismiss their coverage as opinion pieces, but if that's all they have, then they're only really sources for opinion anyway (WP:RSSOPINION), which means they're generally unreliable for actual facts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 is the sensible answer. I don't see how we can depreciate the whole paper at the moment, although it may come to that later depending on who ends up owning it. Option 2 is arguable but I fear that we would be forever arguing over the details of the "additional considerations" and it's just not worth it. Option 1 is entirely untenable. It is undisputable that they have published stories that were substantially untrue, where even casual enquiry would have revealed them to be untrue prior to publication. That is enough to make them unReliable. It doesn't matter whether those untrue stories were published knowingly in bad faith. I'm OK with them remaining Reliable on other topics provided that we broadly construe trans issues to include all the strange and disingenuous ways in which people talk about trans people without actually saying "trans people". So, for example, the ridiculous "litter box" bullshit hoax (I struggle to see any way that it could have been published in good faith unless the entire editorial team was kicked in the head by a horse!) would have to fall within our definition of "trans issues". We recognise that when people say "lizard people" or "global banking elites" they quite often mean Jews. Similarly, we need to recognise that when the Telegraph, and others, say "children who identify as animals", or whatever nonsense codephrase they come up with next, they are talking about trans people in an intentionally obfuscated way and that is fundamentally unReliable writing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Unfortunately based on the evidence here, I think the Telegraph is undoubtedly biased, but bias is explicitly not something that means unreliable. The Daily Mail had a long long history of factual inaccuracies (not to mention just making things up) before we got to the stage where we said it was an unreliable publication. We are not even close to that level of unreliability with the Telegraph. Who knows, there may be plenty of examples of the Telegraphs actual unreliability (as opposed to editorial bias) but I am not seeing them in the discussion or various links above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 During the last RfC on this, which concluded last year, editors were told there was substantial evidence of problems with this source, but the supposed evidence for unreliability wasn't presented. Looking at the supposed evidence this time indicates that it still doesn't exist. From above... "even when the hoax was proven"; it wasn't... there was a later inspection leading to a report that, as The Guardian source states, "does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals". The PinkNews source quotes the same recording that The Telegraph used: "how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?" Further analysis of this isn't worth my time – it's a silly story, but not a "hoax". "James Esses is not and has never been a therapist"; the source doesn't say that he is. "Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group"; the source describes it as "concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people", which is probably a different perspective on the same thing. Same with "Sex Matters". "the UN..."; I don't see what's factually inaccurate. I stopped there. As last time (and the frequency of the attempts is becoming tedious), there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. My biggest hesitation is the lack of third party reliable sources labelling the Telegraph as misleading on transgender coverage. I could not support option 4 without that. But it is plainly obvious by the examples provided that the Telegraph is incredibly biased on transgender coverage, and I would prefer basically any other news source when citing sources on topics. The Telegraph routinely flaunts basic journalistic practice, engages in bad faith, and hides context regularly. I don't want them used as a source for this topic. I do not find the arguments for option one convincing - The Telegraph being biased may not immediately mean a source is unreliable, but they regularly post hoaxes as facts. -- Carlp941 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Apart from the brief comment I'm unsure how users can acknowledge the clear bias in the Telegraph while voting for option 1 instead of 2, I'll briefly note the evidence I've presented in the RFCBEFORE:

• The Telegraph has been recognizably homophobic since the 70s, was protested even then based on that fact, and supported section 28.[27]
• Chess's, lengthy comment, much like the Telegraph, somehow ignores the context that Thoughtful therapists (formerly the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Association") is a pro-conversion therapy group (see gender exploratory therapy). Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs, he was fired because his employer asked him to stop publicly campaigning against bans on conversion therapy using their organization's name - because he holds the WP:FRINGE view that conversion therapy does not include gender identity change efforts.[28]
• Here is them running an entire article misgendering a transgender teenager and complaining that the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to.[29] In that same article, they use a euphemism for conversion therapy and misrepresent medical information to claim it's a beneficial treatment.[30]
• Here I presented multiple academic papers criticizing the Telegraph's bias, homophobia, and transphobia. [31]
• Here I analyzed the Telegraph's reporting on James Esses of "Thoughtful Therapists" and showed that the WP:DAILYMAIL covered it first with less bias and misrepresentation - unlike the Telegraph, the DailyMail 1) actually provided a definition of conversion therapy 2) noted that Esses tried to convince transgender children they weren't and 3) campaigned against bans on conversion therapy for trans kids [32]
• Chess continues to insist that the Telegraph's reporting of the Cass Review was correct: I previously noted the issues, which the Cass Review noted in its own FAQ, chief of which is the Telegraph said the Review called for slower transitions for those under 25, when the review explicitly did not comment on trans healthcare for those over 18 ... [33]

TLDR: FFS they platform WP:QUACKS on trans topics all the time (specifically the conversion therapy promoting kind), say patently untrue shit, and academia has agreed they have an anti-LGBT bias for decades. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted some editors seem to think "journalistic objectivity" means every single article about trans people should quote transphobic quacks (without even getting to the fact the Telegraph disproportionately gives weight to the latter)... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I'm not sure what incident between James Esses and "his employer" you're referring to, because as I said in my original comment, he was expelled from his master's degree before he could become a therapist. [34] Digging through your comment, I can assume you mean his volunteer position at Childline, something I have not brought up at this RfC. [35]

Calling my comment a WP:Wall of text (you linked WP:WOT which I assume was accidental) and coming up with fictitious scenarios in which I am wrong undermines everything you have said, especially since your entire !vote is cited to other comments you've made (which makes it difficult to verify the sources) instead of reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Quoting your original comment, Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess You're right, I made some mistake, so for the record:

• Chess claims James Esses was expelled from his masters for his GC beliefs, neglecting to mention the GC belief in question was the FRINGE GC view on conversion therapy.[36][37]
• I did mean to link WP:Wall of text instead of WP:WOT - your comment was over 1,600 words.

My point still stands that you left out the context that he was fired for advocating a form of conversion therapy. You have not addressed any of my other points, only half addressed that one, and those diffs have the sources in them - you are free to click them. If you have more to address, please do so in the discussion section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't simultaneously criticize me for posting a WP:Wall of text and say I didn't include enough context. Virtually all of the sources summarize his views as "gender-critical" including the two you linked, so that's an accurate summary. [38] [39] The UK College of Psychotherapists also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy. [40] How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a chilling effect on psychotherapy. [41] You also have a Wikipedia article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.

Anyways, you have now added some more context on James Esses' beliefs. How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? You haven't even attempted to answer that question beyond pointing to a single article from the Daily Mail that supposedly is more balanced than The Telegraph. Your reasoning is seemingly that for The Telegraph to be more reliable than the Daily Mail, every article ever published in The Telegraph must be of a higher quality than any article ever published by the Daily Mail in its history. That's not how reliability works; a stopped clock is right twice a day. A deprecated source putting out a really good article now and then doesn't reduce the quality of an article from a reliable source.

I have also said above that regardless of Esses' personal beliefs, quoting him in a news story doesn't mean that The Telegraph endorses his views. They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. Even if James Esses' is unreliable, that doesn't make The Telegraph unreliable for quoting him. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid Ah yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids.[42] - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya WP:FRINGE.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not it impugns a source's reliability to publish more blatantly biased pieces that omit information than the WP:DAILYMAIL. You think that's an excusable issue, I think it's a profound indicator of unreliability.

There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy. FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on gender exploratory therapy in the article conversion therapy...[43] And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.

How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? - In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline.[44]

They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. - I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU, and nowhere does this MOU say that "gender exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy. Here's the PDF: [45] It calls out ‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’ by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy.

You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.

Meanwhile, the Mother Jones article says nowhere in its own voice that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. It quotes Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project as saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position.

If we rank up the evidence, we have someone from the Trevor Project and an inconclusive talk page discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy saying gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. On the other hand, we have the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy and the interim version of a systemic review saying otherwise. Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? Because the burden of proof for WP:FRINGE isn't that it's just an alternative theory. You have to show that his views are pseudoscientific quackery, not just controversial, because as you said, a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.

And I'm unsure if you're interpreting this article correctly. [46] It clearly says As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there and later The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns" The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. Either way, his views played a part, so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like James Esses was kicked out of Childline for publicly discussing his employment there end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece.

And the Daily Mail is unreliable for facts, so the Daily Mail asserting that James Esses said something isn't proof he said that thing. You need to provide a corroborating source to show that what is said in that article is true if you want people to believe it. Even so, the best two aspects of the Daily Mail are that Esses supposedly treated kids with gender exploratory therapy (which has nothing to do with him leaving Childline) and that the Daily Mail gave specific ages.

If you're asserting that the Telegraph misled readers by omitting these facts, how was the reader misled? What false belief would someone have by reading the Telegraph that they wouldn't get by reading the Daily Mail? Because it's not just about saying that the Daily Mail was more interesting to read, you have to show that the Telegraph was less reliable because it omitted those facts. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU - 1) they withdrew their signature after signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids[47]

You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy. - I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.

Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? - WP:FRINGE applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read conversion therapy#gender exploratory therapy, which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the SAMHSA criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) NARTH (yes, that NARTH) endorses it...

how was the reader misled? Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often. Here's a big issue: Either way, his views played a part - nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (immaterial of what position was advocated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident. OK, so how is that evidence of WP:FRINGE? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. [48] Specifically, that At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of WP:FRINGE views. I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors. [49]

Anyways, according to WP:RSPWP, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, because anyone can edit it and so you're just citing the result of a discussion on a talk page elsewhere on this site. That is why I have repeatedly asked for the underlying sources for your claims, given how contentious this topic is. Despite your repeated assertions that basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", you have only been able to provide that article, the Trevor Project, and now SAMHSA (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO.

The reason why I asked how was the reader misled? is because the goal of the WP:Reliable sources policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Wikipedia.

All of the stuff above matters only to the extent it impacts The Telegraph's reliability, which is why I asked to see a connection between the Telegraph euphemizing conversion therapy and an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? Keep in mind that WP:MEDPOP already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it.

So far, you've only provided one claim you say is false that could be cited to The Telegraph. It's that The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on WP:Verifiability already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that directly supports the claim made, "directly support" meaning the information is present explicitly in the source.

It's already impossible to cite the implication you're referring to in an article, so what harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess, I think you've posed the most important question. "What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?" That really cuts to the heart of the matter. Pecopteris (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

1) There is a discussion section so the survey section doesn't get bloated. If you want to leave a few hundred more words in reply to this, please use it - otherwise I won't respond and make this even more difficult for the poor closer.

2) Since you refuse to click the links at Gender exploratory therapy: WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and the USPATH say its conversion therapy[50] SAMHSA and the Trevor Project says its conversion therapy. These academic RS say its conversion therapy.[51][52][53][54] Here's one that notes it's been described as conversion therapy and notes there is no evidence whatsoever it is useful or effective.[55] Here are more RS calling it conversion therapy.[56][57] Here is the Southern Poverty Law Center calling it conversion therapy.[58] And here is a reliable source noting NARTH (the original pro conversion therapy lobbying group) endorses "exploratory" therapy and works with those pushing it.[59]

3) Here's a Telegraph piece saying the UKCP dropped out because of their support for "exploratory" therapy and this led to calls to change the board. Funny enough, it repeats the false claim wrt the Cass Review that "The former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found that no one under 25 should be rushed into changing gender." (so your breakingnews argument from earlier doesn't apply) [60]

4) I should have said The telegraph impliesoutright says the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy - they say Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds[61]

5) Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? - See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning").

6) What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? - we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, if there was a good reason, but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as you asked. The only specific use of the Telegraph you say is preventable by designating unreliability is point 4) as point 3) falls under WP:MEDPOP and I've argued 4) above.

Re: point 6), evaluating it on a case-by-case basis would be WP:MREL (use sometimes), not WP:GUNREL (use almost never), contradicting your !vote. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.

A local consensus arrived at by derailing discussion onto the FRINGE board trying and failing to establish UKCP and NHS England's service specification and the landmark Cass Review as FRINGE.

Please stop misusing WP:FRINGE in this hyperbolic way. It is exhausting. None of what you're complaining about is FRINGE. The Cass Review explicitly highlighted the weaponisation of discourse around "exploratory therapy" and "conversion therapy" and specifically stated that the continual conflation of the two was harmful.

Using any of this longstanding medical dispute over highly contested terminology to argue for the unreliability of a source is well out of scope for this RFC. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 (sorry for the lengthy !vote). u:Loki has made 3 main arguments 1) coverage of the student-identifying-as-a-cat story 2) "going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things" and 3) secondary sources criticising their coverage. Re 1) I agree that they could've done a better job covering this story (see my comment 08:36, 12 May 2024) but if it's the worst thing they've done it doesn't justify a downgrade. Re 2) I think that the provided examples indeed show a bias but nothing more than that. Are you suggesting that platforming anti-trans groups makes a source unreliable? Also, they did not say that James Esses was a therapist in the linked article. Re 3), I've reviewed the article by Bailey and Mackenzie and haven't found where they say that the Telegraph is unreliable or give examples of falsehoods (but I may have missed it). The IPSO ruling is from 2021, and has a bit of hair-splitting feel to it (see item 22 in which the inaccuracy is described). Anyway, all British newspapers have had IPSO rulings against them, so by itself it's not a disqualification. Since the whole thing is voluntary, it's actually a positive sign as they have subjected themselves to an external regulator. Alaexis_¿question? 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 I do not find the defense of the Telegraph's reporting on the cat identifying controversy convincing. From what I've seen it was obvious that the discussion of the students did not involve someone literally identifying as a cat (it involved a student using that as an example to criticize people identifying as another gender), and I don't think any of the quotes from that discussion support that someone literally identified as a cat when those quotes are taken in context. Whereas The Telegraph reported it as if someone was actually identifying as a cat [62], and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner [63]. Taken with other questionable reporting relating to this topic, I think it should be classified under Option 2, as its reporting may sometimes still be useable.--Tristario (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess and others. As for the cat story, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat". This is true; there is a tape recording of students being reprimanded for this, which is a different claim from the one editors above are concerned about, that a student did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you aware of the concept of a presupposition in linguistics?

  In short, "students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat" makes all of the following claims:

  1. students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat

  2. students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat

  3. a classmate decided to self-identify as a cat

  (plus several trivial claims like "the students exist" and "the classmate exists")

  This is obvious if you consider a sentence like "The queen refused to accept the prime minister's decision to resign". Obviously this sentence asserts that the prime minister decided to resign. Loki (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, your hypothetical differs from the quote; the equivalent hypothetical would be "The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime ministers resignation", which would imply that "the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation", and that implication would in turn imply "the prime ministers resigned". The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

  Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Wikipedia, why does it matter?

  Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections. Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication? BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

  No it doesn't. (Arguably its truth value is indeterminate if the prime minister didn't resign but see the article this is a huge tangent.)

  Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat".

  We absolutely could. Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements.

  Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections.

  Known for sure, yes that's true. Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.

  Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication?

  The claim the source makes is false. Presuppositions are claims by the source. You cannot defend a shoddy source because it puts its false claims in subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. and The claim the source makes is false

  You're assuming that a sentence can only produce one set of presuppositions; that isn't accurate. Take the hypothetical provided above; if we insert a presupposition trigger on the attitudinal verb "chastised", we get at least two possible presuppositions:

  1. The queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation
  2. The king believed the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation

  So long as one of these presuppositions is true, the statement is true. The same is true of the second order presupposition "the prime minister resigned".

  Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements

  By definition, presuppositions are a type of assumption - see the article you linked.

  Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.

  My understanding is they reached out to the school, and the school must not have clarified that a student didn't actually identify as a cat - possibly they didn't know, given that people do actually identify as animals. However, even if they hadn't reached out to the school, "failing to get clarification regarding an implication of an implication" wouldn't suggest any reliability issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is literally semantics of the truth-conditional variety. If we can just start backtracking from any statement in a newspaper article to find logical presuppositions that might be wrong, even the slightest contradiction implies that an article has lied about every fact in the known universe due to the principle of explosion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Additional comment: While I was origionally open to the notion that the source was biased, discussion below has lead me to reconsider this. Editors had argued that the source was engaged in targeting and fearmongering based on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting".

  Additional research has found that the opposite is true. As proven with sources below "watchful waiting" is in fact a highly respected model of care, and the Telegraph was likely following best practices with that article by aligning their reporting with the mainstream medical guidance the child had been recieving. Given how incorrect this argument of bias was I'm no longer convinced by the other arguments; I would oppose adding a note regarding bias to their RSP entry. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Watchful waiting" is not a (major, anyway) part of the argument that they are biased. The argument consists of them misgendering, deadnaming, and asking anti-trans groups for opinions on nearly every article related to trans people. And that's disregarding the opinion column. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  The misgendering appears to fall under the same topic; the gender they used was aligned with the medical advice provided by the treating clinician in accordance with the "watchful waiting" model.

  My overall concern is that the arguments being made for this source being biased are themselves WP:FRINGE. In this case, we were able to prove that - but many of the other claims are not as easy to objectively assess, and it is a very realistic possibility that many of them are just as incorrect as this one was. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Still, Loki has presented a plethora of secondary sources as well (see the last sentence in their !vote) that believe the Telegraph's biased against. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looking through those 6 sources, three are from Pink News, which has its own bias on this topic. Of the other three, one is an IPSO ruling which rejects most of the concerns raised by the complaintant (which, interestingly, are similar to concerns raised here by editors about the same article), upholding only one minor issue which it notes that The Telegraph issued a correction for promptly. It doesn't say anything about bias.

  The "Critical Discourse Studies" article appears to say that the perspective on Mermaids changed to a collectively negative one - and that while the Telegraph led that change, it was aligned with the rest of reliable sources in doing so; the majority of coverage ... is negative. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased.

  I don't have access to the "Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies" book.

  As far as I can tell, those sources don't support a claim of bias. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think they're deep enough to warrant moving, I won't object if anyone does. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did just mean any further discussion, rather than moving the whole thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  The "Critical Discourse Studies" paper studies in-depth how the Telegraph and most of the British press covered Mermaids with a strong negative bias. Nearly the entire British press is biased, yes, but we have a neutral, British academic standpoint here that directly says the press uses Mermaids as a weapon against the very people they seek to support and argues that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
  You also have [64]. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because on Wikipedia, "bias" typically means they don’t align with the average position of reliable sources. Both those articles appear to be saying that the Telegraph does align with that position, and so aren’t biased. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do British newspapers have a monopoly on rs about this topic. Because it seems that (some) British newspapers went out of step with rs. Having a quick look both the BBC and the guardian (just using their website, searching mermaids and ignoring anything not about the charity). I saw that they discuss that the times and the telegraph both seemed to be digging up dirt, and that the charity commission where investigating (and openly said this does not mean any wrongdoing happened). So it seems that a couple of RS went out of step with the rest and then academics criticised this as a 'hit job'. This sounds like bias LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.
  Plus, we're supposed to have a global standpoint. You can't see all this evidence talked about in the overall analysis of headlines in the paper and think that fits the global standpoint of neutrality. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  fits the global standpoint of neutrality I don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been
  an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to British news media. The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society. YouGov noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while Ipsos found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for gender-affirming healthcare in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.
  — Transgender rights in the United Kingdom

  So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the Ipsos survey is limited to 30 countries, mostly Western or otherwise progressive on these issues; in Africa it only included South Africa, in Asia it only included South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Japan.

  Further, even within the six metrics of the Ipsos survey, the United Kingdom was closely aligned with the average on three, and even on the other three it wasn't significantly off - roughly 10% less support/more opposition.

  I tried to find a true global survey, but was unable to. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't find a true global survey, shouldn't we go for the widest-encompassing? And I don't see why you think that 10% is a very small number when the people behind the report clearly emphasize that this is way below average. I don't trust either of us to know what every 1% actually means nominally.
  And again, from the evidence presented in the T&F paper above, don't you think that the Telegraph seems biased based on your personal experience of the things you've read? Yes, this is obviously original research just like your conclusion from the 10%, but in the latter case the people who came up with the figures actually published their say in the matter. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Critical theory (an offshoot of Marxism) is without a doubt one of the most leftist subsets of academia there is. Something being in an academic journal does not mean it's neutral or even scientifically based. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article in Critical Discourse Studies, an academic journal that per WP:SCHOLARSHIP constitutes one of the best sources for Wikipedia to cite, reports that the organization called Mermaids is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safety that is a reliable source of information and advice. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids, parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids (contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people and their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as as powerful, dangerous and controversial. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and linked) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The article is a primary source. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves
2. It presents it in a negative light without saying anything actually false. Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.

I've sampled Loki's examples and discussed them here. You're welcome to add on to the discussion about them there. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is a primary source: The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?

Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.: Either Mermaids does for the most part support families (as the Critical Discourse Studies articles states) or it for the most part pits youths against their families (as The Telegraph states); either affirming trans youths is good for their health or it's a 'wrong path' that's bad for them. At some point the premise that it's all mere opinion breaks down. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?

Yes, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Let's say a cannabis advocacy group also provides forums and events for family of cannabis users. Would you support deprecating a source that claims it drives adolescents against family by supporting drug-using habits?
It is possible to support groups equally and pit them against each other, as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is true. But this doesn't explain how the article isn't secondary. Primary research refers to experimental results, often in the hard sciences, where authors present data without synthesis. If the article had been a tabulation of hits for key terms across newspapers, that would likely be a primary source. But by taking on interpretive assessment, the article's authors present a secondary source.

Would you support: If after careful consideration of the evidence I concluded that the periodical consistently advanced claims out of step from an academic consensus around what was best for the health of people experience substance addiction, then I could see myself supporting MREL or GUNREL, depending on the severity of the deviation from reliable facts. (I don't usually support outright deprecation, because I think rendering ourselves unable to link to a source even when, say, verifying a quotation might be appropriate is unhelpful.)

as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims: I'll have to ask you to excuse me for finding this comparison of trans affirming charity work to British imperialism in South Asia out of left field and unconvincing. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. Review articles are secondary sources; research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper.

If you believe that that's libel instead of opinion, I think we'd have to agree to disagree. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper: We'll also have to agree to disagree here as well. A paper that isn't experimentally generating primary data but is instead citing and interpreting primary data is a secondary source. I reiterate that this is a difference between hard sciences and social sciences/humanities; journal articles in the latter are often secondary sources. It also seems inconsistent to look at, say, a newspaper article based on interviews and consider that a secondary source while treating a research paper based on archival discovery and interpretation and to call it primary. To elaborate by comparison, this biographical article is a secondary source; the archival documents it cites are primary sources. Likewise, the Critical Discourse Studies article is a secondary sources; it treats the journalism it cites and examines as primary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Does any of this really add anything new to the RFC? Once again I urge that you make any new comments in the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This counts towards whether the closers deem a note at RSP on being a biased source fit. And again, I don't see the point of putting only some reply chains in discussion, but I will not revert if anyone does. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Option 2; it seems pretty clear that they have a decently strong [transphobic|gender-critical|whatever] bias, but I remain unconvinced that this bias impacts their factuality or reliability in a meaningful enough way for gunrel. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 – it's gone far beyond just bias in my view, and the Telegraph, at least in this subject area, is firmly in the realm of disinformation. The thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it's always been reliable" isn't helpful here; if we were analysing a source that did everything the Telegraph is doing here but didn't have the pedigree, it would be deprecated pretty damn quickly. Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Ignoring all the reportage on trans-related matters because some of it may be considered unpleasant by a few editors is antithetical to the interest of providing information to the general public and Wikipedia reader. The Telegraph (Daily/Sunday) has "more than 400 journalists and editors on staff" -- if a handful of writers and columnists don't sing the tune some editors like to hear, well then ... too bad, so sad. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• But here lies the question. Why use a newspaper with such a determinedly anti-trans viewpoint when there are multiple reliable sources that don't have that baggage? We wouldn't use a newspaper that was openly pushed racism or religious bigotry such as Islamophobia (hello Daily Mail). I can't help thinking that, even at Wikipedia, "gender-critical" views are the last piece of bias against groups that it seems to be OK to have. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a question of WP:DUE, not reliability - and it is better assessed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 I've already explained in the earlier discussion and would go further and say The Telegraph is generally unreliable for any topic that has become the focus of its editorial culture warring. It has zero interest in fact checking and accuracy on these topics. The fact that so-called reliable sources influence WP:WEIGHT gives me additional concern because the Telegraph isn't just biased, but is determined to publish anti-trans stories on a continuous basis out of all proportion to proper journalism on the state of our country or planet. We'd have blocked User:Telegraph for WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. They are not here to publish journalistic facts on these issues like we expect of a reliable news story, but are at the level of some kind of wingnut blog. -- Colin°^Talk 08:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 No source will be 100% unbiased on any topic but I see no substantive evidence to persuade the Telegraph is biased on trans issues. But even the framing of this as being a 'trans issue' rather than a women's and girls' rights issue lends undue and unnecessary bias to this RFC right from the start. Zeno27 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Now there's an interesting comment, as its subtext is exactly what the Telegraph does on regular occasions - insinuates that trans rights and women's rights are incompatible, despite that being obviously untrue. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The rights of (non-trans) women and trans people can be at odds, like the rights of any two groups. For example, if you think that a male-born person who looks exactly like a typical man, declares himself a woman without making any external change (surgery, hormones or even makeup and dress) to look like a woman, has a right to use women's bathroom then it might be at odds with the right of women to feel comfortable in their bathroom. Vegan416 (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• And of course, by using the most extreme example possible (how many times has this *actually* happened?) you're doing exactly what the anti-trans culture warriors at the Telegraph are doing as well. As can be determined by reading their transgender articles linked to above, it goes far further than bathrooms, which is only a small part of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how many times it happens. I don't even know in how many places such a person as I described would actually be allowed legally in women's bathrooms. It was a hypothetical. What is your position on this question by BTW? But in any case that example shows that trans rights taken to the extremes, can be at odds with women rights Vegan416 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely - "taken to the extreme". On that basis, the rights of any group could hypothetically clash with the rights of a given other group. But what the Telegraph and and its collection of culture warriors are doing is trying to limit trans rights without any criteria, purely because of their status as trans people. How do they do that? Well, with tropes like the bathroom one and the ones about what kids are taught in schools (like the one mentioned above, often spectacularly false). It's insidious and - along with its sudden fondness for climate change denial - it's not worthy of what used to be a well-regarded newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you show an example of the Telegraph saying that trans rights should be limited without any criteria, just because they are trans? I don't think I saw examples for this in this discussion, though as it's grown so long so fast I could have easily missed them. Vegan416 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Take your pick, though some are far worse than others. This is what happens when you employ a "gender critical" extremist. But it doesn't stop with her; every one of those articles is 10 days old or less. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 I, too already explained my position in earlier discussion, though the accumulation of evidence since has persuaded me to drop a peg further down from my original !vote of "aditional considerations apply". Bias per sé is not a problem, but it is a problem if it leads to issues with factual reporting. I think the way "not caring about the facts" is expressed in the telegraphs regular reporting is mostly(!) through imprecision, but imprecision is still a form of inaccuracy. If a paper presents a story in a way that is intentionally misleading the audience, it is being unreliable, even if technically no counterfactual claims have been made. A lie by omission is still a lie, in this case. Proper editorial process also means making sure you're not presenting facts in a way that is misleading, and I think that's the part of the process where the telegraph fails the test. Regarding some of the comments above: while columns can't be used for factual claims and newspapers can't be used to support medical information without attribution anyway, I contend the following: A. most of this topic area's problems are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of medical information; B. Nothing stops a paper that misrepresents medical information from also misrepresenting other information, and C. in a similar vein, a newspaper not caring about the accuracy of information in columns can still be a sign of a paper not caring about the accuracy of information, generally. In conclusion, I don't think the telegraph's editorial standards survive scrutiny. EDIT: to add another point I recall making in the RFCBEFORE: I notice a lot of "1" voters reference deprecation. I tend to think there's a world of distance between deprecation and the thing actually being suggested by most other editors in the discussion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. The problems with the Telegraph in this subject area are obvious. The folks in favor of Option 1 haven't (so far as I've seen) answered what ought to be the obvious question: why and to what end would you want to cite the Telegraph on trans issues? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • It is possible that one may cite the Telegraph because per WP:NPOV: the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are fundamental questions about notability and how we refer to subjects that depend on how they are referred to by assessing coverage in the majority of WP:RS, even if we don't actually cite those sources to construct the article. In this specific area there is a huge amount of controversy and polarisation, with epithets like "anti-trans" and "woke" and "transphobe" and "far-left/far-right" and "TERF" thrown around willy nilly. By making The Telegraph generally unreliable, or even deprecated, its coverage cannot then lend weight to legitimate debates about where the most neutral tone lies.

  This is particularly important given specific lines of argument made by the opener about tone and which POVs it chooses to seek comment from. In one specific named example, if the charity Sex Matters is deemed "anti-trans" by editors, and thus that a source engaging with them is a basis for deeming that source unreliable, then that is going to irreparably skew all coverage of that charity in any page where coverage may conceivably appear. Any source which offers quotations from representatives of this charity can - and will - be challenged. Seeing as these debates of "unreliable on trans issues" have not restricted themselves to The Telegraph, but also encompass other sources like The Times and The Economist, I urge extreme caution about the wider impact of this.

  • Telegraph quotes group x
  • Assert that truly reliable sources don't quote group x because they are "baddies"
  • Ergo Telegraph is not a reliable source

  Its a kind of no-true-scotsman ratchet. Any source which does not outright dismiss certain disfavoured groups as "anti-trans" could by this logic end up "unreliable" - and thus one particular POV will be insurmountably entrenched. Void if removed (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, bearing in mind that this is for sources which are 'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’ and that 'It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the Telegraph. The objections to the Telegraph in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - in my view, Astaire, Chess, and Void if removed have, in detail, persuasively rebutted Loki's initial claims of unreliability. The rest of the evidence raised by other users seems to be lacking. Particularly, opinion articles are not an excuse to render news articles unreliable, for example, we list The Wall Street Journal as generally reliable, and this refers to their news articles, not their questionable opinion articles or questionable editorial board at The Wall Street Journal. In any case, we should not use any opinion articles for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 I cannot consider a situation in which we would want to use the Telegraph for an article on trans issues. It has a clear, fringe, bias against trans people and is, at the end of the day, just a newspaper. For anything actually notable a better source can always be found. Let's never use this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  How would the WP:DEPRECATION edit filter know The Telegraph is being cited on a transgender-related topic? It isn't technically possible to implement deprecation for a single topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, deprecation in a single area is not currently possible. Deprecation is for sources that fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm open to logical arguments along the lines of it being overly sensationalistic and tabloidish and needing of more scrutiny and possibly putting it in a lesser category, but the arguments above are more of the sort "it doesn't agree with the properly favored views as handed down by Gender Study departments in academia, so obviously it's not a reliable source." It's on a slippery slope that's destined to lead to demands for other news outlets, even quite respectable ones like The Times (of London) and The New York Times to be deprecated if they dare to depart from the party line. Try installing the "Shingami Eyes" plugin in your browser; it's an eye-opener, revealing what is labeled "transphobic" these days. Hint: Both the London and New York Timeses are in red there, as well as The Guardian. No dissent is brooked. If the ideologues have their way, only Pink News and queer theory academic papers will be acceptable sources. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Correcting myself... on a re-check, it appears Shingami Eyes isn't actually putting either the London or New York Times in red any more, though The Sunday Times is, as is BBC News and The Guardian. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Shinigami eyes is a plugin that anyone can access that allows people to vote sources positive or negative. There's been lots of discussion even within the community that know about it about it's accuracy and about how because anyone can vote this accuracy is extremely dubious. That you're trying to use this as a point in a slippery slope argument that could be used against making any source unreliable is just a plain rubbish arguement. As for the first point a lot of people are arguing that, alongside embracing fringe positions, the telegraph has started to publish more tabloidy misinformation (I'm honestly shocked any UK paper reported on the cat incident) and advocate for conversion therapy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, though since their extreme bias on this topic is probably the least controversial aspect of this discussion, that's a good place to start: update the RSP entry to be clear about that. However, the extent to which The Telegraph has let that bias get in the way of factual reporting and lead them into distortions and inaccuracies (as has been been discussed to death in the pre-RFC thread and again, above, in this one) is unsettling. Whether they're so often unreliable as to make defaulting to scepticism / 3 the best approach, or simply defaulting to caution, to something like 2 or even a '1 but be cautious', is something reasonable minds can (and clearly do!) differ on. For my part, I conclude based on the evidence presented that for the topic area this RFC is discussing their journalism is sufficiently shoddy (inaccurate or misleading in such a way that if we source statements in articles on it, we'll find ourselves having to correct them later when reliable sourcing becomes available), sufficiently often, that it generally can't be relied upon: i.e., option 3. -sche (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Reliable reporter of facts. The cat story allegation has been exposed as a beat up. Other objections are WP:I don't like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC).
• Option 2 (or 3). It's abundantly clear from this discussion that The Telegraph (a publication that has been on a slow downward trajectory quality wise for some time) is at the very least considerably biased with regards to transgender topics, to the extent that inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum. How much this bias impacts their reliability is complicated and seems non-uniform - sometimes it has resulted in distortion and misleading presentation that is firmly in unreliable territory, at other times it's merely partisan framing that is exactly the sort of thing that "additional conserations apply" is designed for. In short, in this topic area, it is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable but rather it is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable so we should never be using the Telegraph as our only source and should evaluate its reliability on a case-by-case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, or option 2 possibly extending to other topics such as climate per Colin. I'm not sure how everyone else is assessing things here, but imv the Telegraph of today is not the same Telegraph that broke the MP expenses scandal. It may have had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the opinion pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, same as the source as a whole. First, we have long said that bias doesn't mean not reliable. We certainly are happy to cite sources with a strong biased that is the opposite of the one discussed here. The original claims used to say Option 3 have been thoroughly address by Chess and others. Barnards.tar.gz's comment about people becoming so embedded in a POV as to that POV as objective fact was also an important observation here. Finally, Void if removed's comment about trying to declare source that cites a disfavored source (16:07, 4 June 2024) is also a very legitimate concern with respect to violating NPOV over time. Like many of the media articles on this topic, we should treat all of these with caution and care but the justification for any sort of global downgrade of this source on this topic simply isn't supported by the evidence presented here. Springee (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, as per the rest of the newspaper. 2 at a push. I'm afraid I'm not seeing a great deal more than an opposition to the newspaper's political positions here. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Queen of Hearts with the consideration being to prefer alternate sources due to its bias. I would be uncomfortable citing them, but many above such as Void have demonstrated that arguments on factual unreliability remain unconvincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also per Teratix. I don't see the Telegraph presenting anti-trans slander as fact. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at the first three points at User:LokiTheLiar/Times and Telegraph RFC prep#Multiple issues, excluding the Cass review coverage, which have already been commented on by Void et al:
  This applies to many sources here. As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.

  Makes directly false claim that XXY or XYY "does not alter a man's biological sex"

  Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome. Same thing for XYY.

  claims binding is significantly more dangerous than it actually is

  The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.

  misleading about breast binding

  As Luna correctly pointed out above, this (breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation, more than 97 per cent of adults who use [breast binders] suffer health problems [(which refers to any health problem such as slight pain)] as a result) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.

  citing Maya Forstater as a reliable source on the issue

  It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.

  Misgendering an individual is certainly a factual inaccuracy. If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?

  In the particular article you're talking about I'll grant you it's less clear because the person in question is underage, and therefore can't legally change their name or gender. But in principle it's the sort of thing that any reliable newspaper would correct if they got wrong.

  Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, "Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome." Same thing for XYY.

  Both of those are listed on our list of intersex conditions. I'm not claiming that they make a man into a woman or anything like that, just that the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex". (Though you're right that I should have been more clear about that.)

  It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source.

  It doesn't say "political" campaign group, and in fact doesn't give any information about the nature of the group. It just says "campaign group". It also quotes her opinions at length without a rebuttal and clearly in a way that endorses what she says. Shortly thereafter it quotes a "think tank" that is actually a major conservative think tank, again without saying it's conservative.

  And I'll note here explicitly that the things she says are pretty obviously not true? Like, no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion" or "harmed patient care". Loki (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?

  thanks for the morning laugh . Well, if a reliable source decides to call me Dave while acknowledging my real name, I don't think that should count towards excluding the source for its davery.

  the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex".

  I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.

  It just says "campaign group".

  Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".
  (and I still think undue weight is bias, not inaccuracy. I'm sure that we can find a good portion of sources contrary to the Telegraph's biases, especially if the outcome of this were to prefer alternate sources.)

  no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion"

  Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 they seem to have a clear editorial view on the issue, which should possibly be considered when using it as a source. But the "deprecation" proponents do not make any compelling argument; the fact the Telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe "trans women are women" is not an argument for deprecation. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Much of what you've said could be interpreted as a strawman - having opinion columnists with an opinion is indeed not an argument for deprecation, but almost nobody is arguing for deprecation, and their issue isn't that the opinion columnist have an opinion it is that facts are being distorted and/or misleading presented to favour/promote that opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it is a strawman. Loki (the proposer) is saying this should happen because examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women. Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think replacing "deprecation" with "generally unreliable" changes the argument in any way. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the larger problem is the "the telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe" statement, these points are generally made in the telegraph's news sections and are statements made by the columnists (not just their beliefs) LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 per Thryduulf, with particular support for the inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum suggestion. I'll also echo the update the RSP entry to be clear comment by -sche. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I'm convinced by the arguments of Chess and Void if removed: Loki's examples show, at best, that The Telegraph has a certain perspective or bias on these matters – which is perfectly acceptable for an RS – not that it is unreliable on the facts. Chetsford has also made an excellent comment which has undeservedly flown under the radar:

I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that.

I don't trust reliability assessments based on a single editor (who will naturally have their own biases) unsystematically compiling a list of examples. (1) They're just too easy to consciously or unconsciously skew and (2) it's a level of scrutiny no major source would withstand. – Teratix ₵ 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or very good 2 regarding everything that can be cited (as something that is not MEDRS), I'm seeing framing and reporting in poor taste and bias, but no clear indication of unreliability. Some additional concerns regarding due and framing are valid, but not enough to significantly impact reliability to the degree were editorial discretion cannot be trusted to exclude the minimal number of articles that should not be cited or only cited with attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if that makes the vote one or two, and it probably shouldn’t have to be said, but: depending on coverage, additional considerations should apply to BLPs, with the phrasing being along the lines of “additional caution should be applied when using the source about living people” FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4(changed my mind, elaborating below). Loki has proven that The Telegraph should NOT be used on trans issues. "Bias is fine for a RS"? Really? Maybe if it's stuff like a newspaper supporting a sports team over an other, but not when it comes to basic human rights. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Changing to option 3. Maybe deprecating the Telegraph entirely for their (admittedly awful) reporting on trans issues is a bit much, considering they can be okay on other issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, bias really is fine for an RS. Read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. – Teratix ₵ 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, but not the point; the issue is that a biased source such as in this case should not be used to state something in Wikivoice, especially if it is the sole source. For example, instead of "X is a fact" it should say that "AB, writing in the Telegraph, claimed that x is a fact". Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Our ordinary guidance on the matter is we already shouldn't be treating seriously contested assertions as facts in any case, not just those which writers in The Telegraph may make. So I agree with you we definitely should be attributing perspectives on controversial issues or contested assertions – but this should be ordinary practice, not Telegraph-specific. – Teratix ₵ 11:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  When it's actively harmful? No, a bias isn't fine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  (1) Writing an encyclopedia requires we write neutrally – giving all perspectives their due weight, including perspectives we consider harmful.

  (2) I'm not comfortable having you, me or any other editors making binding calls on what perspectives count as harmful. It's far too easy for conscious or unconscious animosity towards a source's perspective to seep in and bias our assessments. – Teratix ₵ 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  There’s a difference between including all significant viewpoints and uncritically including misinformation. “Homosexuality is evil” is a notable opinion, but we don’t put it in the same “weight class” as the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and harmless. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is well-known that news articles should not be used to source science details and can only source science reactions at most. I also don't see how the Telegraph treats opinions as fact. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  If bias on trans issues disqualifies a source, I guess Pink News should be marked unreliable, then. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  When has Pink News said anything documentedly false about trans issues? Loki (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  The libeling of Julie Bindel, settled in Bindel's favor, for one. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Settling libel claims in the UK is not convincing, since the UK's libel laws are tilted very heavily towards plaintiffs. Loki (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not familiar with Pink News as a source, but on a quick search I found this:

  The review also claimed that, while research suggests that hormone treatment “reduces” the elevated risk of suicide, there is “no clear evidence” that social transition has any positive or negative mental health outcomes.

  This statement is inarguably false. See pages 33 and 186–187 of the Cass Review:

  86. It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.

  Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review.

  15.43 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.

  This kind of falsehood is what should be presented to call into question a source's veracity—not casting aspersions or equating bias with unreliability, as has largely been done here. Astaire (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Article from April 10, WP:RSBREAKING. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  RSBREAKING is a warning to editors to be cautious when including breaking news. It is not an excuse for the sources we use to be inaccurate. Astaire (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news.

  -from a post by User:Chess in this RfC Flounder fillet (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Inaccuracies in breaking news stories impact a source's overall reliability less than other types of inaccuracies. But they should have an impact all the same. The Pink News example I cited is particularly egregious. Not only is it directly contradicted by multiple parts of the Cass Review, it clearly shares wording with the first quotation I gave from the review ("suggests", "hormone treatment", "reduces", "elevated risk"). So the PN writer likely read this basic, easy-to-parse sentence from the review and somehow reported the complete opposite.

  Regardless, we are getting off topic since this is not a Pink News RFC, so I will stop here. As it pertains to this RFC, the relevant point (that has been made more eloquently by Chetsford and others) is that cherry-picking negative examples does not provide a true picture of a source's reliability, particularly when these examples are cases of disfavored framing or phrasing rather than actual inaccuracies. Astaire (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In practice, when dealing with the popular media's summary of breaking medical news, their articles have problems. You can easily find examples from any newspaper summarizing some new medical research related press release that fail to understand basic facts of the science.

  For this reason, we already discourage the use of breaking news in articles when a better source later on is available. Ditto for the popular media without corrobation from more academic RSes.

  This is relevant because the examples presented of The Telegraph being unreliable can already be removed under our existing policies as we already have "additional considerations apply" in those areas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to what Flounder has said, I also think quoting the summary only is a little misleading, since the Cass Review mentions a full systematic review which does find that gender affirming treatment reduces risk of suicide and then dismisses its conclusions for methodological reasons.

  Or in other words, the Cass Review did find research that suggests gender affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. That wasn't the conclusion of the report, but they do report on the other research that does come to that conclusion. Loki (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  That interpretation not only pushes the bounds of believability in terms of how we commonly understand language, it would actually make this sentence worse—going from sloppiness to outright misinformation by failing to report the Cass Review's findings. It is also contradicted by the next clause in the sentence, which is clearly discussing the review's conclusions and not the research itself.

  If someone tried to state in wikivoice that "research suggests that X treatment has Y effect", citing a systematic review that discarded that research for being low-quality, they would be shut down immediately. Astaire (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am inclined to suggest that PinkNews should use in-text attribution in many if not most cases, but that not being the source we are currently examining, I have not looked at it in sufficient detail to make such a statement. It's a little odd it's tagged green but the blurb says additional considerations apply. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dtobias: The whole reason why this RfC is happening is because editors on Cass Review don't like The Telegraph and want to strip out citations to it, in many cases with Pink News. [65] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, when you put it that way, this whole thing looks like a tendentious POV-push time sink. Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you kidding? Colin, the editor making that edit, been arguing with everyone else for the reliability of the Cass Review! He's also one of the main editors behind WP:MEDRS, so the idea that he's some sort of POV-pusher is absurd (and despite disagreeing with him on the underlying issue there I have defended him against accusations he's trying to push some sort of anti-trans POV). Loki (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was more started because people disliked how the previous RFC was conducted (from what I gather there were 3 similar one at the same time and accusations of canvassing). The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review, mainly misinformation about how the follow -up service will be done. Also of note is that currently that page has 1 reference to pinknews and 2 to the telegraph so any supposed povpushing has been very ineffective.LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on the misinformation The Telegraph has provided about the Cass Review?

  (Also, I think you meant "had no point" instead of "has been very ineffective".) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  They consistently misinterpret the recommendations of Cass for transgender people in the ages of 17-25, according to the telegraph, Cass says these people should go to a different service to over 25s. In actuality it if one received care before they were 17 they are initially seen by a "follow on" service. As well as there seems to be some confusion as to the provision of hrt to these 17-25 year olds.

  (I was making a small joke that if editors were povpushing and replacing the telegraph with pinknews, those editors have done a very poor job of doing so considering the references) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please cite the exact article text from the Telegraph that you say is a misinterpretation? I cannot find evidence to support your claim that The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title "Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times", but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? Astaire (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability?

  hit ctrl+f on your keyboard and type "Cass". Flounder fillet (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper, with the editorial content mildly to the political right. Sure, you can no doubt find an article or series of articles where the reporting does not support your viewpoint, because the reporter either selected a different range of sources or drew different conclusions. Or sometimes reporters even make errors in reporting the facts. But this is true of any newspaper reporting on any topic; we all know that a newspaper article produced to a deadline may not be the whole truth. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The other options proposed here are attempts at censorship for political ends. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper none of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable now. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still generally reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you are misunderstanding my wording as "as reliable as ALL British newspapers", no, I meant as reliable as the best-quality British Newspapers such as the Times and the Guardian. I don't notice any particular decline in its quality and nor do I note general agreement in these comments about that. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Jmchutchinson, you consider The Times, a newspaper that went out of its way to deadname Brianna Ghey (1, 2), to be one of the best British newspapers? I guess even the "best" are awful when it comes to trans issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If deadnaming makes a source unreliable to you, then enough said; but listen to yourself! JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A little bit up on this page, I was asked to come up with actual factual falsehoods perpetrated by Pink News if I was to assert that it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source due to its bias. I could ask the same of you with regard to The Times; "deadnaming" does not constitute factual falsehood as the name was accurate, and the question of whether they should have printed it or not is a matter for debate under moral philosophy, not a matter of whether they are saying false things. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Wikipedia, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Wikipedia's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Wikipedia to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 (Option 3 for BLP material) reviewing the above that's not just bias, that is bad reporting (so bad, there are confused accounts even above), also for much of this topic, we should never use a newspaper for almost anything, and further individual's lives require much more care under WP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - there are plenty of sources available that publish neutral information on this topic; we can safely avoid one that, per the sources presented already, publishes information obviously intended to advance a particular point of view, and publishes outright conspiracy theories as though they are factual. Furthermore The Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic, there's no reason why Wikipedia needs to publish anything that they say about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: What outright conspiracy theories are you referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3, , Thryduulf put it very well. Option 3. I think Loki and others have established that they promote quackery on the subject; a source that promotes quackery is, by definition, at least generally unreliable (so, option 3, not my earlier "2/3"). This isn't about political disagreement. DFlhb (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) edited 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2: I am not convinced by the arguments to designate "generally unreliable", but the bias is evident. I am not familiar enough with RSN's procedures to decide whether that warrants "additional considerations". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess and others. AndyGordon (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I wish the presentation of this matter had more clearly differentiated examples of the Telegraph having an anti-trans editorial stance from the equally numerous examples of said publication resorting to unethical practices in furtherance of that stance.
  I advise to pay the most attention to the cases listed at User:LokiTheLiar/Times_and_Telegraph_RFC_prep#Bad Articles, where many such examples may be found. Points of note include the Telegraph consistently using quotes to skimp out on journalistic integrity and put forth untrue and unverified statements, e.g. the milk article; and the case of James Esses, whom they consistently quote implying he is an expert, which he in no way is.
  In all of the Telegraph's coverage I have reviewed, there arises a certain common thread: the use of misgendering language and terms like "transgender ideology" in the publication's own voice. While some may argue that the choice of terminology is a matter of preference, I think otherwise. Using the term "transgender ideology" implies that such a thing exists, which is not in accordance with any actual research. See also Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#As_an_ideology. Use of misgendering language similarly makes a claim about gender that is far outside what is accepted as fact, vide Trans man and Trans woman. Some may say that what gendered words to use about someone is subjective; that, however, implies the existence of some knowable objective truth outside of the consensus of reliable sources. That lies outside Wikipedia's remit. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  You state that one must not claim that objective truth exists, and you also state that the Telegraph's statements are contrary to truth, which seems rather contradictory. Ah, but you're not saying that "objective truth" says that one set of language is correct and another set is not, or that there's no such thing as "transgender ideology"... just that reliable sources say that and Wikipedia must fall in line. But then when some sources say otherwise, you use this as evidence that they're not reliable. Seems like a No True Scotsman fallacy, and a circular argument. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the above logic no reliable source could ever be deemed unreliable (as everything a reliable source says would be reliable). What Maddy seems to be suggesting is the balance of sources says that misgendering is a refusal to acknowledge the fact of trans people as their gender and because of this the telegraph publishes against fact (but I'll stop putting words into their mouth). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Care to provide any RS describing transgender ideology as anything other than a nebulously defined buzzword to attack transgender people?

  If it helps, unreliable sources that define it include:

  • The Christian Institute - Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created. [66]
  • Abigail Shrier in the City Journal - This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.[67]
  • Fun fact, all medical organizations and human rights group acknowledge the existence of gender identities, which have been evidenced by conversion therapy failing to work on trans people.
  • The Heritage Foundation - They don't define it, just take it for granted people will be mad when they make the title Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids and suggest conversion therapy as an alternative The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.\[68]
  • The Family Research Council doesn't define it but sure as hell want you to fight it! After all As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country.[69]
  • Project 2025 vaguely defines it as the think they want to charge people with sex offenses for - Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered[70][71][72]

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Maddy from Celeste: Again, instead of just handwaving that many such examples may be found, it would be helpful to provide specific quotes from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?" It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist has brought up examples of other sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph.

  In order for The Telegraph's usage of the term transgender ideology to be an issue, you have to show that they're using it in an unreliable way. Control+F on Loki's page reveals the only non-opinion article by The Telegraph using the term "trans ideology" to be this one, so I assume that's the one you meant: [73] As far as I can tell, the piece doesn't define "trans ideology" in any of the extremist ways that YFNS cites. The only specific example of trans ideology in the linked page is the use of the term chestfeeding instead of breastfeeding. It would seem to me that the type of person that uses the term "trans ideology" would agree that the term chestfeeding is an example of that, so it doesn't appear The Telegraph is inaccurately applying the term.

  I'd also ask whether or not usage of buzzwords (see: every newspaper calling everything artificial intelligence/AI) ever been a reason to declare a source unreliable? The reliable sources policy exists to ensure citations aren't used to support false claims. It seems to me you're saying that "trans ideology" is just a vaguely defined and ultimately meaningless ideograph. If the term is devoid of meaning, nothing can really be cited from a source's usage of it. So, I'd also ask, are there any examples of The Telegraph being used to cite false information about the term "trans ideology"? Or is this just hypothetical, in which case, what are you seeking to prevent by declaring The Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Y'know, it's not hard to Google things.

  They do use the phrase in articles but usually they're either quoting or implicitly quoting someone else, see here and here. Neither of these are good articles, though: they clearly exist to smuggle dubious opinions into the mouth of a quote.

  Like for instance, here's a whole article on Sex Matters having an opinion. Is that opinion based in fact? Very much no, it repeats a bunch of debunked pseudoscience like the social contagion theory of gender dysphoria. And they do no fact-checking whatsoever of this opinion. It's not news, it's not a noteworthy opinion, the opinions expressed are verifiably false, and they don't bother to fact-check them at all. Loki (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Debunked pseudoscience and the opinions expressed are verifiably false are hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "This is potentially the most contested explanation" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that.

  As the European Academy of Paediatrics Statement puts it:

  The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.

  Branding entirely legitimate POVs taken seriously by MEDRS as "debunked pseudoscience" when they are very much unsettled questions is improper. An RFC like this should be based on actual, provable misstatements of fact not differences of opinion. Was there actually a child who identified as a cat in a classroom? Provably, no. Is peer contagion of gender dysphoria a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence in teenage girls? MEDRS disagree, but on the whole it is treated as controversial, as-yet unknown and worthy of study, and very much not "debunked pseudoscience".

  Additionally, the claim you point to is irrelevant because we would never use The Telegraph as a source to establish this as fact, but what you seek to do here is exclude it as source generally on the grounds it lends credence to a POV you consider false, and handwaving at the ROGD page to back that up. This is tantamount to saying: a local editorial consensus is fact, and any source that disagrees is not reliable. That is a dangerous route indeed if permitted. Void if removed (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per ColinFlounder fillet (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess. Lynch44 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Per many examples presented here, The Telegraph stubbornly refuses to accept new information, perspectives, and research. Alone that would be a 2. When a source elevates active misinfomration and harmful hate speech, as The Telegraph now does, we should stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. Too much of the defense of this paper here seems to be based on inertia instead of Wikipedia policy. Coasting on past accomplishments and stodgy British Connservatism - name a more iconic duo. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess and Barnards.tar.gz. I also think there should be a moratorum on "WP:RELIABLE source on trans issues" RFCs. IIRC, they've all failed and for good reason. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - per the numerous examples shown by many users above; Maddy summarized well that the Telegraph using terms that are commonly used as anti-LGBT rhetoric in their own voice implies an issue on the topic and we have many other more reputable news sources on the topic, so removing coverage from the Telegraph isn't a big loss to Wikipedia as we can lean on other RS that manages not to disparage people while reporting on them. Raladic (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess and others. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC).
• Option 3 - per all the sources above of the issues . User:Sawerchessread (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, per Loki and other sources above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the sourcing and Loki's's terrific input here but also per what's got to be an exhausting amount of good work by User:Chess at playing devil's advocate. Arguably, it's worked too well because this thread has gotten input from editors who, despite being known for their intelligence and who certainly do not have reputations for transphobia, sadly seem to have been swayed away. But no matter: a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people and it's thanks (mostly) to Chess, who I believe would not stand for any sort of mistreatment of those different from them. City of Silver 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  What leads you to believe that Chess is arguing against his true position for some demagogy reason? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Same reason that I appreciate City of Silver for acknowledging that their central point is a) The Telegraph is transphobic, b) people that are against declaring it unreliable are (possibly unintentionally) supporting transphobia and c) we should WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by declaring The Telegraph as unreliable because d) a !vote declaring it unreliable is advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people.

  The role of a devil's advocate is to strengthen an argument by pointing out factual errors, despite my agreement with your underlying value system. Since you're acknowledging that I have an exhausting amount of good work, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it’s generally reliable, although biased. Are there other sources that are better for reporting on trans issues? Yes. Blueboar (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Would you support an Option 2 that recommends using alternate sources? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  No need… Instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  RSP isn't a page that's intended to be read in its entirety, so I don't see how CREEP applies here. If we have consensus to prefer sources other than the Telegraph, I think it's best to reflect it in a place accessible to newcomers. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  We can always replace one reliable source with another we think is even better. You don’t need to specify that this applies to the Telegraph. It applies to every source. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is, there is no existing documentation on whether editors consider Telegraph less reliable. This RfC aims for much more than a per-page consensus. There's also precedent of putting such words at RSP to no negative effect, and this would probably benefit newcomers. For example:

  No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
  — sole line of WP:ARDA

  The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.

  Aaron Liu (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ARDA links to wikiproject Middle-Earth. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Weird. It's supposed to be WP:THEARDA. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• option 3 - per springee. ltbdl (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Editor was topic banned from gender related disputes for this !vote and subsequent comments. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I said option 1. Springee (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  i know. ltbdl (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on that? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. ltbdl (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  This sounds borderline WP:ad hominem. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Whether it is or it isn't an ad hominem, it clearly isn't a nuanced position arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ltbdl seems generally rude, flippant and uncommunicative in their edits and ignores advice and warnings. I’d recommend either ignoring or reporting them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  A formal warning was given 2 hours after my reply, and he expressed guilt. I think if one were to discuss it, it should be somewhere else instead of this section. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Option 3 I’m just going to throw in my 2 pence (cos it’s British, get it) and say that, no, a conservative-leaning non-expert publication from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals is not reliable on transgender topics. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  The UK is one of the least transphobic countries in the world, see here. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use media from ~180 countries in which the situation is worse? Alaexis_¿question? 16:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That article is about the legal rights and opportunities, not necessarily how the public treats the subject. See the last paragraph of Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  And trustworthy as that travel blog filled with caveats is, I present the ILGA 2024 report[74] which says (among many other criticisms of the UK):

  • Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination) p 161

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you're citing UN Independent Experts, note that Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, takes an opposing view on these issues. Also note that the UN investigation against the EHRC resulted in a finding that they should retain their status and had not violated any UN rules. At any rate, if you're arguing strenuously for a source being unreliable because it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals", then perhaps you are the one whose views are "fringe"? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, can you quote where Reem Alsalem as said anything about the growing transphobic climate in the UK and where this climate is coming from. Also one country can have a widespread view and that view be fringe, that should be non negotiable. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  She certainly disagrees with what should be labeled as "anti-trans": 'She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.' [75] *Dan T.* (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, so she has nothing to comment on the fact that is rising transphobia in the UK and therefore does not take an opposing view on those issues. Otherwise you would have said something about that instead of quoting from an opinion piece LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  In Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it". [76] This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women.

  The standard that Dronebogus proposes and YFNS seemingly endorses is interesting. Would DB support declaring Al Jazeera as unreliable on transgender topics because it is illegal to "impersonate a woman" in Qatar? What other sources can we ban from the Global South?

  The substance of your !vote is that we should ban this source because it is from a transphobic country. This is a position that would be called culturally imperialist if it was taken on any country other than the United Kingdom. And ILGA's reports on LGBTQ rights that YFNS cites have been criticized for that exact reason by academics.[77] Either you think the United Kingdom is uniquely transphobic in a way that countries with legally mandated conversion therapy are not,[78] or your rule would ban uncivilized (read: non-Western) countries from opining on transgender issues on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  1) Is there evidence that Al Jazeera is unreliable on trans topics? The UK Media has been criticized as transphobic and biased, that could be true regardless of the laws there. Do not conflate "the media has a recognized bias in this country" with "I just don't like this country's laws"

  2) This article[79] raises good points, but you're missing a key one. It doesn't say ILGA is wrong, just that it left out the context of how Western imperialism shaped global homophobia/transphobia and didn't criticize the Western powers enough. If you're arguing the UK is the victim of western imperialism, and issues with transphobia in the media there should be discounted on that basis, then I really don't know what to say.

  3) The UN expert on LGBT topics still criticized the UK media. Attacking ILGA's reliability is silly, as that's not the source of the claim.

  4) That BBC article you linked for Alsalem[80] notes This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards. and Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of [the expert] who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue.

  5) Also, the irony of saying the UK is a victim of trans cultural imperialism even as it overrode Scotland's gender recognition reform is palpable.[81]

  Every day, I tell my friends the funniest arguments I've seen on Wikipedia - the UK is the victim of trans cultural imperialism is hands down the winner. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm addressing the point that The Telegraph is unreliable because it's from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think "it doesn't violate any UN rules" should be used to evidence that the UK media has low transphobia. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Um, J. K. Rowling and pals? Anyone? Even the Guardian, the bastion of British progressive journalism, occasionally platforms transphobic viewpoints. Even some British Wikipedians have expressed the belief that obviously transphobic opinions are well within the overton window both on and off wiki. So yes the UK has an endemic transphobia problem. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps some of these people disagree with your opinion on what is "transphobia"? As does the tribunal in R D Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Center, which found the labeling of the claimant as "transphobic" to create a hostile environment for people with gender critical beliefs: [Paragraph 214] 'MW then goes on to say “Transphobia exists in our organisation as do other prejudices”. The clear implication of this is that the claimant is transphobic. She then goes on to invite AB to file a formal complaint. In the view of the Tribunal this was clearly unwarranted behaviour which was linked to the claimant’s philosophical belief. It clearly had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant. She was being called transphobic and a promise made to a colleague that they would no longer have to work with her.' [82] *Dan T.* (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  As a crumb of context, the defendant had asked how to misgender a transmasculine worker named AB (who Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO, told could file a complaint), and campaigned for the right of service users to make discriminatory requests of the service (IE, that people should be able to specify they don't want to be seen by transgender women) at a clinic that's been trans-inclusive for over a decade. Frankly, my reaction about hearing about this case weeks ago was to wonder what's next: "I only want to be seen by white women" gets ruled a protected belief that clinics have to respect? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation of what the tribunal determined happened in this case. For anyone who is interested in the facts, the full judgment is here [83]. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.

The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex

Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place (a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women)[84] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals" in a certain country. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally WP:FRINGE.

  Reem Alsalems article notes how UN officials responsible for overseeing LGBT rights and human rights think she's anti-trans, and hundreds of feminist groups worldwide agreed. The UN's definitions of human rights for LGBT people (which include self-id) directly contradict her positions. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this continuing back and forth is adding anything to the RFC, I suggest moving any further comments to the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, since we're going with bolded !votes, but I'd broadly repeat what I said last time this was discussed. It's generally reliable in a newspapery sense. Newspapers select what stories they want to print, and how they want to write them, based on their audience, and the Telegraph has a... particular type of audience. I don't believe they are any less reliable than newspapers are in general, which is to say it's not great a source for all sorts of assertions; maybe I'm really saying 'Option 1.5', because other considerations always apply when dealing with newspapers. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, I've kept an eye on this conversation for a while, and I've seen nothing compelling to suggest that the Telegraph should be deprecated in any way. This has mostly turned into a discussion of whether or not editors like the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues, but you don't have to like what an RS says for it to be an RS. Pecopteris (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Boynamedsue etc. - I'm not comfortable mandating RS to hold certain political positions either, and that's basically what this discussion is. DoubleCross (‡) 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think it has been shown that the Telegraph is a (edit: generally) unreliable source, but it has been shown to be transphobic and biased on LGBT issues. Additionally, my understanding is that it should never be used as WP:MEDRS, an area in which many of its issues with reporting on trans issues arise. It should be treated as a right leaning, generally Anti-LGBT, source same as you would treat sources that center pro-LGBT activist voices. Gnisacc (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am updating my original vote to just solidly option 2 after some consideration. I think that articles like here which only quote anti-trans orginizations and the government official in question are obviously biased. It includes inaccuracies such as saying that the council "have also been criticised by gay rights activists", when who they mean is the LGB alliance who are considered an anti-trans organization and are not respected by 99% of other gay rights organizations. I still believe these articles could be used in balance with opposing view points and with other more neutral sources, but this source on this topic should be considered quite biased and used carefully. Gnisacc (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Gnisacc: - you missed that the Telegraph did quote a Westminster City Council spokesman The council supports festivals and celebrations… other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per summary by Chess. Biased, but not unreliable. Jevansen (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Chess and Queen of Hearts and others. I think that, if nothing else, this is yet another for the pile of case studies that RSP is silly and reductive; clearly it is biased, so it is dumb to make an official entry on the official list of official officialness saying it is "green" or "yellow" or "red". It is neither of those things: it is a newspaper. jp×g🗯️ 05:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess' and Billed Mammal's rebuttals and per Void if removed's and Sweet6970's comments, weak evidence of general factual unreliability, the "cat case" is not enough even for option 2. Cavarrone 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option it is biased but not unreliable. I guess you can call that option 2 if you want. I think (among others) Dr. Swag Lord and Jmchutchinson were right to point out that this is a fairly standard newspaper (of record); the editorial staff don't all leave the room when they find out the article is about this one specific topic. I also think that the claims that they publish incorrect statements of fact on this topic seem to be substantively untrue. They didn't "promote the litterboxes in school hoax", and don't appear to have even have made any incorrect statements of fact here (thanks BilledMammal/Chess), so it is unfortunate to have led with this example. The other evidence is generally about which opinions they present or which people/organisations they quote. That goes to bias, which they have, not unreliability. If this question was just "are there better sources we can use to write about the Cass Review?" The answer is yes, but unfortunately that wasn't the question, so here we are. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I am !voting for Option 2. I think Colin (in the archived discussion) and Tamzin (in this RfC) were correct in their argument that The Telegraph is not a good source for assessing WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE. We do not need to reflect the hysteria and overall significant bias they have on this topic when when we write our articles, though that doesn't mean the things they say are made up. Endwise (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Chess and others. There has been zero evidence of actual unreliability. Some people do not like the fact that they report on factual stories with evidence (the child was disciplined for that reason, even if the reason itself was untrue), simply because those stories don’t support their personal narrative. Luckily, Wikipedia transcends (or is supposed to) personal narratives, and does not consider editors’ personal agreement with sources when determining if they are reliable or not - and there has been zero actual evidence of factual errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per the reasoning provided above by Chess and others. I do not dispute that the Telegraph is biased on this topic, to the point that it all but takes a stance against transgender issues. However, I do not think the cited examples against the Telegraph amount to the paper being unreliable in that topic area. There's a difference between being unreliable and being biased—and you'd be hard-pressed to find any newspaper that is not biased in any way. One needs to keep WP:BALANCE in mind when writing about controversial topics, and I don't think restricting a source solely based on its bias is a particularly good way to accomplish this. (That said, with regards to trans issues, if less-biased sources exist for a certain statement, I would use those rather than the Telegraph or any other biased source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - per the claims of dishonest reporting and fabrication mentioned at the beginning of this discussion being themselves mistaken, as noted by a multitude of others. No problem mentioning they are biased, as that seems clear from reading the links provided, but that hasn't impacted the accuracy of reporting. XeCyranium (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 We're already well-suited to deal with issues of bias, which do seem to be present here. I certainly disagree with the Telegraph on some key things, but no evidence has been presented questioning reliability (as opposed to bias) and getting quotes from opponents or people charged in an article is standard, ethical journalistic practice, not something to be avoided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, one of my objections is that they get quotes from supporters and not opponents, and often disguise that the supporters are activists instead of neutral experts. Loki (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can read just fine, thank you, but I reject that as significantly backed as a claim on a systematic basis. You've had your say already. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source. BBC, for instance, was also accused of being transphobic, but its reliability on the issue still stands, AFAIK. Brandmeister^talk 10:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think BBC is a bit apples-to-oranges. I mean, one, it’s just a single article; two, as I mentioned even the Guardian sometimes runs a transphobic piece; and three, the BBC isn’t really supposed to have an explicit editorial stance, but in any case it’s certainly not “synonymous with right-wing” like the Telegraph. Tl;dr I think British mainstream media has a problem with transphobia in general, but the British right is especially bad. Dronebogus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the reason I made this RFC about the Telegraph and not about the BBC or the Guardian or even the Times is that the Telegraph is orders of magnitude worse than any of them.

  The BBC is guilty of a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE on trans issues, and occasionally does make factual mistakes, but is still obviously generally reliable. Notably they corrected the worst parts of their worst article on the issue, which is more than I can say for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I dunno, the Times seems far worse to me. From editing reporting on Ghey just to remove references to her being a girl to CNN claiming it only published negative articles in their sample. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The only question for this discussion is whether the Telegraph is unreliable. Whether the Telegraph is or isn't the worst, or whether other sources are or are not (also) unreliable for trans issues are not relevant here. If you (or anyone else) believes that other sources are unreliable you are free to start a new discussion about them (although it might be wisest to wait for this to conclude first, and a discussion of more than one such source is unlikely to achieve consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I say this from compiling evidence on both, though admittedly the Times has a paywall so I didn't read nearly as many of their articles. The Telegraph's bias on this issue is really palpable just from reading them, while the Times is notably more subtle about it. The secondary sourcing is actually more conclusive on the Times, but I figured that the "just go read it" factor weighed in favor of starting with the Telegraph.

  Not sure how much that helped: on the one hand, there definitely is a consensus for bias here, at least. On the other hand, a lot of the negative votes are asking for secondary sourcing, which assuming good faith is more clear for the Times than for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  A consensus for bias doesn't even make a source WP:MREL. The big edit notice when you try to add comments to RSN says Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's plenty of sources with a note at WP:RSP saying they're biased on certain issues. And of course, sufficiently strong bias can impact a source's ability to report the facts. Loki (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, while bias and reliability are not the same thing, they are not completely independent of one another. Three extracts from RSP:

  • Cato institute: Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR): Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
  • CNN: Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. This shows a consensus that bias can negatively affect reliability.

  Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bias can affect reliability, but you haven't shown that The Telegraph's bias does affect its reliability. Biased sources can be WP:GREL (CNN), WP:MREL (Cato Institute, CEPR), WP:GUNREL (Electronic Intifada), or fully deprecated. So, if all you can show is that there definitely is a consensus for bias here, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative, and therefore designating The Telegraph as WP:MREL or below will stop lies from getting onto Wikipedia.

  Nobody here has shown that. It has been shown that The Telegraph has a narrative and regularly quotes people that criticize transgender rights for their opinions, describing anti-transgender rights groups with terms favourable to their POV (gender-critical) and pro-transgender rights group with terms unfavourable to their POV (transgender ideology). The Telegraph also heavily emphasizes facts that fit their belief system, such as transgender women's milk potentially being unsafe and scientific issues surrounding trans women in sports. They also frequently say the definition of a "trans women" is too broad. None of these can be cited for untruths.

  The primary example of a bad fact-check alleged this entire RfC is the story about a student at Rye College who was reprimanded for not respecting another hypothetical student's identity as a cat. The only dispute is whether or not a real student actually identified as a cat, because nobody is disputing that the student was reprimanded.

  I've already discussed whether or not that really was a bad fact-check, but even if it was, one week of coverage on a singular story for a paper with an over 168-year history is not enough to demonstrate unreliability.

  Brandmeister said I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide your summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice. But it does say things all the time that are technically not false per se but are very misleading: see for instance this article, where the claim that this study is wrong would be quite dubious, but the claim that it's been criticized (by anyone anywhere) is technically true. (And this is a thing the Telegraph does all the time, like I wouldn't be surprised if they put out an article like this every single day).

  And some of the time, much more frequently than other news orgs, it goes further and actually does say dubious or even clearly false things in its own voice. When it does so, it almost never issues corrections of any kind. Some examples, in addition to the Rye College one we're all aware of:

  • This article says in article voice that "women’s rights across the world have come under threat by the growth of gender ideology". That's very dubious: it's at minimum pretty clearly not a fact, and is probably just false. It's not really true that women's rights have come under threat by gender ideology. It's dubious that gender ideology is even a real thing; we redirect it to a section of anti-gender movement, where we cite several academic sources that call it a conspiracy theory.
  • This article says Belgium and the Netherlands have called for puberty blocker restrictions. The Dutch parliament called for more research into puberty blockers, which is only dubiously calling for restrictions. Belgium, as far as I'm aware, has done nothing yet: the article doesn't say they did anything about Belgium calling for restrictions, only that a few doctors have and that a party that might win elections in the future might also.
  • Nearly every claim in this article has been extensively disputed by its subject. Most notably:

  • The Telegraph is definitely wrong that the Cass Report is a "report on the dangers of gender ideology": it's a series of systematic reviews about treatment of trans children. Also, as shown above, "gender ideology" is regarded by academic sources as a conspiracy theory, so it's concerning that the Telegraph is endorsing it.
  • The Telegraph is also definitely wrong that UKCP is a regulatory body. It's a professional organization. Membership is optional. It has no regulatory authority at all, not even the way a bar association might.

  Loki (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice grants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since WP:Verifiability prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per WP:MEDRS.

  The first article on whether transgender people are a threat to women is opinion leaking into an article (i.e. bias); it says a book new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine.

  You're saying that the second article makes claims about medical guidelines, so per WP:MEDRS there's no scenario in which we're only citing The Telegraph for that. Even then, the second article says Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate.

  On the third article (with the rebuttal by Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia, not Hilary Cass), claims about the Cass Review would have to be substantiated by the review per WP:MEDRS so The Telegraph's opinions can't be cited on their own. Even then, whether or not gender ideology caused medical practitioners to disregard a lack of evidence for healthcare in children is open to interpretation, the rebuttal by your advocacy group only asserts that this is false with no evidence.

  I won't rehash the discussion above of the term "gender ideology", so I'll only note that I don't believe you established they were endorsing an untrue conspiracy theory by using the term.

  Anyways, the only fact The Telegraph could be cited for is that UKCP is a regulatory organization. While UKCP has a voluntary membership, it's still a self-regulatory organization per their website. [85] They register psychotherapists, enforce a standard of ethics on its members, and can conduct disciplinary hearings to remove those that don't comply with ethical guidelines. It's like how the Independent Press Standards Organisation can take complaints and regulate newspapers despite being voluntary to join. Can you provide a neutral source (not one currently trying to remove the board of trustees of UKCP) saying the UKCP isn't a regulatory body?

  The other 3 disputed points by TACTT is it being unhappy with language such as "coup attempt", the accusation of "bullying", and that it "turned a blind eye to the safety of children". Only the term "coup attempt" was used by The Telegraph in article voice. The other two points are in a quote from the Chairman of the UKCP who said I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not apples to oranges when your vote contemplates declaring all of the British media something other than reliable on transgender topics. Asking whether the BBC is reliable under the standards of this RfC is a reduction to absurdity Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 The Daily Telegraph is certainly overly biased on this topic to the point of being irrational at times, but so is PinkNews. I have noticed that the Daily Telegraph has declined in quality in recent years, but I have noticed that for a lot of reliable sources since the start of the pandemic. For topics like the Cass Review, I would prefer other sources, but I wouldn't fully rule out the Telegraph. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, too much instruction creep. We don't need carveouts for every single topic where a source may be subpar compared to their usual work. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Astaire, Chess, and others have thoroughly rebutted the claims on unreliablity here. Moreover, I rebutted some of these claims myself in the earlier pre-discussion to this RfC.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per BilledMammal. --Andreas JN466 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2, per my usual view of it depends on what test the cite is intended for, what the WP:RSCONTEXT is. It certainly is a major venue and seems a reasonable source from prominence and availability. I don't see any reason to believe that it is always wrong to mandate exclusion always and forever, nor that it is perfectly right and comprehensive, nor that something appropriate for every line is always there, so ... it just depends on what the article text in question is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Per WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Telegraph is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against The Telegraph's general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just curious: have you actually seen a copy of the Telegraph in the last four years? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have in a library, but they don't circulate many copies where I am. Which may be a shame, as The Press Awards 2023 and 2024 awarded them Front Page of the Year for broadsheets, so the print editions might have more value add over the digital form than expected. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, there's a case on my talk page of someone voting for general reliability in the last RFC, then getting gifted a subscription to the Telegraph and apologizing because the problems with this source are so obvious upon reading it daily. Loki (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC isn't about The Telegraph's "broader reputation and editorial integrity". It is about a specific topic. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Correct! But as I just don't find the evidence provided against reliability in this topic area specifically to be convincing (Chess's reply is quite thorough in listing why), and the general reputation of the newspaper is quite good, I think it's reliable in this area. "Coverage of X topic area is WP:GREL" is sort of the default case when we have a WP:GREL newspaper, biomedical information aside. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per BilledMammal and WP:NEWSORG. The Telegraph is a strong RS and highly regarded. I do hope this isn't another go after a conservative-leaning source. I just see a simple case of WP:AINT here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. News reporting in the Telegraph may theoretically be considered reliable, if you can find it. But little, if any, of their coverage of culture insurgency issues is actually news: it's editorial, or at the very least heavily editorialised. It's not possible to read a single story without being acutely aware of the official editorial line. I concur with others above as to the extent of the evidence. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:NEWSORG. A source having a bias doesn't make it unreliable, and there is a lack of evidence showing this source to be unreliable. Let'srun (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. It is a biased source, and that bias disqualifies its usage to establish due weight in an article. It should be avoided for potentially controversial BLP claims relating to transgender topics, and likewise for any science-related claims. (Much of that already falls under WP:MEDRS, but that's often ignored when it comes to the intersection of science and politics, mostly because people interested in following core content policies generally find themselves unwelcome in the topic area of contemporary politics.) If there are certain straightforward claims that do not fall into either of those two buckets and do not create DUE issues—maybe, that a notable trans person was born in a certain year, or that a trans advocacy group is incorporated in a certain country—then sure, although usually some less biased source can probably be cited for the same claim. But its overall hysteria as part of the UK's great moral panic about trans issues makes it unsuitable for anything more complex than that. And if that seems unfair to conservatives, I would say the same about The New York Times's coverage of guns, to pick a hysteria on the other side of the aisle. Part of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability is using sources that have a basic grasp of what's being discussed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV says the opposite; A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not about conforming to my point of view, BilledMammal. It's about conforming to reality. We do not need to be relying on sources that think they are in some holy war against gender ideology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for trans issues because of its propagation of the "litter boxes" hoax.Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the numerous rationales already provided. Biased reliable sources are perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia does not exist to push the point of view that being transgender is an inalienable human right (FYI, a POV which I myself hold but what I think doesn't really matter here). We are supposed to provide a balanced view of a subject based on reliable sources, not cherry pick the sources we agree with. Eliminating every source we disagree with will only further make Wikipedia unreliable, untrusted and inaccurate. If two sources, one left-leaning and one right-leaning, mentioned a controversy regarding a right-wing politician with the left-leaning publication being heavily critical and the right-leaning one being heavily supportive, should I merely include the left-leaning source's arguments in an article, completely ignore the other POV, and revert any attempt to introduce the right-leaning source? Of course not, WP:NPOV requires both sides to be covered. I see absolutely no reason why trans issues should be any different to any other topic covered on Wikipedia. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess, BilledMammal and others. OK, they are WP:BIASED, but I'm not persuaded that they are also unreliable. WP:NPOV requires coverage of all the significant views - I think this is a significant POV and our articles about trans issues would be less balanced if it were excluded. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per BilledMammal and Gitz6666. If having a prominent, common POV on this issue (and I’m not convinced the even Telegraph does have a bias) is disqualifying, then… well it doesn’t matter, because it’s not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you can't see that the Telegraph has a bias then I'm not certain you have actually looked at the evidence. It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable, however even those most vociferously arguing for option 1 are not denying the existence of bias. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable

  Even if the Telegraph was biased, that is not true - WP:NPOV is clear that we achieve NPOV by balancing the bias in sources, not by excluding sources that have a POV we disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is possible for a source to be reliable despite having a strong bias because it doesn't let it's bias get in the way of factual reporting. It is also possible for a source to be unreliable due to having a strong bias because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias. RSP includes multiple examples of both. Those !voting for option 1 believe the first possibility above applies to the Telegraph, those supporting option 3 believe the second is a more accurate description of the Telegraph. Those supporting option 2 believe it's not clear cut. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias

  In which case the issue isn’t bias, but factual unreliability - which has not been demonstrated here, as implicitly conceded by the editors arguing it is unreliable solely because of what they see as bias. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Factual unreliability due to bias is an issue of both factual unreliability and of bias - and bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable. Whether it has been demonstrated here is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable

  Can you link the policy that says this? As far as I know, the only statements policy makes on this say the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not "unreliable" as a Wikipedia term of art, factually unreliable. Bias alone can be the reason a source cannot be relied on for facts. That's not a statement about Wikipedia policy, that's just a fact. Loki (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  We’re going in circles, so I’ll finish my participation in this chain by saying:

  1. If a source can’t be relied on for facts, you can prove it by showing where it gets facts wrong. You can’t prove it by showing (or claiming) that it is biased.
  2. We determine whether a source is unreliable for use on Wikipedia by assessing it in the context of our policies. !votes that assess it in a different context should be given no weight by the closer, per WP:DETCON

  BilledMammal (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  The edit-notice you get when you edit this page (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though you might not see it using the reply tool) says very prominently that Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, directly contradicts global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, let's balance the sources on Litter boxes in schools hoax by adding a Telegraph source. It'll go wonderfully. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It has been refuted to death that the Telegraph did not claim schools made such accommodations. It at most claimed that a rhetorical scenario of a student identifying as a cat to be true, and nothing else. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours. I don't think evidence that an outlet platforms a particular point of view, or platforms authors with a bias, suggests that the outlet itself must share in that point of view or bias. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  If that is what you believe is the reason for people believing the Telegraph is biased then you either haven't read or haven't understood most of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
  That's my assessment of the evidence. Maybe you can settle on "Zanahary just doesn't understand what he's seeing" (in which case, please explain it or keep it to yourself), but I've read it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 maybe 2. Per the comments by Chess, BilledMammal, Void, and others. I'm convinced the Telegraph has a considerable bias against pro-trans stances, and also that this bias is seemingly shared with most other British newspapers. I'm not convinced that the reliability of the Telegraph is affected such that its continued use--in the capacity that we can use any newspaper--on this topic would cause harm to the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  If they’re all biased we say they’re all biased, not say one isn’t biased because it’s no different in comparison. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would disagree that this bias is shared by all British newspapers. I think all British newspapers have written an article or 2 that have been criticised for transphobia. I think the telegraph goes further than the BBC or the guardian and consistently publishes articles seeping with bias. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Same. Many British papers have a bias around trans issues in the sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE or publishing a dubious article every now and then. But the Telegraph goes way beyond that into trying everything it can to get the reader to believe something false about trans people without actually saying it every day, and then also more often than other papers going beyond that and just saying something false anyway. Loki (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 because The Daily Telegraph is a widely respected newspaper of record which we shouldn't dismiss because we do not agree with its political slant. It is well known to have a conservative bias. It would be inappropriate to shut down a highly respected and significant news source merely because its political slant was different to our own. That is not what we do here at Wikipedia. Our best articles incorporate views from a variety of opinions. In the articles and opinion pieces linked above, I do not see faults in the factual reporting. Nothing has been made up, and sources are given. Yes, there is an editorial decision on which news items to cover, and how to cover it. You can generally expect that reporting in the Telegraph will focus on matters that are of interest to middle England conservative readers, and will present the facts accurately, but with a slant that favours the views of their readers. And you can certainly expect any opinion columns, such as editorials, to sum up news events with a conservative bias, and to rage against liberal views. This is what happens in newspapers. This survey is not the place to have a debate about trans rights, this is a place to look into if this particular newspaper is misreporting trans news items. I see no misreporting. I see the normal selection of items and opinions which are factual and accurate, but which present a case more likeable by the paper's audience. I would say exactly the same thing about The Guardian. It is our role as Wikipedia editors to include reports from both the Telegraph and the Guardian, and - difficult though that may be if we have an opinion on the matter - let the reader make up their own mind, even if that means coming to a conclusion we don't like. SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, with no hesitation, based on the allegations LokiTheLiar makes in this nomination. LokiTheLiar's badly misrepresents the Rye College cat story in the nomination and in their discussion throughout this page, and will prejudice me against accepting their claims in the future. Thanks to Pecopteris for providing an accurate summary of this matter. I struggle to understand Loki's claim that "trans women are men" is a factual claim, given that the definition of "men" is precisely what is disputed in this social issue; I don't see how a choice of definition can be factually proven. On the way they chose to attribute sources, I find their descriptions generally accurate. Thoughtful Therapists does seem to have a membership composed of counselors and psychotherapists. Sex Matters does seem to advocate for women's rights. While I haven't reviewed all of it, a brief skim of the content of User:LokiTheLiar/Times and Telegraph RFC prep seem to indicate that the editors don't promote a pro-trans position, but doesn't indicate problems with accurate, reliable reporting. If someone wants to direct my attention to an actual false statement by the Telegraph, I would be open to reconsidering. Daask (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps "defecation" would be appropriate since it involves shitting all over it. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 Nothing says sources cannot disagree. In such a situation we just say what all the sources are saying, we don't cherry-pick bits and pieces to include and exclude. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to presume you mean all the reliable sources are saying, otherwise there would be no rsp or rsn. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The UK press is generally quite open in its biases. In Britain, one can usually tell a person's politics by what papers they read. But that does not equate to making things up. The DT (right leaning) is no more biased or unreliable than the Guardian (left leaning). The question is whether there is a significant body of credible evidence reported in reliable sources that the DT has a pattern of making false or deliberately misleading statements, as distinct from occasional errors that will occur with pretty much any source. And the answer to that is no. Or at least, such has not been presented thus far. On a side note, I am concerned about what appears to be a pattern of targeting sources that do not conform to the ideological prejudices of some editors. This seems to be happening more often with sources that lean right in their editorial slant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I have to agree with that last point. There's been a long and subtle ramp-up of this proclivity generally over the last decade or so, but it's really in the last two years or so that the true acceleration of efforts in some corners of the community to purge sources on such political grounds became especially pronounced. Mind you, these efforts do not typically take the form of express attempts to expunge sources based on their right/left (or let's be honest, usually right-leaning) tilt. Rather, much like this discussion, the efforts are usually aimed at deprecating certain sources with regard to certain culture war topics.

  Now, don't get me wrong: you wouldn't catch me consuming most of the sources which have been thus targetted--the Telegraph most assuredly included. But that's really neither here not there. The concern is that deprecation (and RSN generally) have become too easily leveraged to accomodate POV pushin g through the back door. Don't like the recurring influence that a perenial source has on the WP:WEIGHT analysis regarding how we should present some subject matter that intersects with a controversial contemporary sociopolitical topic? Well, just take it out of the equation entirely for all future analysis!

  And look, I'm being a little facetious and exagerative there, but not by much. This has been (for myself at least) one of the most striking cultural changes of the project in my time here. There is now a steady erosion of the firewall that once had the average editor frequently facing (and generally accepting/embracing) the scenario where they had to support inclusion of content that they found objectionable or dubious, because said editor recognized the general value and necesity of the principle of NPOV to the overall endeavour of the project. There is going to need to be a firmer recognition of this increasing tendency in the other direction, and a broad and express reaffirmation of the primacy of some of the project's core priorities in order to arrest this trend. And when I speak of the need to make such efforts, let me be clear that I think this feeds into some issues that present actual existential threats to the continuation and the validity of en.Wikipedia generally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: Post-truth politics aren't a Wikipedia-specific trend. The problem is that different mainstream segments of the political spectrum can no longer agree on what is a fact.

  As an example, let's take the statement that trans woman are women. Our article on trans women says a trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Commenters supporting this wording at that RfC viewed that as being a fact that is true. [86] Other commenters wanted to avoid treating it as a fact. WP:NPOV says that If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, but treating that claim that "trans women are women" as an opinion would endorse the meta-POV that this is something you can have a point-of-view on.

  This RfC crystallizes this point, because we are discussing whether or not directly acknowledging that "trans women are women" makes a source reliable and whether or not that is a fact or an opinion, since stating untrue facts would make The Telegraph unreliable while an untrue opinion just makes it biased.

  Our policies are not equipped to deal with this problem, because they assume we can make a clean distinction between opinion and fact, when today's omnipresent culture war hinges on what side of that distinction you endorse.

  I think here, we've endorsed the "opinion" side of things, but a better solution would be updating WP:NPOV for the meta-POV era and figure out how we can compromise in article-space on disputes of facts versus opinions. We also need to reconceptualize WP:RS because declaring The Telegraph "biased on opinion but reliable on facts" is meaningless when editors are unable to agree on whether a statement is a fact or an opinion. I've been told I'm leaving too many comments so I'll stop here now that it's not directly relevant to the RfC and invite you to continue further on my talk page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fantastic comments from @Chess, @Snow Rise, and @Ad Orientem. I'm especially intrigued by Chess's point that NPOV needs to be updated to take into account the "meta-POV" era, which includes the rise of activist journalism and POV-pushing editorialization disguised as "just the facts". This really took off around 2016 and continues to get worse, and, since our policies don't directly address it, many editors don't even know that such a trend in media exists, or they pretend not to know.

  I started a thread here and expressed my concerns about our general failure to distinguish precisely between facts and opinions. Some editors simply do not know the difference, and others act in bad faith, pretending that their preferred opinions are "facts" per "verifiability is truth" and other such nonsense. I was, frankly, disappointed in the quality of the conversation that ensued on that thread, although a few editors made some very thought-provoking points. A similar conversation should take place again.

  One solution is to update NPOV. Another idea I've toyed with is, maybe we need specific sourcing standards for politics, like we have for medicine. POLRS, or something like that. Since the conversation about The Telegraph is coming to an end (I hope), I think it would be great for us to start a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard or at the village pump about this topic. @Chess, do you agree? I know you said you're going to refrain from further comment here, so if you think that this avenue of discourse would be worthwhile, drop me a line at my talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  POLRS for trans-related subjects imply the mere existence of trans people is political. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. He didn't say "for trans people", and as he compared it to MEDRS I assume he didn't mean that (MEDRS isn't just for trand people).

  2. No it doesnt. There are trans issues that are political just like there are women's issues, gay/lesbian issues, POC issues, indigenous, immigrants', and on and on that are political. Such an acknowledgement does not imply that anyone's "mere existence is political". Such melodramatic hyperbole is hard to take seriously. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The fact-opinion distinction is just completely broken in general. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. As has been already discussed by numerous others at length above, the presumptive ideological alignment of the editorial staff of a news source (no matter how obvious or odious that presumed bias may feel to the majority of us on this project) does not automatically disqualify said source from providing reliable conveyance of facts that happen to interesect with such political, ideological, and cultural currents. Nor do I think that the advocates for deprecation of the historically major media entity that is the Telegraph have made an adequate case for the kind of habitual pattern of gross distortion of the facts/misinformation that would be recquired in order to proscribe it from being used to wp:verify details in news stories relating to the subject matter in question. Even as I would hope thatthe editorials of this particular publication would never be any citizen's ideological touchstone for ethical questions relating to trans rights, I see no compelling reason to believe that it is incapable of faithfully relaying facts relating to events which touch upon trans rights. That's a very important distinction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• 4, deprecate. The Telegraph has a long and well demonstrated history of being heavily biased at best and hard misinformation at its worst on the topic, comparable to The Daily Mail. Snokalok (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you realize that your option makes no sense, as deprecation means we'd implement a link filter to prevent all links from that source, which has no way of exclusively targetting the trans topic? Have you seen rebuttals other !voters have relied on, such as Void If Removed's? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think if an argument has already been made we don't have to rehash it for every !vote especially given that we all know this RfC isn't going to result in deprecation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the reason why deprecation would make no sense has been directly acknowledged yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Bias does not equal unreliable. Unfortunately, our guidelines do not do a good enough job of insisting that reliable but biased sources not be used to make claims in Wikivoice. But that cuts both ways, and does not make a source unreliable. The proper solution is to address guidelines around reliable but biased sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Loki and Black Kite, and many examples raised in this discussion. Just want to toss in another example: [87]. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the original interview. If you only read the headline it would appear as if that was a direct quote from the party itself. If you read the entire article you could be given an impression that Harvie is simply denying the science when it omits the original quote of I've seen far too many criticisms of it to be able to say that. And besides, the article suggests that Harvie "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" when it does not even make clear who made the accusation. There's no way this could be from a "generally reliable" source, and given the countless other examples given above (plus many articles I have read on the Telegraph on trans topics) I have to agree that this is generally unreliable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:HEADLINE makes this an irrelevant complaint, the quote is accurate, and the extra context doesn't change any of it. I fail to see how this example adds anything. Void if removed (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not irrelevant as the sentence "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" is repeated again in the article. The presentation of this accusation is performative in that it masks the opinions of the author behind a sentence attributed to no one. The main justification is I don't see how any of the claims from this article could be cited on Wikipedia. If someone wants to cite Harvie's opinions on the Cass review, they'd go straight to the original interview. But supposedly The Telegraph can be considered generally reliable by those arguing for option 1, I'm curious how a generally reliable source would have articles that cannot be cited at all (without attribution to the Telegraph itself). I'd really like an example of how The Telegraph can be used as a generally reliable source with factual reporting in regards to trans issues in an article. If we can't achieve that, then option 3 it is.

  I'm also unimpressed by people citing WP:NEWSORG - News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, but we're in a discussion about whether that applies to The Telegraph. You can also say Fox News is a well-established news outlet and therefore it should be considered generally reliable, but we've also decided that it is generally unreliable for politics and science. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are several examples at Isla Bryson case. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children

  This is a fairly obvious summation of the quote from Tory MSP Brian Whittle:

  “You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.

  I don't see how it is relevant because none of this pertains to a fact we would source here or anywhere, or a factual inaccuracy that would tend to unreliability.

  I also don't see how Harvie's opinions on Cass are WP:DUE anywhere, but you could absolutely cite this article for facts like:

  all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion

  So again, not seeing anything to complain about with this article. Void if removed (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The Telegraph has unfortunately become a publication that heavily leans toward anti-transgender ideology, which is heavily reflected in its phrasing, presentation of stories, platforming of transphobic people, and at times directly inaccurate claims. In regards to topics of gender, the Telegraph infuses so much bias that it is generally unreliable. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - As discussed at length above, the Telegraph is not a reliable source on this topic. Its editors have actively made it the mouthpiece for a biased and highly partial set of views on the subject, generally ignoring the evidence, and sometimes directly in the face of it. It's a reliable source for the opinions of its own opinion writers on the topic, but it's not a neutral or reliable source for news and factual reporting here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. It's simply not treated as a WP:RS on this subject in the highest-quality secondary sources. See eg. [88][89][90][91]; when you combine this with the inaccuracies noted above, it's hard to understand why we would cite a source like this directly on a topic that has so many higher-quality sources available. It's clearly a WP:BIASED source which has engaged in aggressive advocacy on the topic and which would require that that bias be noted whenever it is cited; but beyond that, its biases are clearly sufficently severe that they've interfered with their reliability. I'm particularly alarmed by the people above who try to argue that it isn't even biased or that it can be used without making its biases clear - its stark bias, at least, is unequivocal and well-established in secondary coverage, to the point where it's really the only thing the Telegraph is known for in this topic area, and must be unambiguously stated in-text in the rare case where it might be citable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • How was it determined that the sources cited are "the highest-quality secondary sources"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    Let's take a look at them:

    • “It’s like we are not human”: discourses of humanisation and otherness in the representation of trans identity in British broadsheet newspapers and Support group or transgender lobby? Representing Mermaids in the British press and A tale of two feminisms: gender critical feminism, trans inclusive feminism and the case of Kathleen Stock all make excellent cases for bias, reporting various ways in which The Telegraph presented information that suited its political position, but none of them identify any factual errors or issues of reliability.
    • Empire and Eugenics: Trans Studies in the United Kingdom is published in Transgender Studies Quarterly, a journal which publishes articles from the opposite POV to that of The Telegraph. The article mentions The Telegraph once:

      Such vagaries, or even outright lies, are a popular tactic of the UK press when it comes to (mis)representing trans issues. To give a few examples, in an interview with the Telegraph, popular children’s author Jacqueline Wilson is “very, very worried” about “young children taking any kind of drugs, hormones or whatever” and “having major surgery” (Wilson 2019). The interviewer does not bother to point out to Wilson that no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to children

    This is not an error of fact. It's an omission which may be indicative of bias, but it may also be a nothingburger, because the interviewee said "any kind of drugs", which includes puberty blockers, which were prescribed to young children in the UK at the time. (Note how the journal article's pointing-out fails to point this out, and makes an error of its own in stating that hormones were not provided to children (they were at the time - just not young children), and fails to point out that gender-affirming surgeries for minors is something that has been available in other countries and some people advocate for it, and therefore it is not an unreasonable thing for the interviewee to be worried about coming to the UK). This is POV vs POV and has nothing to do with reliability.

    Again we see that perceptions of unreliability are actually based in perceptions (accurate ones!) of bias, and I hope that an outcome of this RfC will be to reaffirm the guidance found in WP:BIASED. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    The point was not that the sources provided examples of unreliability but that these sources just don't treat the telegraph as a rs and if we are to follow the highest quality sources Wikipedia shouldn't either. I'm not certain what the policy states on this kind of argument but the point wasn't to provide evidence of unreliability. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    We have our own criteria for determining Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    And one of those criteria is WP:USEBYOTHERS. If other reliable sources don't treat a source as reliable, that's a reason for us to not do so either. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    Observer cites Telegraph: [92] [93] Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) (link – ‘whistleblowers at GIDS’) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    That is clearly marked as an editorial. Loki (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    On one hand, we have a handful of articles from academic lecturers and doctoral students who are unhappy with the Telegraph's spin on a particular set of stories, writing in non-notable journals like "Critical Discourse Studies".

    On the other hand, we have reliable sources such as the Guardian, the BBC, and Sky News reporting on the Telegraph's investigation of Mermaids and treating the paper's claims as reliable.

    Even PinkNews, which I think we can all agree is biased in the other direction on this issue, has repeatedly cited the Telegraph's reporting on transgender issues. Articles such as the following are particularly noteworthy, where PinkNews is quoting the Telegraph's reporting on news that is not yet general knowledge: [94] [95] [96][97] [98] [99]. And you just have to search the PinkNews website for phrases like "according to the Telegraph" or "the Telegraph reported" to find literally dozens of other examples: [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] etc. etc.

    If the Telegraph is WP:GUNREL on transgender issues, then why is PinkNews behaving otherwise? Astaire (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say the first lot treat the telegraphs claims as reliable. The guardian uses tentative language like alleges, and even says some of their article on the topic are disputed (particular comparing using binders to breast ironing/flattening) . The BBC article pretty much just says that complaints to the charity commission followed the reports in the telegraph. A lot of the mentions in pinknews seem to be directly about possible government policy and in a few of them they deliberately question the narrative built up by the telegraphs article. It seems like they more go towards the telegraph so they can see what (they would call) anti trans actors are saying, and adding information pinknews thinks is relevant. It seems like pinknews doesn't trust the telegraph to tell the truth, just to repeat what the Tory government or 'anti trans actors' say. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    Using language like "the Telegraph alleged" and "the Telegraph said" is just other outlets doing their journalistic due diligence. As for PinkNews, they have made use of the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues dozens of times, both for quotations and matters of fact. This is a strong indication that even PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable" on this matter.

    Beyond PinkNews, it is not at all difficult to find other reliable sources citing the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues. Just from a cursory search: [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] Astaire (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    The Guardian article doesn't seem to rely on the Telegraph's reporting, they just report on it. They even put a headline in scare quotes and quote someone from Mermaids to rebut the reporting.

    The BBC is similarly reporting the Telegraph's reporting, not relying on it. They're not saying anything one way or the other regarding the truth of the allegations made by the Telegraph.

    The Sky News article does indeed rely on the Telegraph, but it also quotes someone from Transgender Trend as if they're an expert, which frankly just makes me suspicious of Sky News.

    All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for facts, or relying on them for a direct quote (which I also agree that they're reliable for). Loki (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for facts That is simply not true and I would urge anyone to verify for themselves. A substantial number of the links I posted involve PinkNews heavily dependent on the Telegraph's reporting. Beyond the first list of six, there are articles such as this and this. In fact, that second one so closely hews to the Telegraph that the paragraph beginning "Separately, culture secretary Oliver Dowden..." is directly copied (plagiarised?) from the Telegraph article. Clearly PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable". Astaire (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    Also the bold claim no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to children is simply false even discounting blockers, seeing as GenderGP gave testosterone to at least one 12-year-old and multiple others under the age of 16. Void if removed (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 This is the same paper that pretended to be a 13 year-old to contact a charity in an attempt to make them look bad for supporting trans youth, and then ran an article that implied it was a bad thing to support a kid with transphobic parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sock-the-guy (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All of which makes them scuzzy and morally bankrupt fearmongers (without rational perspective on the purpose of gender affirming care and the needs of the children it is meant to serve), and puts them on the wrong side of history and common decency. But all of which also says absolutely nothing about their editorial controls and reputation for fact checking. I'm not going to mince words: from my perspective, their editorial views on this subject run the gamut between histrionics and outright bigotry. But our policies are clear: not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source as an WP:RS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Going undercover to expose things is a time-honored journalistic technique. As for what is the right or wrong side of history, it's not our place as Wikipedians to try to steer history the right way... only to produce an encyclopedia that reflects things as they actually are, not as you want them to be. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like "not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source" is being used as a thought-terminating cliche here. Yes, it's true that not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source. However, if you've identified extreme bias in a source, WP:BIASED explicitly instructs editors to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources.

So, what are the normal requirements for reliable sources? Well, WP:RS says that Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does a paper that endorses conspiracy theories like gender ideology, that refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about, that publishes articles every day intended to mislead the reader about trans people, really have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Loki (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like "not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source" is being used as a thought-terminating cliche here. yes, there is a disappointingly large amount of "bias doesn't automatically mean unreliable" being understood as/claimed to mean "bias cannot mean unreliable", which WP:RSP and any discussion regarding state-controlled media demonstrate is simply incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

bias cannot mean unreliable

Our policies are very clear; bias alone cannot mean unreliable. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. If you see it as a thought terminating cliche that is because our policies have made it so, and before you can declare sources like the Telegraph unreliable on grounds of their bias you need to change our policy. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Bias does not always mean unreliable, but that does not mean that bias can never mean unreliable per the very pages you cite and the ones I cited in the comment you replied to. Whether or not the Telegraph's bias is sufficiently strong that it makes it unreliable is a completely separate question, but it is a question that can be and needs to be asked and answered. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It does, though. Bias does not, on its own, mean a source is unreliable, no matter how severe the bias is. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. So the statement that bias alone can mean a source is unreliable is flat out untrue per our policies. Bias can mean it deserves a closer look to confirm it complies with other parts of the reliable source policy. And it may even be more likely that biased sources do not comply with the RS policy. But if there are no violations of the actual policy, then no matter how strong the bias is, it is not an unreliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that as a matter of Wikipedia policy a theoretical source that is perfect other than being biased is therefore unreliable. However, we do not have a theoretical source that is perfect other than being biased. In the real world, sufficiently extreme bias causes bending of the facts. And we know this has happened in this case because I've already linked to several cases of the Telegraph bending the facts to suit its bias. Loki (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How is the use of the term "gender ideology" itself endorsing a conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theory would be the existence of a cabal, which I haven't seen the Telegraph endorse. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about

Are you referring to the "cat litter box hoax"? First, it is indisputable that it never claimed the school provided cat litter boxes. Second, it also never claimed that a student identified as a cat - claiming that it did requires a misunderstanding of presuppositions, as shown above. Finally, it hasn't actually been disproven that a student didn't identify as a cat; otherkin are a real thing, and the Ofcom report didn't comment on that - all we have is the claim of the school, a claim the telegraph did report on once it was made. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues)

I don't vote here because I don't have time to study the sources about the reliability issue. But I have 2 comments to make: (a) It was said in other discussions that option 4 is technically not possible for specific issues because of the filter. So it seems to be irrelevant. b) the question of whether trans men and women are men or women is not a factual question, but rather a question of definition. Factual questions are if certain people feel they are a man or a woman, if they have a penis or a vagina, XX or XY chromosomes, etc. But the question of which of these criteria should be used to decide who should be called man or woman is not a factual question, but rather a semantic/legal/linguistic question of definitions. The meaning of the words "man" and "woman" is a social construct. And in fact many progressives think that the binary division to "man" and "woman" is wrong, and we should look at sex and gender as a spectrum. Vegan416 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is likely going to be a continuous RFC with many editors voicing their opinions. For the sake of ever getting a close can I suggest keeping the replies to a minimum in the survey section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Having watched the last full RFC, and the RFC on this specific issue that happened shortly afterwards, their were several participants who felt the RFCs were rushed into. This meant they couldn't present their arguments properly, I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the extensive discussion at #The Telegraph and trans issues before this RFC was started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is correct. The last RFC was a rush job with no RFCBEFORE, which of course meant that the status quo had a strong advantage. Loki (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone point to a good article on trans subjects in the Telegraph? Because WP:RSOPINION can always be called to allow use of a generally unreliable source, but what are they bringing to the table that makes them a reliable source? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's one I grabbed today. [120] It covers a transgender judge and her resignation. Here's another one also published today. [121] I'm going to assert that these are good because they cover the story in a balanced way and the assertions they've made are true. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The first one is definitely better than average for the Telegraph but it still contains minor factual inaccuracies. The one I noticed immediately is that it says that the Cass Review warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support puberty blockers, not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study.

The second one is bad mostly because it's not news. It's a news article about a tweet, and not a tweet by a significant figure but JK Rowling arguing with people on Twitter again. It makes few factual claims and they're hard to fact check because they're almost all quotes or policy positions of various parties. But even reporting on this indicates significant bias. Loki (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think this is news" is not an argument against something being RS. As for the Cass report, it recommends The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT). This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after more back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. -sche (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors love to hear the sound of their own voice. There's no cure for conceit and self-importance. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: how do we feel about specific BLP coverage? Is there any past discussion about cases were the source was a) allowed to be used for BLP and b) shouldn’t be? FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone here can answer how common it is that Wikipedia treats a source as reliable except for a particular topic. What are other examples? I ask because it seems implausible to me that the newspaper editor says to their reporters that they consistently expect the highest standards of journalism, etc., except when it comes to trans matters when you can make up any old lies and we won't complain. I don't think that there will be journalists at the Telegraph who are specialising in trans matters; they will be covering a broad range of other topics also, so it would be strange if their behaviour was inconsistent between topics. OK, I could imagine that the editor of a propaganda channel like Russia Today might say to keep things honest except as regards Russia, but the Telegraph does not have any special focus on trans matters, so why should they treat it differently? Of course it seems more likely to me that the attention on trans coverage at the Telegraph arises not from a difference in how the Telegraph deals with this topic but from the focus and viewpoints of some of Wikipedia's editors. It would help to show that up if it turns out that these kind of topic-restrictions are unusual for mainstream media. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are multiple sources listed at WP:RSP that have different reliability ratings for different topics, e.g. Fox News, Huff Post, Insider and several other entries that note more caution is needed in certain areas. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's valuable to know. I didn't spot any topic quite as specific as trans in that list, but it makes sense that some of those titles are considered unreliable about politics, for instance. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have any precedent for designating a source with different reliability for something as narrow as "trans issues" though? I am wondering if this is a precedent we want to set. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose it depends in part whether you regard "trans issues" as narrow, but to my mind it is a precedent worth setting. If a sources is reliable or unreliable only in a narrow area we should (not) be using in that specific area as this will bring the greatest benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Thryduulf. It's not even that narrow even though it's the narrowest topic so far. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not even sure it is the narrowest. Cato Institute's listing at RFP says (in part) Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. and that's from 2015. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• More than once in Option 1 !votes there has been a claim that Option 3/4 !votes amount to requiring RSes to hold a certain 'political position' or 'political opinion'. However, this misrepresents many Option 3/4 !votes, which express not concern about support/opposition for X or Y law, or A or B party (which would be political positions) but instead about inaccuracies, misinformation, and deviation from academic consensus about trans existence and experiences (i.&nbsple., matters pertaining to reliability, accuracy, etc.). The claim by various Option 1 !votes that the Telegraph merely has a POV or bias is troubling because it reduces information to opinion, as if academic interpretations in science, sociology, and more have only as much weight as an opinion about, say, whether Kirk or Spock is the better character.
  In any case, I encourage the closer to remember that consensus is determined not by a simple counted majority but by the quality of arguments (and not necessarily their length either). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Many support Chess and Void's rebuttals of claimed informational inaccuracies, which don't appear to have been addressed.
  Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy. Most non-option-3 !voters believe that it's the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  which don't appear to have been addressed: They have been; see Loki's post beginning I think that this response, [that is, Chess's response] despite being long etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's debatable; much of that reply lacks substance. Of the five points they make in that comment only the first addresses reliability rather than bias, and that point is contradictory and makes little sense.

  In that point they argue that the "student identifies as a cat" story is akin to the litter box hoax because the litter box hoax doesn't solely relate to litter boxes but accommodations for otherkin generally. Even if we set aside the debate about whether reprimanding students for refusing to accept an individual identifying as a cat is an accommodation, that aspect isn't actually in dispute - it's an accepted fact that that the students were reprimanded by the teacher for this.

  What is disputed is whether:

  • A student identified as a cat
  • The Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat

  It appears, although isn't conclusive, that no student identified as a cat (Rye College has denied it, but the Ofsted report was silent on that question). However, the belief that the Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat is based on a misunderstanding of presuppositions; see my response beginning with "You're assuming that a sentence". BilledMammal (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  And either way, even if they did get that wrong, I don't think that's enough. Plus Chess replied to it anyway. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have found Chess—who continues to bloat the survey section rather than use the discussion section—unconvincing, so we seem to disagree and that may have to be that for now. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.

  Since it has been raised by a few editors I wanted to quickly address this point. Individuals have both gender and sex and on a purely factual basis it is equally correct to refer to an individual by either. This means that misgendering a transgender individual isn't a factual inaccuracy, but a choice to use sex rather than gender. Of course on a moral basis gender should be used - but that isn't relevant to source reliability.

  Further, it appears that the Telegraph generally doesn't misgender individuals, even in controversial cases such as that of Isla Bryson. When they do it typically seems to be under exceptional circumstances, such as in this provided example where clinical advice was to not affirm a teenager's gender. Usually, we would consider a source deciding that it knows better than an individuals treating medical professional to be evidence of unreliability; it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable for us to decide that the opposite is true in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, this is pretty clearly sophistry. Pronouns are not a reference to biology and this is obvious every time you don't look in someone's pants before you refer to them.

  Second, if you insist on continuing to make this argument: even the sex of a trans woman is not unambiguously male, assuming you're talking about an actual biological state and not essentialist ideology masquerading as biology. A trans woman could have a female-typical hormonal system (and therefore female secondary sex characteristics like breasts, softer skin, and lower upper body strength), a vagina, and no ability to grow facial hair or produce sperm. Not all trans women do, of course, and no trans woman has female-typical chromosomes, but surely you see why this makes arguments that the Telegraph is just going by biology pretty silly.

  (I agree the Telegraph doesn't always misgender individuals, but it does much more often than other similar sources.) Loki (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar, you say "...and no trans woman has male-typical chromosomes". Can you clarify or elaborate on that? Pecopteris (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Typo. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you're saying that trans women aren't biologically male, then your argument seems based on our POV rather than on factual inaccuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am in fact saying that. Trans women are neither unambiguously biologically male nor unambiguously biologically female. If you were a doctor evaluating a patient for a condition where sex was medically relevant, and your patient was a trans woman, you would have to ask them about their specific history of hormones and procedures, and then make a decision based on what specific condition you're thinking of. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  While some academics do hold the position that human sex is mutable, looking at recent scholarly articles they are still in the minority. We can't consider a source unreliable on the basis that they hold a mainstream view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is absurd. If pronouns aren’t attached to sex, then there is no reason we should not, as a society, move to “they” exclusively, rather than “he” and “she. In fact, many languages do that - they do not have different pronouns and simply have one “third person pronoun”. But English does not - we have two. By saying that they’re not based on sex, that’s simply absurd - the concept of “gender” was equivalent to sex for the vast majority of history, including in the pre-english languages that formed these dual pronouns.

  Let me be clear - I support transgender rights more than a lot of people in my country. But it is absolutely not beneficial to that cause to try and make claims like “pronouns aren’t sex, they’re gender”, especially when a significant minority (if not majority) do recognize that historically, they were because of sex. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to make these kind of arguments - whether about trans issues or any other issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pronouns aren't sex, they're gender. Drag queens usually use "she" pronouns, for one, and for two if you think they're about sex then you should be looking in the pants or testing the chromosomes of random people on the bus. Loki (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we don't ask to see someone's birth certificate before calling them their name, either... Nor do we refrain from using pronouns for babies who have no gender identity yet and may not even have any social indicators of sex (unisex clothes, unisex name) at all--we just go by what their parents use. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to add that the "clinical advice" your saying the telegraph followed by misgendering a child is in fact conversion therapy as discussed above. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have reason to believe that beyond a comment by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, who claimed that the source was referring to conversion therapy because it used the term "watchful waiting", which they said was invented by an American-Canadian fringe advocate of conversion therapy?

  If not, you should know they were mistaken. It was developed at one of the largest transgender clinics and research institutes in the world, the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria in the Netherlands, and is a highly respected model of care worldwide.

  The terminology is also widely used in mainstream academic sources, with most being highly supportive of it. There is no reason to believe that the child was being put through conversion therapy, or that the Telegraph was doing anything other than following medical guidance aligned with mainstream practices when they referred to them as a "she".

  This is emblematic of the issue with this RfC; the issues raised about the source are not ones of reliability but of disagreement with their POV. This is also leading me to start questioning the notion that the source is notably biased; if examples like this are representative of the other arguments presented for bias then they are in fact solidly mainstream. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  As the child in question is a teenager (near the start of the process) he has almost certainly started through puberty. The watchful waiting model says that if these issues persist into the onset of puberty to intervene. Whereas conversion therapists use watchful waiting as a kind filibuster tactic, the ignoring of the actual model and doing anything to delay any kind of transition points towards conversion therapy rather than actual good care. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry when I say "near the start of the process" above I mean near the start of the article (around 2019). Sorry for any ambiguity LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Question If this RfC results in a consensus of GREL, do we support adding a note to prefer other sources, per e.g. egregiously misleading presentation of a breast binding study? I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not an expert on MEDRS, but shouldn’t this be excluded anyway, regardless which mainstream newspaper published it? FortunateSons (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it would be a violation of MEDRS to attempt to use a newspaper/other non-medical source to represent the results of a study. That said, I haven’t looked at this specific link (it doesn’t work well on mobile) to see if the link Aaron has provided is truly an “egregiously misleading presentation”. If it is, it could be considered in determining their overall reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  It’s from @LunaHasArrived at 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) FortunateSons (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  So basically, in a news article, they have a mother raise concerns about breast binders to a school citing a certain study. They follow up the sentence with "97% who use experience health problems" to imply that her concern is valid, while the 97% figure cited includes all problems, such as "itchiness", regardless of severity. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewing the source, I'm not convinced the Telegraph article is a problem. While sources like The Telegraph aren't reliable on medical topics anyway per WP:MEDRS, what we would expect from a reliable source in that topic area is they accurately reflect the source without distorting it with their own contributions, even when they think those contributions are self-evident. In this case, the source says that 97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to binding and doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that.

  But even if they had, the impact would have been minimal, as excluding itchiness would likely have only changed the headline number from >97% to >95%. The difference is insignificant, and in my opinion couldn't amount to egregiously misleading presentation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would not call that “egregiously misleading presentation”. Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention. Is it slightly misleading in that it doesn’t specify that it’s any health problem including minor ones? I disagree it’s misleading at all, but I’ll concede it’s a small amount of misleading based on that. But it’s not egregious. Non-severe medical problems are still medical problems. And acting like they aren’t is simply a representation of POV pushing - patients have the right to informed consent and WP should not sugar coat information regarding the sequelae of treatments. If 97% of people experience at least some form of small problem (or big problem) from it, that’s a valid statistic to present in WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's misleading because when I think of health problem, I'd think of consistent pain (especially after now wearing it) or nausea etc, not "has some pain whilst wearing" or whatever. From a medical study it is important to consider these it's just when used in general speak it can be misleading. If I said I was too warm because I wore a fleece, would people say that's a health problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention.

  Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't think binding is a purely medical intervention - but some people do use it as a means to change their outward appearance to lessen their feelings of gender dysphoria. This makes it no different than, say, using KT tape for post-workout "healing" (even though that's still scientifically up in the air if it's actually beneficial for the vast majority of people using it). It's not a drug or a procedure, but it is something someone's doing for purported medical benefit - and so if they have experienced other problems related to binding, that's perfectly valid to consider a problem. In fact, I'd argue that by claiming that their claims are irrelevant (that they experienced itchiness severe enough to report it in a survey), you're diminishing the potential health concerns of it and trying to push the POV that it's safe without providing all the information. WP is an encyclopedia - we do not push a POV, we simply report on the facts, and the study identified some problems you may not consider problematic for you, sure. But that doesn't mean it's an invalid statistic, and to claim a source is unreliable for trying to ensure its readers understand that 97% of people had some problem they themselves found was related to binding... that's simply trying to censor a source because it presented information you don't like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) MEDRS is only relevant to medical claims, but not everything related to medicine is a medical claim. While the specific comment linked does reference a medical claim, not everything from the cited article would be.

  Regarding I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is, but it's odd for this. Would one consider the statement "most people who were high heels find them painful" a medical statement, would talking about changing pronouns in secondary schools count (after all social transition can be a thing). These 'soft' medical claims are an interesting area and I'm not sure where I would put them personally and these kind of things the telegraph do seem to be unreliable for. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  By my reading of WP:Biomedical information, technically speaking "most people who wear high heels find them painful" would definitely be a statement covered by WP:MEDRS, and arguably almost anything about trans people might be covered due to the presence of gender dysphoria in the DSM.

  However, needless to say this is not how most editors interpret this in actual practice, and I think if you tried to push it you'd get a lot of pushback. Loki (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wasn't certain where to put this but more evidence on only platforming one side comes from their recent coverage of the general election. Both the conservatives and Labour have released their manifestos and the telegraph covered their positions on conversion therapy here and here respectively. Notable is the only groups asked for comment are Sex matters, Christian Concern and LGB alliance. All these groups advocate for no further conversion therapy ban. The only description on any of these groups is that Sex Matters has a chief of advocacy and one of sex matters or Christian concern is a charity. The argument being made here isn't that a rs shouldn't platform these people, it's that the telegraph is Onlyplatforming this side. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  But are they platforming this one side with fact checking and accuracy? If so, then reliability isn’t the issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I mean they uncritically platform the view that a supposed ban would be harmful (brave coming from Helen Joyce who said that happily transitioned people are a huge problem for a sane world). She also says that most children convinced of an opposite sex identity grow out of it during puberty, this is just flatly untrue and based off of research considering any gender nonconformity as gender dysphoria. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also even if you think they are fact checking and accurate, WP:due becomes a huge issue because suddenly on the matter of conversion therapy: sex matters, Christian concern and LGB alliance are more important than anyone with actual qualifications. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DUE is not a standard we hold sources to, it's a standard we hold ourselves to when summarizing reliable sources. That's because we are not supposed to decide what is due, we are supposed to defer to what the sources see as important opinions. You're interpreting WP:DUE in reverse, which is that you get to decide what opinions are important, and then judge what sources are reliable based on who they platform. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right in terms of including stuff in an article. I should have probably formulated this better. When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions. This is the consequence of the telegraph being an rs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like it or not, the Telegraph does represent the opinion of a sizable group of people. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is arguing to exclude that opinion - there are plenty of other sources that represent it in a manner that is not misleading to the point that multiple independent sources question its reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Luna said When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions., implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite the opposite, according to the telegraph all other opinions need not being mentioned (except maybe a token mention that they exist). So only these opinions would be due (otherwise the others would have been included) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  A POV can never be excluded by the INCLUSION of a source. A POV can only be excluded by the EXclusion of a source. This is because wp:due is never determined from using only one source, but by using ALL rs collectively. The argument you're making would mean we'd have to declare Pink News unrel too, since they also exclude views, but in the other direction. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, what IP is saying is a summary of WP:DUE: We only decide whether to include a viewpoint based on how many reliable source do mention it. The Telegraph excluding viewpoints that other reliable sources already cover enough won't cause these excluded viewpoints to lose their DUE. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is an argument to be made that because due is decided based on a balance of sources, one source being too far out of balance (and consistently being so) could affect reliability. However I know that I have not shown that above and to show it one would require a lot more research LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  You need a ton of reliable sources not including it to have it excluded due to DUE. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  What sources are you referring to?

  If you're referring to the sources provided by Loki, excluding the three from Pink News, none appear to question reliability. In fact, the IPSO report rejects some of the claims of unreliability that editors have repeated here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, judging by the placement of their comment, I think they're adding to the argument to add a note to prefer other sources due to bias. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your sources don't actually support your claim. In the first article, The Telegraph quotes Labour (a political party and a group advocating for a conversion therapy ban) at the end:

  Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chairman, said on Wednesday: "After six years of broken promises, the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to ban so-called conversion therapy. This is a craven failure to outlaw abusive and harmful practices. Labour will ban conversion practices outright."

  In the second article, the newspaper provides the entire manifesto of the Labour Party and quote them throughout. I suppose you'll say The Telegraph should've quoted a third-party group that isn't a political party, so I'll ask, why isn't quoting Labour enough to satisfy the need to provide both sides? The Telegraph certainly biased in how much space they allocate to gender-critical activists but their articles do not entirely exclude views contrary to such. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you hear the opposing view, just that there is an opposing view. I'd also disagree with throughout for the labour article (it's in one place but it is a short article). LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so your claim isn't that The Telegraph doesn't include any mention of opposing views, it's that they don't provide as much emphasis on them as they should? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  They treat it the same way we would treat a fringe view, mention it exists and nothing more. They've gotten 3 non experts and treated them like experts (no mention of all 3 groups being advocacy groups, just that sex matters has a chief of advocacy). I think treating clearly non fringe views as fringe and clear members of advocacy groups as potential experts is worrying. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reliability is about whether statements are true or false. Wall Street Journal readers want to know how the upcoming strike will effect investors and how management deals with it. Nation readers want to know how it will affect workers. ABC News readers want to know how it will affect them, the consumers.It doesn't mean that some of them must be unreliable, it's that they apply different weight. Editors then determine the overall weight in reliable sources and reflect what they say. They should not then purge every outlier. TFD (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like a partial narratives issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This Telegraph article on the upcoming play about Rowling seems pretty balanced. It seeks out the creators of the play to find out what their motives were in creating it, rather than just talking to the gender-critical people who dislike it without even having seen it. It also labels Breitbart "the far right US website" when it's referenced, going against some of the commentary here that implies that they're frequently referencing extremist views without labeling them as such. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" doesn't mean that every article they publish is bad. It's "unreliable for facts" not "they are liars". Literally, cannot be relied on. Loki (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As well as this it seems to much more be about theatre than transgender people, and the auther seems to mostly do theatre reviews for the telegraph. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Without a very clear and universally-agreed-upon definition of what qualifies as a trans issue, every issue is a trans issue. On that basis I oppose the very fact of asking this question. I also think that once a clear definition of "trans issue" has been fully agreed upon by everyone, this question will probably have become unnecessary. I don't read the Telegraph and I don't know what kind of paper it is, but this question seems like just an attempt to discredit them, and not a good-faith discussion. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, but hard to resolve; quite a lot of motivated reasoning goes into people's claims of what does or doesn't fit in a given category; to somebody obsessed with something, everything ends up related to their pet issue, while to somebody trying to rules lawyer a topic ban, nothing is. (On the subject of being obsessed with a topic, Microsoft recently reprogrammed a version of their AI chatbot to be obsessed with the Golden Gate Bridge and the results were amusing... no matter what you asked it, the answer ended up centering on that bridge.) *Dan T.* (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Certainly what I said is hard to resolve, because I was showing how the OP's question is illegitimate and unanswerable. For the OP's question to be legitimate, we would need an unequivocal answer to my question first. I can't like or dislike the Telegraph because I literally haven't seen it, but OP has asked a leading and tendentious question pretty much the same as the classic example "When did you stop beating your wife". There can never be an appropriate answer when the question is wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a very silly objection to me. What's the clear and universally-agreed-on definition of a "gender-related dispute or controversy" for the purposes of WP:GENSEX? Does every article fall under WP:GENSEX? Because by my reading "gender-related dispute" is significantly broader than "trans issue". Loki (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to have an example of something that has clear and universally-agreed-on definition, if we're requiring that for some reason. Can someone please tell me if there is a clear and universally-agreed-on definition of "politics and science" in WP:FOXNEWS? How about "controversial" in WP:ANADOLU? If anyone really tried to give me a definition for any of those phrases, I will have to respectfully disagree with their definition. So it looks like we really gotta delete RSP as a whole. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want an answer you can ask at the humanities reference desk. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• I’m seeing two major threads in the category 1 votes: “it’s biased against trans people and that’s perfectly fine” (never mind how that also makes it biased against science and human rights according to actual experts) and “it’s just too respectable to consider unreliable” (or “it’s a newspaper of record” etc). I’d appreciate some additional insight from those who voted 1 as to why either argument is supposed to be valid or convincing. Dronebogus (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Read Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which you are supposed to read every time you open this page.

  Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.

  If all categories 2 and 3 can show is that The Telegraph is biased, that side hasn't met the bare minimum of evidence that global consensus has determined is necessary to treat a source as unreliable.

  Meanwhile, saying The Daily Telegraph is a newspaper of record isn't an appeal to the stone. The term "newspaper of record" implies that it is widely read, authoritative, and respected. This term is used by many other secondary sources to describe The Telegraph. [122] [123] [124] That is a strong indicator of reliability on its own.

  Day 1, I asked please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective and here we are, 3 weeks later, with specific examples refuted, editors are now saying bias alone can be the reason for a source being unreliable.

  I guess I'll ask for some insight from your end. Explain why my interpretation of Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is not an accurate summary of policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 to Dronebogus's comment. The reasoning of a lot of GREL contributions has seemed circular: either

  • the coverage on trans topics is just bias, and bias doesn't necessarily produce inaccuracy, therefore there isn't any inaccuracy in this coverage (I remember this approach being dismissed the last time Electronic Intifada was discussed, since bias not necessarily leading to inaccuracy doesn't mean there can't be cases where a biased source does have inaccurate coverage); or
  • the Telegraph can't be unreliable on any topics because it's a newspaper of record, and newspapers of record are always considered generally reliable on all topics, so it's reliable. (amounting, effectively, to 'it's reliable because it's reliable')

  Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  We're not saying that there isn't enough inaccuracy just because bias doesn't necessarily produce inaccuracy, we're saying that there isn't enough inaccuracy because there isn't enough evidence of inaccuracy; most evidence produced points to bias, which we already know. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  A newspaper of record is reliable unless proven otherwise and you haven't proven otherwise. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notifications (Telegraph on trans issues)

Shortcut to survey: #Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)

• Pinging everyone who participated in the above discussion. In order to avoid the ping limit, this will be broken up among multiple posts. I also intend to notify the following Wikiprojects: WP:LGBT, WP:UK, WP:JOURN, WP:NEWS. If I missed anyone or anywhere, please feel free to notify them yourself. (Also if you did not get pinged and your name is down there, please tell me, because that probably means I exceeded the ping limit.) Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Masem, LunaHasArrived, Hydrangeans, BilledMammal, Remsense, Barnards.tar.gz, Boynamedsue, Simonm223, Licks-rocks, FortunateSons, Aquillion, Silverseren, Black Kite, Chetsford, Snokalok, Spy-cicle, Crossroads, DanielRigal

Springee, Skyshifter, Fred Zepelin, Alaexis, JPxG, OwenBlacker, Colin, Sceptre, Carlp941, K.e.coffman, Cortador, Tristario, Bobfrombrockley, DFlhb, Adam Cuerden

Alanscottwalker, TFD, Void if removed, Chess, NadVolum, Raladic, Philomathes2357, North8000, Maddy from Celeste, Pyxis Solitary. Loki (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar: - per Template:Reply to, for a successful ping, you need to add new lines of text, plus signed by adding ~~~~ at the end of the message. starship.paint (RUN) 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Grr. Okay, I will redo the pings soon. Loki (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing pings: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Masem, LunaHasArrived, Hydrangeans, BilledMammal, Remsense, Barnards.tar.gz, Boynamedsue, Simonm223, Licks-rocks, FortunateSons, Aquillion, Silverseren, Black Kite, Chetsford, Snokalok, Spy-cicle, Crossroads, DanielRigal Springee, Skyshifter, Fred Zepelin, Alaexis, JPxG, Loki (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

OwenBlacker, Colin, Sceptre, Carlp941, K.e.coffman, Cortador, Tristario, Bobfrombrockley, DFlhb, Adam Cuerden Alanscottwalker, TFD, Void if removed, Chess, NadVolum, Raladic, Philomathes2357, North8000, Maddy from Celeste, Pyxis Solitary. Loki (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Red-tailed hawk, Masem, Korny O'Near, Gitz6666, The C of E, Tamzin, Crossroads, Sideswipe9th, MarioGom, Ficaia, Bowler the Carmine, Seraphimblade, The Four Deuces, Jayen466, and Rhododendrites: Notify editors who participated in the previous RFC, excluding editors who have already participated here or have been blocked/topic banned. Apologies if I missed anyone or accidentally pinged anyone who should have been excluded. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Notifying @JzG, who was not notified despite seeming to meet BilledMammal's criteria. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Notifying @Slatersteven and @Rosguill for the same reason. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  And @Genericusername57, who opened the previous RfC. That should be all. Flounder fillet (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Korny O'Neal is topic-banned from GENSEX. Also, several people in that list I've already pinged above. Loki (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium (Telegraph on trans issues)

As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support three years - but apply the moratorium to all discussions about whether British sources are reliable for transgender topics. The nominator has made it clear they wish to hold similar RFC’s on other British sources, but RFCs last year held that those sources were reliable and given this result it’s clear that another RFC on those sources will only waste the communities time. BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No pre-close summaries, please. As consensus in RFCs entails more than a straight vote, this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines. Numerous participants (full disclosure: myself included) aver that evidence of distortions and unreliability is there, WP:IDHT-esque replies and bludgeoning from Option 1 !votes notwithstanding. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that. I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that all option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable" is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source is reliable.

I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around 7,000 words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) and Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) sections. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised Chess is the first example to come to mind, considering that Loki (on the "Option 3" side of the debate) contributed a similar number of words across 47 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that WP:BLUDGEON is too often misused. BLUDGEON is about repeating the same arguments in replies across many commenters like spamming, not responding to others without repeating the same arguments already brought up at length. I don't see how anyone here is bludgeoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki made approximately approximately as many comments (I counted 35 from Chess and 37 from Loki) but contributed ~4,000 words (counting the Survey and Discussion sections). Chess wrote nearly twice as much. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Even when limited to the "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, though I don't know why we would limit, you're missing some from Loki; they contributed ~5,000 words (calculated by copying and pasted all of their comments from those sections into a word document).

I think you're missing my point - if there was bludgeoning from some Option 1 editors, then there was also bludgeoning from some Option 3 editors, and it is inappropriate to focus just on the former. However, I agree with Aaron Liu that no one appears to have been bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we would limit: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Could someone link to the Taylor & Francis thing? I can't seem to find it. The Bloomsbury book linked to by Loki is limited to a preview, and the search results from the bottom button don't contain anything other than reports of bias. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here. It doesn't say what they think it says, though - it makes no comment about reliability, and even on bias only says that it is aligned with the rest of the British press. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that, but I mistook the giant Routlege logo (which apparently also says it's part of T&F) to be the sole publisher. 🤦 Thanks. I'd agree that these sources do not talk about reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply on Critical Discourse Studies centralized to #c-BilledMammal-20240616075000-Aaron_Liu-20240615155000. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that people think I'm commenting too much, so I try to only refute new points. I don't think you can take word count in isolation; you have to consider what is written. Part of why my comments are long is because I try to directly link source content to applicable policy. That involves quotes and analysis of such. I believe that is more valuable than posting a bunch of links, saying they violate policy, and not explaining precisely how or why.

And while there are some people that disliked my !vote as a wall-of-text, it has also been continuously cited throughout the RfC even by Option 3 !voters as an exhausting amount of good work that improved the quality of the discussion.

I strongly disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES and maybe I'll write a counteressay. This is a lengthy discussion and brief highlights of actively debated topics could be useful. e.g. I devoted much to the subject of chestmilk or the IOC study that virtually nobody cared about after day 1 of the RfC. How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section, given that Hydrangeans says this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines? This would also reduce the need for people to reiterate their existing points in the survey section. This would achieve the goal of reducing bludgeoning. As a side note, if people here agree I will be moving this !vote down to the "summaries" section. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section (or "summaries" as you call it in your last sentence): I suppose you can probably guess I would object to such a section, since I don't disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES. Making a new section like that seems to amount to asking everyone to once again explain their positions and restate their comments. We expect a good close to read the entire discussion; why have the discussion, and then also a recapitulated discussion? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hydra here. Closers should be expected to do their due diligence normally. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, I would like to register my objection at your characterisation that my statement on this topic is the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing no clear consensus for any option, and no "inevitable and obvious conclusion". Involved parties should refrain from trying to influence the closer towards their point of view. Oppose any moratorium on discussions that present new evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The current vote count puts option 1 about 20 votes ahead of option 3+, and most of the option 2 votes are essentially "it is biased, but largely factual", which is what everybody who has voted option 1 says. The quality of arguments for 3 that are actually based in policy are exceptionally low, as last time. As for "attempting to influence the closer" to stop constant repeating of this nonsense... well, I don't think that is against any of our policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you need a reminder, this is not a vote. When you actually read the comments many (but not all) in support of both 1 and 2 are saying it's biased to the point that you need to be aware of it and explicitly consider how it affects issues like balance and reliability - if you read only the Telegraph's presentation you could very easily end up being mislead as to what actually happened or what opinions about a thing are from nutjobs and which are from impartial experts. That's textbook "additional considerations apply". Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but 20 more people thinking one thing than another is a reflection of a fairly strong consensus.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If you treat bolded words as the sole evidence of what people think that might be true. If you read what they actually say (i.e. treat it as something other than a vote) then that's not necessarily so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, "the people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closer's summary. People who choose option 1 are saying it can be used in our articles for factual information and attributed opinions where due.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously "people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closers summary because (most) people haven't cast votes, they have expressed nuanced opinions that may or may not include some words in bold. The job of the closer is to read the entirety of all the opinions expressed (not just the bolded words) and, based on those words and the relative strength of the arguments made, come to a conclusion about what consensus the discussion arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that one ought to read only the Telegraph's accounts of the issue and never anything else? Getting a well-rounded view is best achieved by reading multiple sources with different biases and points of view. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ehhh, I'd rather have it per-editor instead of per the entire area. According to RSP (and links among some of the rationales), the last RfC was in 2022, two years ago. That RfC also had a lot less BEFORE, research, and arguments presented. This RfC unfolded quite differently. Until a ton of people decide that starting new RfCs that parrot the exact same arguments here is a good idea for them, I'd oppose a moratorium. Unless there is quite active harm done, I'd rather the rules to allow for the most scenarios, like if The Telegraph got bought out by the Daily Mail. I strongly oppose BilledMammal proposal for a hold on all British sources, especially not for 3 years. We do not know what the future holds, and I'd rather we block Loki from this page if it comes to that. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this moratorium wouldn’t stop an RFC being held on the Telegraph’s overall reliability, such as if it was bought but the Daily Mail. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Still, there are events much more plausible that could cause the Telegraph's factual reporting's reliability in just the transgender area to take a nosedive. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Oy, why me? I voted in the last RFC but didn't start it. Loki (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of BilledMammal's argument for the moratorium is your intention to hold more RfCs, trickster. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't on other sources if the Telegraph can't get through (because the Telegraph is way more blatant about this than any other paper), and I wouldn't hold another one on the Telegraph without new information sufficient to convince people who weren't convinced by the evidence above.

Or in other words, I'm not stupid. The definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, after all. Loki (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree. If Loki wants to start a new RfC on The Times that's fine; assuming the evidence for that RfC would be based mostly on academic sources criticizing it rather than analysis of its content to divine bias.

Blocking would only be in order after a third RfC or so after there's been a consensus that there's too many discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

...if it comes to that. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious oppose. Clearly there has been additional evidence of unreliability, as many more people have been voting options 2 or 3, and vastly more people have been acknowledging some degree of bias. Loki (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that the conclusion last time was not "biased but reliable", it was just "reliable", so there has already been a change in outcome here. Loki (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Every source is biased. Period. Biased but reliable is thus ultimately no different from reliable (without acknowledging the bias). You are on a crusade to have "biased" recognized as "unreliable", and that's your right - but you cannot claim that editors acknowledging biased makes it anything other than "reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many sources on WP:RSP that have a note about their bias. It's also a fairly frequent outcome here that a discussion is closed with a "reliable but editors think it's biased" or "no consensus but editors think it's biased", which is what leads to those notes on RSP. Loki (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And you're assuming there needs to be a note. From my reading, the consensus seems to be that while it does have a bias in what it covers, that there isn't a significant bias in how it covers it. You are on a crusade to get sources that aren't uber-friendly towards transgender persons removed from Wikipedia. And you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to do so. That's not permissible, and shouldn't be. This RfC has had so many people opine on it and virtually all possible relevant things that the Telegraph has reported be discussed - and nobody - not even you, should be permitted to continue opening discussions until you get the result you want - unless significant further evidence comes to light in the future - but not the past. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A bias in what it covers is a bias in how it covers it a la WP:UNDUE. Nearly all !votes above operate under the assumption that the Telegraph is biased in its coverage of trans topics.
And as I said above, I don't think anyone is bludgeoning here. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE applies to the content of WP articles, not to our sources. In fact, UNDUE was referenced by multiple people supporting Option 1/2 - we cannot simply ignore a source because it is biased in the things it chooses to cover. And again, bias in what a source covers does not mean it covers the things it chooses to cover in a biased manner. Many of the supporters of option 1/2 have also clarified that they do not believe the bias in choice of what stories to cover should impact the discussion. You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that. I simply said that it's clear that some editors are on a crusade to continue RfCs until the outcome they desire happens. That's not bludgeoning by definition, but new discussions should not be created over and over again to get the outcome one desires. If new evidence comes out in the future, fine. But the past has already been presented and discussed multiple times now (including the above), and at some point you, Loki, and others need to simply move on and accept that your viewpoint that WP should ignore sources that don't fit your worldview is not one shared by WP editors as a whole. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying with wikt:a la UNDUE is that covering the partial truth is biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP.

You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that.

You directly claimed to Loki that you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to [remove sources biased against trans-topics], unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again.
Also, I !voted for NREL with a reminder to prefer more unbiased sources if possible, not "ignoring" it. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant the fact that this is happening over and over in general, not to refer to Loki themselves unless they open another RfC without significant new information. Apologies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Twice is not "over and over again". Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think accusing people of righting great wrongs is liable to escalate a situation (something I discovered at the last RfC) and is mostly unnecessary here. There's only one person who I felt necessary to call out and that's because their !vote was "Option 3 advances trans rights", so I don't think they'd dispute that characterization. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There were two rushed RFCs on the Telegraph that left some editors unsatisfied. I hope that this one gets a clear close that, barring the seemingly inevitable closure review, brings at least some clarity to the issue. I would be against a moratorium, but I would hope anyone starting a new discussion would understand that editors could have little patience for it unless new and clear problems have arisen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support but unnecessary - there's already procedures for removing or speedily closing discussions that don't produce any new evidence. There is no need for a moratorium, but the noticeboard (as well as other places) should be watched by editors, and quickly closed if they are not presenting any actual evidence of misconduct/falsehoods that hasn't already been discussed to death here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that this whole thread is not based on evidence of falsehood either, but of bias. So we risk having another complete waste of time in 6 months based on, I don't know, a comment piece by Christopher Biggins and a news article collecting mean things said on twitter about JK Rowling.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Some editors thought the evidence presented was evidence of unreliability rather than bias. That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now. So the links presented and thoroughly discussed here shouldn’t be permitted to be rehashed in a future discussion. If new evidence comes out however, that should be allowed to be presented and discussed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now. Thoroughly debated, yes. Refuted, that's not clear-cut - some people think so, others disagree. Please stop prejudging the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for the discussion of reliable sources, not other editors. So far apart from one off the wall comment this obviously contentious discussion has been quite civil. Yet somehow this particular thread has quickly turned to editors sniping at each other. To be blunt knock it off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, don't be a party pooper. There are editors who need a ruckus so that they can squabble, point fingers, and thrive in victimhood fire. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's my party potty, and I'll poop if I want to. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I support a moratorium. There needs to be a shut-off valve for the predictable and expected RfCs against reliable sources that become the target of ideological GENSEX watchdogs. Any time a source is deemed to have run afoul of the gender identity Nirvana, an RfC pops up. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of moratorium, if the close does not go "unreliable" I'd suggest that a future attempt should as much as possible focus on Telegraph stories from this point forward. If it is generally unreliable (or moving to greater unreliability), then that should be demonstrable in the balance across its ongoing output, not cherry picked from its entire history of output. Bluntly, I do not want to relitigate the catgender story again in six months, or indeed ever again. Void if removed (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless that story is directly relevant to something that happens between now and the next discussion (and for many reasons unrelated to Wikipedia I sincerely hope it isn't) then this is something I can get behind. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Support for a two year moratorium with an obvious exception if the evidence on the topic changes dramatically such as a detailed academic study showing a long history of fabricating or knowingly publishing misleading stories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike the last RfC, we got into the most salient point of WP:BIASED which is how it affects a source's ability to tell the truth. Loki presented evidence on why they believe The Telegraph distorted the truth to fit an anti-trans narrative. Obviously, I disagreed that the provided evidence demonstrated that, but there wasn't an opportunity to present it at the last RfC. In my opinion this is the point for which we should start a new RfC; one where we can bring significant new arguments that weren't heard at the previous. Even if ultimately, Loki fails in changing consensus, they weren't disruptive in trying to do so.

The question I'll ask to supporters is, how would this moratorium prevent disruption? The opener understands that more RfCs right now would be a bad idea, and I don't see much evidence of other people planning to start discussions. What I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then. I believe this is a more likely scenario than someone starting another RfC on The Telegraph in the next year or so. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then. That seems a very valid point. Perhaps it is better that the closer should say something along the lines that evidence of bias should not be used to make the case against reliability in future?Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree, since even I agree that bias can affect reliability, just not inherently. The arguments presented here were that The Telegraph has such a strong bias that it lies, and designating as WP:GUNREL would mean editors can't spread those lies in the transgender topic area.

So, for a new RfC, I'd like to see much stronger evidence for how bias caused The Telegraph to lie in a way that we might inadvertently cite. Examples could be conclusive endorsement of the actual litter boxes in schools hoax; which is that students are receiving litterboxes in washrooms. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Much of the info Loki has collected shows them publishing flat misinformation Snokalok (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose there’s a difference between “obvious time sink” and “I disagree with everyone who voted against reliability and want to invalidate their votes through bureaucratic interference” Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment this is a ridiculously deep time sink. There is really no nice way to say this - no non-POV-based argument has been offered in favor of deprecation, and a collective total of hundreds of hours of editor time has been sunk into this debate, which has gone nowhere and shows no signs of going anywhere in the future. On the bright side, the fact that this conversation has gone on so long is proof that Wikipedia is one of the most trans-friendly places on the internet. If it were not an extremely pro-trans environment, this conversation would have been shut down long ago, and its creators trouted for tendentious behavior. If conservative editors were trying to deprecate, say, MSNBC on politics, with a similar level of evidence to what has been presented in this current discussion, those editors would probably be threatened with a t-ban for disruptive, WP:NOTHERE conduct. I support the general idea of a moratorium on this topic, although I'm keeping this as a neutral "comment" because it's theoretically possible that The Telegraph's reporting on trans issues could take such a dramatic turn in the next 2 years that another conversation is necessary - although that is highly, highly unlikely. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No argument has been offered in favor of deprecation. Deprecation is a specific thing that doesn't really work in a specific topic area, like I pointed out in the ADL RFC that just got closed recently. What I'm arguing for is marking the Telegraph WP:GUNREL. I realize that's harder to type but it's a pretty big distinction.

Also, I can say from experience that Wikipedia is about average trans-friendliness for a space on the internet. It's no /pol/, certainly, but it's also no r/traa or Tumblr. I would expect a similar assertion that the Telegraph is unusably biased on trans issues to get a mixed reaction in most corners of the internet, and if people were banned or shut down for saying stuff like that I would actually consider that space quite hostile towards trans people. Loki (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Loki— I’m not seeing any votes for deprecation, Wikipedia is not unusually friendly towards trans people (certainly it’s not biased towards trans people as a community), and there is absolutely nothing disruptive or tendentious going on here. Your argument that disputing the reliability of a widely respected newspaper-of-record is equivalent to NOTHERE right-wing POV pushing and should be silenced or even sanctioned is both disturbingly undemocratic and hypocritical given the contents of your userpage. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they's saying that Option 3ers should be sanctioned. In fact they themself said that this is hard to argue due to the "distinction" between fact and opinion above. They was just saying that to evidence their argument about how WP is trans-friendly, which they brought up for whatever reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This is obviously an attempt to undermine the validity of the process. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As far as I can see, the only people fighting a culture war here are those who are for some reason pushing for a publication with such an obvious slant on this topic, including printing dozens of anti-trans lead columns and opinion columns, to be a reliable source for it (though I appreciate that some commenters may have fond memories of the reliable source that the Telegraph used to be in better times, and have not looked deeply into its current rash of unpleasant bigotry). And of course, as regards a moratorium, then more pragmatically if the Telegraph can shift this much in a couple of years, how much further could it shift in another two? Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. As far as I can tell the main premise of this proposal, "no evidence of factual inaccuracy", is false. Whether one finds that evidence to be systematic and convincing enough to deprecate the source is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose because a moratorium would only make sense if this RfC was closed the same way the last RfC did, and we'd only know that after the RfC is closed, not before. Besides the procedural concern, this is quite clearly trying to silence valid arguments. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Heavy agree. The proposal relies on a result that is not yet know. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedural grounds (RfC still running, as noted just above) and because we shouldn't tie our hands. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

References

Dani Cavallaro

Regarding author Dani Cavallaro, there has been discussion recently about Cavallaro being a reliable source or not. See links to discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 76 § Dani Cavallaro (October 2023)
• Talk:Angel's Egg § Focus shift: Dani Cavallaro (June 2024)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Cavallaro (June 2024)
• Comment on my user talk page

Regarding Angel's Egg, there appears to be a local consensus not to cite Cavallaro. If Cavallaro is questionable as an author, then there should be a wider consensus about whether or not to cite them. They are cited multiple times elsewhere on Wikipedia as shown in the search results here.

Does the author meet WP:RS, judging from their publications, those who have cited them, those who have critiqued their works (positively or negatively), and the criticism leveled against them? (On the last point, should criticism be from reliable sources? Are the criticism pieces reliable to consider here?)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion; the reliability of this author has been something I've considered for a while, and was reminded of when TompaDompa brought it up again at Castle in the Sky's FAC. There are multiple academic reviews of her work which I believe are a good place to start when weighing opinions on her writing. I'm quite busy off-wiki right now, but should have a chance to look through them in more detail next week. I don't think consideration of the blog posts written about her would be appropriate in this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this. The website / blog in question (Anime And Manga Studies) published a two-part critical review about Carallaro in 2014. Looking at the site, it does appear to be written by scholars for scholars and, according to their about us, is used as a resource by multiple universities. It would therefore appear to satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS if we only consider reviews by reliable sources when evaluating Carallaro. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the last sentence of WP:EXPERTSPS? "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." While it's not being used as a third-party source within an article, it seems to be used as one to evaluate this person. Unless I'm not reading it right? I guess I am in the mindset of using agreed-upon reliable sources to qualify or disqualify a source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Mikhail Koulikov, who writes the Anime and Manga Studies blog, is not an anime and and manga expert, but earned a master's in library science and is apparently employed as an analyst at a law firm. While he has published some academic work on anime and manga, they're mixed in with work on several other topics. I don't believe this website is a reliable source in general, and should not be used to assess the reliability of Cavallaro's work. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified WikiProject Anime and manga. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In this blog post PhD and university lecturer Jacqueline Ristola dismisses Carallaro's work as "rudimentary", "hidden under the shambles of academic jargon", and accuses her of plagiarism, including rephrasing portions of Wikipedia entries. Ristola also praises the post from Anime and Manga Studies. Again, this is just a blog post from a subject-matter expert. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The plagiarism point was brought up by a GoodReads commenter. The Wikipedia text was added to the Magic Knight Rayearth article in this revision in May 2010. CLAMP in Context (ISBN: 978-0-7864-6954-3) was published in January 2012, and I confirmed the excerpt the commenter mentions is indeed in the book. This is pretty damning evidence of close paraphrasing from Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we are done here. I would support formal deprecation due to the high risk of WP:CIRCULAR and other copyright violations. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get input from RSN regulars (if there is such thing). It seems like a major step to strip all references to one author out of Wikipedia completely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that full deprecation might be jumping the gun a little since this discussion is not an RfC, nor is it exactly well-attended. However, I agree that a deep dive of her work is likely unnecessary to come to a consensus on its reliability. The plagiarism above proves even (seemingly) uncontroversial factual statements cannot be relied upon, and Mark Bould's comments on her 2000 book Cyberpunk and Cyberculture ("disturbingly dishonest", "more interested in neatly patterning synopses of assessments and investigations made by other critics than in conducting its own") indicate that her analyses aren't much better. I'm in favor of designating her bibliography as generally unreliable, discouraging editors from adding citations and phasing out existing ones where applicable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I love Mamoru Oshii's films, so I wanted to find more sources, and was delighted someone had written a full print book on his films so I began to read it. After a few chapters, I found the book laden with jargon and convoluted writing which didn't sit right. I did some searching, and indeed other people were raising questions as to who this person was, whether they were qualified to write at all, and failing to find even basic biographical information (the most we can get is 2 sentences on a publisher website). One major critique is that she mostly cites self-published blogs, and yes, indeed I double checked her references and it was true then it all clicked. This alone is enough to not use her books, as the sources she cites would never be considered a reliable to begin with, and would never be acceptable in an academic book.

Taken together, the publisher and author have not proven that they are experts to begin with (as the burden lies with them), and I would support a complete ban. I consider her works low quality and removed them from the Oshii articles that I could find, but she's cited in other pages as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we have a consensus that her bibliography is at least generally unreliable. If there's no objection, I'll add a note to WP:A&M/RS and start tagging existing references with {{Unreliable source}}. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that, and I've gone through the first 40 or so articles in this list, cleaning up where possible and tagging with {{Unreliable sources}} where not. I'd appreciate the help of other discussion participants as there are a lot of them to get through. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would actually really appreciate it if work to replace the sources was done. In one case she provided a reference for an interview done in 2007, I could try to directly cite that with help finding the book or w/e. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this on a Studio Ghibli–related article? I currently have access to a couple of her books and can help with some of that work. I'm going to be doing a lot of that anyways for some of my project articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The more you examine, the worst it gets. She cites and quotes Wikipedia several times in Magic as Metaphor in Anime which is a huge problem as well. Here a K-On fan accuses her of plagurizing online sources that she relies upon. A 2010 review says her work is "unreadable" with "purple prose" while citing online reviews as if they were scholarship.

You see the same critiques over and over again with anyone who has read her work with a critical eye. Combined with no confirmed biographical background (not even confirmed to have any degree at all), a complete ban as unreliable is warranted as this isn't an isolated case with one or two books but a trend of consistent poor scholarship with her work. How does this happen? It just flies under the radar and only a few people are interested enough to dig deeper.

For English language sources on older anime series, it can be difficult, but we should still strive to improve the sourcing for these kind of articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing those links. There seems to be general agreement in this discussion that all citations to her work on Wikipedia are to be replaced or removed; a few of us have gotten started on that process already, and I'd appreciate your help with tagging or cleaning up the list of articles here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

She also wrote books on fine art as well as literature, medieval history, feminist thought, and Japanese animation? She has written way too many books, way too quickly, on way too many topics to be an expert on all these unrelated topics.

Some of the citations that use her books are minor, or just cite her analysis, but a few pages she's used extensively and would require major re-writes including several GA articles. For better sources I made a topic on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#English_sources Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm not an expert. Just here to say that in the case of Neon Genesis Evangelion Dani Cavallaro appears to me as a good source. Nothing spectacular, but honestly I never in my 10-years-long experience of writing here about NGE seen an error in her analysis, a plagiarism or inaccurancies. I want to be clear: I do not feel competent enought here to express a strong favorable opinion on her as a RS for now, but at least in basically the only field I work here on Wikipedia - again, NGE - I read her books on the arguments literally thousands of times, and her presentations of the series, the authors interviews and views, Japanese context, production notes and so on are accurate. Far, far more than your average Academic from Mechademia. Academics on Evangelion are sometimes alienated and without common sense: they do everything but checking the actual sources like Anno, Tsurumaki interviews, Evangelion Chronicle or even the basic Red Cross Book, but prefer to mention other academics instead of actually study the series, its context and the interviews of the authors. I strongly and firmly defend Cavallaro at least on this series. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey TeenAngels1234, unfortunately it's going to take quite a bit of proof of any of her good work on Evanglion-related topics to overturn the severe issues presented by other editors in this discussion; your word on her writing is not sufficient. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable doesn't necessarily mean always wrong, just that it's academically sloppy and not to the level of a source we should be citing. It leads to issues where you can't validate information she's presented, even if it's possibly correct. Just two examples. On Whisper of the Heart her book is cited for a Miyzaki quote, and checking her book, she sites a fan webpage. Said page does not explain where it came from, who translated it or when which means I cannot verify any of it. It means that small errors become impossible to cross reference and weed out over time. These fan sites shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia, and someone who cites them being used for a source also shouldn't be cited. It's effectively just self-published fan source laundering where these sources get "washed" and look more respectable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

TeenAngels1234 reverted my Cavallaro removals and tags in NGE-related articles. Like TechnoSquirrel69, I also have to insist on her unreliability on all subjects, your subjective good experiences notwithstanding. Charcoal feather (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Subjective good experiences" is a very misleading, if not false, statement. Limited and very good - to use an euphemism - experience, maybe: I write just on NGE, guys, so I can not speak for Ghibli or other works Cavallaro wrote about as I said, sorry. I'm agnostic on them, at least for now. So, yeah, limited, but not subjective: her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good, informative and accurate, especially compared to other academics. It's not a matter that Cavallo's works are just vaguely OK and enough accurate. I do not mention the first source I find on the matter, and I think anybody that ever read a NGE article I contributed to can see I'm very selective on the sources. Cavallaro has a 20-pages NGE-related chapter in her book Anime Intersections as well. I can mention some example to prove my point. What kind of evidence should I give? BTW. @TechnoSquirrel69 and Charcoal feather: you have all the right to express your concerns. You are far, far more into Wikipedia than me probably. I think I kept all the templates on the NGE articles: it's your right to express doubts and discuss here on Cavallaro, sorry if I could have looked aggressive or too drastic. Mea culpa, sincerely. I just re-inserted Cavallaro notes for now, since, again, I'm not the Wikipedian who uses the first source, and if I used Cavallaro until now there's a reason. I'm not gonna start a Crusade on her; if the consensus is that all the references have to be removed sine qua non, I will remove it. Most of the articles have 1, 2 or 3 notes from Cavallaro books at most, you know, it's not a big deal. For now, I just want to keep your legitimate templates. What evidence you want? I have to quote some passages from her books and reviews on the matter as well? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Like I mentioned earlier, you need to show how "her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good" (emphasis original), not just that you believe it to be the case. Do other academics who publish on the subject acknowledge Cavallaro as a high-quality writer on Evangelion-related works? If so, why? Should that evidence exist — and I don't think it does — we would still have to weigh those opinions against the demonstrable risk of coming up against text containing copyright violations and verifiably false or misleading information. Please also note that continuing to revert other editors removing citations to her work may be viewed as edit-warring, as you are doing so in contravention of an established consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234 Once someone has shown that they violate basic standard rules of scholarship, they can't be trusted. The kind of behavior outlined above would get her into serious academic problems if she did this for under-graduate essays for example and that kind of behavior should not be tolerated for professional writers either. Her books appear to be written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality, and to pick niche topics that few others have written about like anime, Gustav Klimt, or Angela Carter.

Since she's been heavily cited on some pages and it means those pages will require heavy amounts of re-writing but it's ultimately for the best. Also I think there's a consistent pattern of poor quality sourcing that plagues many anime/manga articles. This would be the first step towards rectifying that issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

These 4chan-like greentexts are cringe. Anyways.

@TechnoSquirrel69 Your answer is meaningless. WP:CCC. Consensus can change. I'm now part of discussion, which I did not read previously. I respected you, since I did not revert everything and kept the templates; you have to equally respect me now that I'm discussing here and do not insinuate I'm editwarring. I am now part of the new eventual consensus.

During the years Cavallaro looked to me as a respectable author regarding NGE. I'm gonna just briefly analyise just her Anime Intersection NGE chapter doing a comparison with sources that Wikipedians listed as Reliable Sources for a reason. INB4: thanks, I know that a comparison per sé does not means much, but it's an argument bigger than its singular parts and if you will see just the singular part and not the general scheme here you are missing the point. For example, she is one of the few writers to mention the fact that Anno wanted to do an OVA before the movies Death and Rebirth and End (Anime Intersections, p. 54). The first time I read, since no Wikipedia article or ANN news or Western academic ever mentioned this, I was confused. But it is something that Oguro, a person whose claims are ignored by every "respectable" academic and source listed in WP:A&M/I, discussed in his commentary. Her book was published in 2007, a time in which, as you can see from EvaGeeks, people believed that Evas were created after the Barons of Hell, but she actually mentions the actual inspirations of Yamashita (ibidem, p. 57). She is the only one English writer who mentions and seems to know Der Mond, Die Sterne (p. 61), even the Groundworks of Evangelion and the Filmbooks (p. 57), when people like Napier in her books mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library says that the series was released in 1997. While Napier in Science Fiction Studies said that Evangelion presents a “Gnostic notion of apocalypse” (p. 425, like what?) and the otherwise useful Mechademia – listed in WP:A&M/I - has a weird analysis about Zoe-Lilith-Eva Gnostic triad and its impact on the series (?) and other supercazzole, to use an appropriate Italian term for academic bullshits, she in 2007 was one of the few academics who touched grass and actually mentioned Tsurumaki comments on religious symbolism (ibidem, pp. 57-59). She is one of the rare academics to mention, even if briefly and quite vaguely, Aum Shinrikyo, which proved, as said by the unknown – by academics – Azuma, as an enormous influence on NGE. In the same page at least she mentioned Azuma and the possible inspiration by Godard. Her productions note on 3D use and Production IG involvement (p. 64) at least shows that she probably read the theatrical pamphlets, maybe even other Oguro materials: in any case, this proved that she at least with NGE did not write books with speed in mind "so that she can pump them out quickly". I bet my entire existence that Mechademia academics, Napier or Broderick or whoever you want do not even know what Ombinus Japan (p. 68) is. She is the only Western academic as far as I know who knows at least who Otsuki is and quotes his interviews (p. 67). And I'm mentioning just one of the Achille's heels of Western academics: the inability to actual study the series in its context and at least have a vague idea of who the author actually is or wanted. Something that, trust me, other "Reliable Sources" do not have. BTW. Nothing of what I mentioned was on Wikipedia in 2007: not even in the German version, or the Spanish one - see the oldids. Nor in other websites of NGE - not in EvaMonkeys, not in EvaOtakus, nothing in Japanese websites as well. Far from being the most reliable source on NGE, her prose is not exactly the best and she is more like a reporter than an analyst who theorizes things on the series, I think she's a respectable source for NGE.

For a period I thought she was not so respectable because she briefly mentions in her The Art of Studio Gainax chapter on NGE series the "death threats" to Anno, which were considered a myth by myself until Anno actually mentioned them in the official production documentary on the last Rebuild installment and I read Oguro materials - like the Japanese Eva Tomo no Kai. When that documentary was released on Amazon Prime, even the only possible error that I thought she mentioned proved right. Now. I'm not exactly sure she actually read the Eva Tomo no Kai, but mention me just one academic before 2020orsomething that did all of this, with all the knowledge of NGE production and not academics supercazzole, and I bet I'm gonna do a pilgrimage to Pompeii Virgin Mary. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're writing long winded replies while ignoring the key issues. In The Art of Studio Gainax she cites Wikipedia on four separate pages including the Rebuild of Evangelion page which brings up issues of WP:CIRCULAR which specifically says "Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." She also uses heavy amount of self-published anime fan sites as sources, which is also a major issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

....OK. So, compliments, you are missing my point. An annoying answer - you probably can not perceive it - especially considering I just actually answered to your comment: her chapters on NGE are not "written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality", as I showed you. I repeat: at least on NGE. So I proved you wrong. Anyway. I have now Anime Intersection on my desk, and at least regarding NGE she's just advising to read it as "potential companions of this study", but not using it as a source (p. 56). She basically list Wikipedia and other websites in her bibliography as such: "potential companions of this study". I had the full The Art of Studio Gainax, but not now, but it looks to me - I can be wrong - that at least one of the four instances you mentioned is the same (p. 226), and idem for the URL to the Wikipedia "mindfuck" page - she's possibly linking an article just to help the readers to see what a mindfuck is and other uses of this technique. Regarding the Rebuild part: yes, she mentions Wikipedia among other things. My point is: are you sure you gonna literally delete every helpful and accurate analyisis from her just because in a 52-pages analysis on the series more accurate than 99& of RS she said in a two-sentences paragraph "according to Wikipedia"? Do not get me wrong: I'm not questioning WP:CIRCULAR, and I still myself said that I have doubts about her being the best source, to say it with an euphemism, considering these Wikipedia mentions. I'm not gonna mention that passage on Wikipedia for all the gold of this world, and I did not. I'm saying, using common sense: if this author proved very accurate and more serious than 95% of the A&M/I on NGE, and if nobody mentioned in the NGE-articles her "According to Wikipedia" two sentences, are we seriously deleting all the other serious NGE analyisis I mentioned she provided? I bet that even CBR.com mentioned Wikipedia in its pre-2023 articles, but it still is counted as a situational source. IGN is also listed as a reliable source, but ironically in this Italian article it mentions Cavallaro and Wikipedia. For all of this, I strongly oppose this, and I think the best is to keep her as situational. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Citing and quoting Wikipedia is just one problem of many and in Anime Intersections she quotes or cites Wikipedia a whopping six times. These are not mere mentions, but instead direct quotations or citations. In case there's any doubts:

• "As the Wikipedia entry for A Scanner Darkly explains," (pg 101)
• "As the Wikipedia entry for the program points out" (pg 195)
• "As documented by the Wikipedia entry for the franchise" (pg 196)

It's a general pattern of bad sourcing. She cites an interview on a Ghibli fansite, which was translated from Chinese to English, which even has a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. I am not sure if the translation is accurate, or even what or where the original interview is to be found. Another time she cites a Geocities page which I can't even find an online archive of, for the source of a quote by Ikuto Yamashita. Presumably it was some kind of Japanese publication which was then translated by the fan or taken from somewhere. The main page is archived, but none of the subpages. The same quote is produced on the EvaGeeks page and guess what? There is no explanation where it came from! You see the problem with this? You run in circles trying to find the source for these quotes. And you should only give a translated quote if it was done by a professional translator from a major publication because we can trust it, versus an amateur translation.

I could spend hours finding issues with her scholarship, and the more that I look, the more issues I find, but I digress. There's a lot of these sloppily written books published on niche nerd interests like video games or anime, and we really should hold standards of scholarship. Though, truth be told, some of the sources she cites are perfectly fine, such as Wired, or Ars Technica, or Newtype USA. So why not just cite those directly and cut out the middle man? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat. I'm not gonna read in depth articles full of spoilers on other anime, sorry, but just discussing NGE. I support her as situational just and just for NGE - I have no competence to judge her on other matters. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding here; it's been an incredibly busy week for me. I'm going to concur with Harizotoh9 on this one; the fact that Cavallaro mentions this or that is not entirely relevant to our discussion here. You might be impressed by the detail of her research, but there are legitimate reasons that other scholars may not be citing the various interviews you mentioned — not the least being that they might consider them relatively unimportant, or that they may be prioritizing writing their own analyses instead of quoting other works. Harizotoh9 also brings up a good point: if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman, they can simply be cited directly as long as they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

She's just grabbing whatever online source she can find and because it's paraphrasing fan sources, it will quite often be correct. For the above quote by Ikuto Yamashita, she cites a now dead website, and this is being used Evangelion page right now. So as of now I can't verify this quote at all. If I had to wager a guess, I would say the quote is likely real and is sourced to some sort of Japanese guidebook. But I don't know that, and I certainly don't trust she did due diligence to double check it, or assure the quote was accurately translated. We need to have standards and to start somewhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally agree 100% with you on "if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman". That's what I always supported and said. The problem is, Techno: recently a user said that direct interviews were not enough for the NGE Angels article. So I have to mention other secondary indipendent sources, like Cavallaro, to keep it as a GA. See the talk page. That's why, as I said, I used her for NGE articles just for 2 notes per article at most until now. I'm very confused about Wikipedia in these days. BTW, if I am not mistaken, that Yamashita quote simply comes from the VIZ official manga translation: I verified that quote a long time ago. I can give you the Japanese text, the English VIZ translation, there's no problem. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I confirm: Yamashita's quote comes from the VIZ manga translation. It's literally in the NGE manga, at the end of the volume. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're looking at it primarily through the eyes of a fan, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which operates on rather rigorous scholarship standards. The many many issues outlined above show that Cavallaro's scholarship is sloppy and low quality, if not paraphrasing and plagiarism. Ergo, she should be exercized from any article she's cited even if it's several GA articles related to Evangelion and Studio Ghibli. We are supposed to go backwards from the sources to the article and our viewpoints don't matter because we don't actually write the articles but summarze reliable sources. For an example, I expanded the Project A-Ko article with several English print magazine sources, and I know damn well the movie is a whole plot reference to Macross but not a single source I found mentions that, ergo it's not in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing is not, in fact, about me, but about her and her work on NGE. Since you questioned her reliability and quality on NGE citing Yamashita commentary, which I showed being a correct official translation from the VIZ manga publication, I'm not exactly sure you are objective about her other works, but as I said I still remain basically agnostic. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TeenAngels1234

I would like to make the simple case as for why your reversal of @TechnoSquirrel69’s deletion of Cavallaro’s sources is not only petty but shows that through your attachment to Callavaro as an author, you have been blinded to the wider issue at hand.

The edits in question, revision 1227613317, were to delete two of Cavallaro’s sources from the page on Misato from EVA. These two sources were part of comparisons of other characters to Misato (specifically Kazumi Amano from Gunbuster) and a claim of how her trauma has affected her psychological state. What frustrates me especially about these two claims is that you have actually agreed with similar removals or changes in other articles to the former claim. The example I am speaking of here is the article for Rei. In this article two changes have been made as of 16 June 2024 at 09:00, which are both removal of Cavallaro sources. The latter of which, being an edit you yourself made, deletes an extra source from Cavallaro (supported by a source by Patrick Drazen) because it was quote “redundant”. Why do these conditions not apply to the Misato article where another source (n.174) by writer Akio Nagatomi (someone who by my knowledge hasn’t been outed for scholarly slip ups ranging in the hundreds, possible plagiarism and citing Wikipedia more times than I can count) is also provided? It doesn’t make sense.

As for the latter point, about Misato’s psychological damaged state due to her childhood and adolescent trauma (see citation 149 here), it follows a similar pattern. The psychological problems described in the part of the wikipedia article that cites Cavallaro, is also mentioned in the next and or different citation (see citation 150). We don’t need the Cavallaro citation, and we can reword it so it fits better with the review from Jianne Soriano (citation 150), yet you insist on keeping it for some reason.

If you read this all the way through, thank you and I hope you take this as constructively as possible. Cavallaro is not someone who I want to villify, but it is best to keep her work away from Wikipedia where possible, because of her unreliability shown in this thread. HalfWayEssay (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I keep trying to explain how scholarship works, and it's still not coming through to you. In the above example, she cited a self-published fansite, not the original source of the quote which implies she didn't do any fact checking to double check if the quote is real or translated properly. The pattern seems to be grabbing whatever online sources she can find (including Wikipedia) to write her books with little quality control. That the quote is real is irrelevant to the sloppy scholarship that pervades her work. This is even before the accusations of paraphrasing or plagurism as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I hadn't realized that TeenAngels1234 was going around reverting my edits. TeenAngels1234, I know we've disagreed about taking actions based on consensus from this discussion, but it's now abundantly clear that the decision shall be to designate Cavallaro as unreliable. Every participant in this discussion apart from you has agreed on that, and you have yet to refute the considerable evidence provided by other editors indicating the poor quality of her work. I have requested a formal closure of this discussion, which you are welcome to wait for before making a decision. However, once the closure is effected, at the latest, I'm politely asking you to revert yourself for the same reasons I gave above. Also, edit summaries like "I'm not gonna remove Cavallaro." (diff) are verging on ownership-like behavior. The encyclopedia must always represent the collective will of the community and not any individual editor. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem for the ping, realized you maybe hadn't noticed what TeenAngel was up to.

I have looked further into their revision history and it seems that they have been doing this all over EVA Wikipedia since the original discussion of Cavallaro's unrealiablity started (see their edits on the 7th and 8th of June). One particularly funny instance is in the "Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion" where the edit summary reads plainly and authoritatively as: "No"

I will try to reverse their reversal of these edits, as they have not provided substantive proof for Cavallaro's crediblity in the face of the claims to the opposite. HalfWayEssay (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@HalfWayEssay: I did also see those. The reason I asked TeenAngels1234 to self-revert is to avoid unnecessarily creating an edit war, so I'd prefer if you didn't revert either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Fair enough, that's a good reason. I didn't revert the claims they made, but rather changed/deleted some Cavallaro sources on a few articles (which were article were TeenAngels1234 had done some reverting). I'll stop now and leave it up to you and them to sort this little schism out. HalfWayEssay (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

They are seeing this issue through the eyes of an anime fan, when they should be seeing it through the eyes of what constitutes quality scholarship. We should ensure that a book is up to scholarship standards first before widely using it throughout wikipedia, thus making it a real chore to remove and re-write entire sections of pages. I can see the temptation since she's writing book length treatments on niche subjects, so source hungry editors would be drawn to her, but we should have standards. She also has written about J. W. Waterhouse, Gustav Klimt, Angela Carter, and Italo Calvano, who are subjects worthy of serious scholarly analysis, so we should warn editors to avoid her books. In her book on Klimt, she cites the Wikipedia page for The Kiss on page 180, and she was in turn used as a citation on that very Wikipedia page making the chance of WP:CIRCULAR citations real. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

*"She got in to the English programme at Westminster, when it was run by Dani Cavallaro," Westminster about us

I now have some honest to goodness third party source on her life and background. I checked the wayback version of the Westminster site from 1998, but the site was very basic back then without any information on faculty. So it seems she ran the English Studies department at Westminster University in the mid 90's. Likely means she has a masters or phD in English literature. There's likely some web page on the wayback machine somewhere giving a faculty biography. Her first book was a collaboration book on Fashion published by Bloomsbury appears to be a legitimate book when she was employed at the university and became a freelance writer on anime later. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If you google this name there seem to be a lot of people named that (and this post from a few years ago wondering who the heck this person was due to having no visible online footprint). Is this the same person?? jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that stuff like this is the real Achilles' heel of Wikipedia, where we are forced to maintain a sort of perfunctory deference to academic sources, insisting that bloggers are inadmissible because they aren't serious enough... even when the academic sources are themselves citing those same bloggers. I mean, do you need to have a PhD to figure out which Keion! is the coolest? For something like, for God's sake, animé opinions, I really don't see what we get by citing a book of some person's opinions, when someone like https://karmaburn.com/ a) has better opinions and b) is more rigorous in the first place -- I am quite sure that among Wikipedia editors we have sufficient expertise as well -- we might as well allow ourselves to use it,jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not about who has the "best" opinions, because that's purely subjective, but to create an objective overview of reliable sources which means avoiding self-published sources like blogs at all costs. Cavarallo's works have the surface level appearance of proper academic books but are extremely lacking. Academic books published by university presses are considered some of the best sources, because they're written by experts with heavy amounts of peer review. Below are two examples of such works which discuss anime media or anime fandoms as examples:

• Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice: Cinemas of Girlhood Wayne State University Press (2002)
• Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World. Yale University Press (2012)

Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've come across citations to this person's work on Wikipedia and tried to investigate their qualifications, but, like others here, couldn't really find anything to suggest they were anything but a pseudoacademic. That they extensively, uncritically reference Wikipedia is not surprising and I would support designating them unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Huffington Post on American politics

Currently HuffPo is list as "no consensus" or "unclear" reliability at WP:RSP. This was based on a 2020 RfC whose close and comments focused very much on the bias of the outlet's American political coverage. Recent practice here has been to focus on false reporting, rather than biased reporting, when evaluating a source. Is there any appetite for a new discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the current yellow/no consensus rating is appropriate. The Huffington Post is consistently biased. Name an issue in American public life, and I can tell you what the Huffington Post "thinks" about it, without consulting the paper. That's not good. For someone who is not deeply grounded in American politics, that bias could be misleading. However, I still think the paper is perfectly usable as a source in many contexts. I don't think changing it to either GENREL or GUNREL would be an improvement. Pecopteris (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A source being biased is not a problem as long as we comply with policies of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this affects anything, but reportedly some employees from BuzzFeed News were shuffled into HuffPost when the former shut down last year. Though who knows how many were shuffled rather than laid off anyway. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Huffpo is such a terrible online blog/site, and I really don't like it. It should be removed from every article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right, FFF; bias, even consistent, is not a good reason to downgrade reliability. Attribution also doesn't require WP:MREL; we have a few green-listed sources at RSP where attribution is encouraged. HuffPo does original reporting; for example they've recently done some very solid journalism on internal Biden admin deliberations regarding Middle-East policy, for which they've been praised by journalists working for "green" (WP:GREL) outlets; and I saw no issues with the articles from a journalistic ethics standpoint. DFlhb (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

DFlhb and by extension FFF are correct here regarding bias vs. reliability; IMO the distinction to be made here is between Huffington Post's original reporting, which tends to be quite good and doesn't appear to have reliability issues; and Huffington's Post's non-original reporting, which does. For example, I've been published on HuffPo as a "Contributor" based on licensed re-publication of my work on other sites (like Quora) that would *not* meet WP:RS standards. But in contrast, this obit of Howard Fineman from today seems fine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the 2020 RfC, it's surprising to see that it was closed with "editors conclude that the Huffington Post's reliability varies". To me it looks like GREL consensus, with the additional comment that some/many editors believe that it is politically bias (like most newspapers), and thus attribution should be used etc, but not MREL/NC. Maybe the strength of argument is what let down the Option 1 voters? If the RfC was contested, I wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned. CNC (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I honest-to-God think we should just remove the colors from the table so we are forced to read the text and risk using our brains to interpret what the consensus is about the sources. It seems like common sense that you would not write, uh, Democrats are better than Republicans and experts say you should vote for them.^[1] or vice versa and cite it to HuffPost or Fox etc even if they are reliable for other stuff. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. The "traffic light" system of colours is not helpful. It is an oversimplification that does not give meaningful guidance on when and how to use the sources on the list. The red and green colours, in particular, promote a false dichotomy that sources are either that sources are either 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. Some of the sources marked as generally reliable are not reliable for some topics, and some of the sources marked as generally unreliable are reliable for some topics. The "Legend" sort of says this, but it does not stop the indiscriminate systematic removal or addition of sources based on the traffic light system. James500 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for Muhammad

These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.
• Rodinson, Maxime (2021) [1961]. Muhammad. NYRB Classics. Translated by Carter, Anne. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Russ Rodgers' book is published by the University Press of Florida, and our WP:OR policy states that "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources." Rodgers is the command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history. There are currently only two biographies of Muhammad written by military historians: this Russ Rodgers' book and Richard A. Gabriel's book published by the University of Oklahoma Press. I believe their perspectives are crucial given that Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was filled with battles, including the Battle of Badr (which was demoted from featured article status, apparently in part due to a lack of sources from military historians [125]). Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [126] (not just random blogspots or websites). As for Maxime Rodinson, he was for many years a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne and, after working several years in Syria and Lebanon, supervised the Muslim section of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris [127]. Some reviews of his book include [128] [129]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think these sources are RS per wikipedia's definitions. If anything, attribution would help to put some context if not an obvious claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with these sources. University of Florida Press and New York Review of Books are highly reliable sources. Vegan416 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Any claim that appears exclusively in one of these two books should not be included in the article without in-line attribution. These are popular works that don't generally engage with primary sources; there is no reason to believe that they make unique claims because of unique information. Muhammad is the subject of thousands of books. Very rarely is it productive to discuss claims in terms of their sourcing in such an article, because anything that deserves inclusion will be replicated across many valid options. You guys seem to be fighting over specific content. Each conflict should be an RFC on the Muhammad talk page (post notices wherever) with however many sources, arguments exist for each side. Don't waste everyone's time trying to win narrow and presumably well-sourced content disputes by end-running on process. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The UF Press book doesn’t look like a pop-history coffee table book. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad was a historical figure, like Napoleon, Buddha, Constantine, Joan of Arc. As such, the highest quality material we should be using are academic books published by historians because they are written by experts, and go through extensive peer review, and are written a very neutral and factual manner. Thus they typically represent the best sources. If you look at FA quality pages on figures such as al-Musta'li or Theodosius III they extensively use university press published works. The second book is published by the New York Review of Books, which is a publisher I am less familiar with and am not sure about the quality, but it appears to be less academic. So it may present slanted information. On any article with any kind of hotly debated or controversial topic, we should rely more on the highest quality sources (typically academic books by university presses) more and more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think New York Review of Books or New York Review Books was the original publisher of Muhammad, that was probably something French. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Close RfC We have absolutely no context on why the books might be unreliable at the first place. I have read Rodinson and his views, though scholarly, are now-antiquated; so, it becomes a question of DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace - Russ Rodgers is a U.S. army military historian and not an Islamicist or any authority on Islamic studies. The University Press of Florida is indeed a reliable source but as Harizotoh9 noted, we should use the highest-quality sources as possible. Rodgers' most famous book is Nierstein and Oppenheim 1945 about World War II and he has written only around 3 books related to Islam. As i highlighted on the article's talk page, people like David Bukay (an Israeli political scientist who is known to be an anti-Arab and Islamophobic person), Russ Rodgers (a U.S. Army military historian), Ram Swarup (an Indian leader of the Hindu revivalist movement), William E. Phipps (a ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are nowhere close to WP:RS. This article should contain the work of classical Islamicists and Orientalists such as W. Montgomery Watt. I'm actually surprised how dedicated orientalists like Watt have so less citations now than people like Bukay, Rodgers etc. FA articles such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, Amr ibn al-As, Mu'awiya I, Yazid I, all of whom are controversial figures between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, but nevertheless these articles are written neutrally neither from a Shia point of view nor a Sunni point of view and having reliable orientalists and Islamicists such as Fred Donner, Wilferd Madelung, Meir Jacob Kister, Patricia Crone, Hugh N. Kennedy, R. Stephen Humphreys and not anti-Arab political scientists, Hindu revivalists or U.S. military historians. ProudRafidi (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. As others have said, the New York Review of Books is not the original publisher of Rodinson. The book was originally published in French in 1961 and subsequently published in English (translation by Anne Carter). The New York Review of Books has reprinted the book. I've updated the citation to clarify the situation. I can't speak to its reliability, but sixty years is a long time in academic publishing on a major topic. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• These sources have been the subject of contention since late 2023. For context for those unfamiliar, back in 2023, Kaalakaa decided to rewrite the Muhammad article, using primarily the two books mentioned in this RfC for references. On the talkpage, the reaction to Kaalakaa's rewrite and to these sources has been mixed to say the least. I don't really think anybody other than Kaalakaa would object if the article was reworked to rely less on or remove these sources, but the fundamental issue is that nobody seems to be able/willing to do this (I don't feel comfortable doing this due to lacking in depth knowledge of the source material) leading to people just arguing in circles. Does anyone have recommendations for recent up to date scholarly biographies of Muhammad? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane, M.Bitton, and R. Prazeres: might have thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC This completely ignores both the instructions in the noticeboard header and the edit notice. Discussions should take place before starting an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Discussions have taken place, examples include

  • Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Suspect_sources
  • Talk:Muhammad#Maxime_Rodinson_is_not_a_valid_source
  • Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Russ_Rogers_statements
  • Talk:Muhammad#Revise_the_sources

  An rfc doesn't seem like a glaringly WP-bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but no discussions at this board. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a "must"? Anyway, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#Sources_for_Muhammad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's better, still, looking at that and then this, seems more like a discussion that ought to be at the article talk page, along the lines of what are WP:BESTSOURCES for the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  This matches my opinion, this appears to be about what sources to use and what content should be included in the article.
  Also the question of this RFC Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? is a non sequitur, using different sources in the article would not 'deem' these sources as unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Discussion of sources by all means, don't need an RFC for that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Russ Rodgers' claims "about military history" may or may not be reliable (since he's a military historian), but whatever he has to say about other scholarly subjects regarding Muhammad is obviously irrelevant. Maxime Rodinson's book was published in 1961, which makes it unsuitable for claims that have since been superseded and redundant for everything else. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Replace Rodgers because it's a WP:FRINGE source. The OP is the only person in past discussions on Talk:Muhammad who considers the Rodgers book reliable, because he assumes, wrongly, that merely being published by a university press is a rubber-stamp of reliability, and that parroting the words from WP:OR is justification for including it. That is emphatically not the case. While publication by a university press is a good indicator of reliability, it is by no means infallible, because University presses can and do publish fringe views deliberately. This is one example. Rodgers is the only source available for certain extraordinary claims about Muhammad, and extraordary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as multiple corroborating sources. He seems to be more of a hobbyist author with an interest in history, and his book is ignored by academia with very few citations to that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anachronist (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just for an information, @Hydrangeans appears to have shown that @Anachronist's essay above contradicts the sources used in it [130]. And @Just Step Sideways and @AndyTheGrump agree that the essay "belongs in user space" [131][132]. @AndyTheGrump also put @Anachronist's understanding of WP:FRINGE into question [133]. Furthermore, if one looks at the article, many statements cited to Rodgers also have supporting sources. Moreover, that Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [134] [135] (not just random blogspots or websites). So this seems to be yet another instance of @Anachronist misunderstanding our policies and guidelines, aside from what has been listed here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  What Kaalakaa conveniently omitted, is that the essay's assessment of Rodgers is based on past community discussion (now cited in the essay), which showed a clear concensus summarized in that essay. Kaalakaa is the only editor promoting that source, for the sole reason that it's published by a university press, which that essay demonstrates shouldn't be considered a rubber stamp of reliability. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: it is important to distinguish three kinds of reporting in these, and all other sources about the prophet Muhammad:
  • Objective statements that are not disputed (eg Muhammad ordered raids on Meccan caravans)
  • Objective statements that are disputed (eg Muhammad recited the satanic verses)
  • Subjective statements (any statement that seeks to pass any kind of judgement on Muhammad)
• It goes without saying any statements that fall in the latter two categories should always be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Whether these statements belong in the main article Muhammad, or subarticles like Criticism of Muhammad depends on weight and editorial discretion about what constitutes encyclopedic material.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: On the second kind of report, It does seem like Rodgers at times misrepresented the primary sources he quotes. One example is, On page 145, he uses a statement by members of Banu Qurayza:

  "We have no treaty with Muhammad"

  as proof that no treaty had taken place. His source was Sirat Ibn Ishaq page 453. But when actually reviewing Sirat Ibn Ishaq, it is made clear that this was a satirical statement. To use it as actual historic proof for his narrative seems quite like deliberate distortion. QcTheCat (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - vague RFC, no specified flaws and no proposed edits shown - WP should mention all the major views and these appear to be prominent ones. The RFC has just not shown an article cite where any of the WP:RS principles are deficient, let alone such sweeping removal for 100+ cites, nor any basis to believe there are replacements for those 100+ cites. For example, in one place is a mention that Rodgers infers something and in that WP:RSCONTEXT it seems obvious that a Rodgers book is the best cite. Without reasons to change and without actual edits proposed I'd say clearly no. Try one-by-one and not a vague unfounded want. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Rodgers' views are far from "prominent", in fact they stand out as extraordinary claims unsupported by other sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd have to read both books, and be more familiar with general scholarship about Muhammad, to really have a strong opinion. But the books both have the imprimatur of respectable publishing houses. They look very usable. Even if they express minority-held views, they're still of value, because showing our readers multiple scholarly points of view on Muhammad is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the concern is that the books are over-cited in the Muhammad article, I think it's better to achieve due balance by adding more sources, or by putting more information in the article from previously-cited sources, not by removing sources. Pecopteris (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• With respect only to the Rodgers source, the author bio blurbed by the publisher got me wondering what being a "command historian for the US Army" means, which led me to this quaint 1990s era autoethnography, which indicates that for the most part they're history PhDs and only some are mentally handicapped. I didn't find many reviews of Rodgers 2012, but this one by a self-described "Islamicist" found it impressive and better than expected if sometimes speculative, and specifically praised its incorporation of hadith materials. The Rodgers source is TWL-accessible via Project Muse, and while the ten-page bibliography feels scant at first blush, apparently the entire enterprise is a more accessible extension of an earlier Rodgers work, Fundamentals of Islamic Asymmetric Warfare (2008), which according to the publisher's blurbed reviews, has excellent sourcing, which we can believe the author did not forget about entirely in the course of the production of the 2012 book.
  Having said that, this whole RFC feels off, with a framing intended to produce blanket approval for the sources listed, where the issue in practice appears to be an imbalance of sourcing (my bystander take, having not edited articles citing these sources, unless perhaps in forgotten gnoming). Add to that an arbcom case request (my route to here) filed by the RFC initiator against an editor who has taken issue with the use of these sources, and my feeling is mostly bad RFC. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh incidentally I was not able to confirm anything about University Press of Florida's peer review process a decade and a half ago, although Internet Archive have a fairly complete snapshot of the site at that time. The earliest snapshot of their editorial board is from 2021. Then, as now, they have several historians on the board, including at least one named chair, which I always like to visualise as a literal named chair. Of course, that any of them concentrate in mediaeval Islamic texts is an improbability, but anyway I'm not sure if I have a point to make. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, the self-described "Islamicist" is John Walbridge, professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University, Bloomington. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There are plenty of academics who devote their careers to studying Muhammad, and even more historical specialists in the field of the Middle East in Late Antiquity. Russ Rodgers is not one of them. His work seems to be well-regarded, so it's probably good to use for the narrow field of analyzing Muhammad's military command, but little else. I wouldn't call it unreliable, but it's overused in our current article. The Rodinson source shouldn't be used at all. Historical knowledge and methods have changed a lot since 1961, there's no reason to use a source that old except in the few fields where nothing more recent has been published. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: While I raise my eyebrow at Anachronist's circular skepticism of university presses, starting this RFC seems pointy, in the sense of trying to score a point and 'shore up' OP's defense of Rodgers's book rather than seeking resolution to a question. I share Red Rock Canyon's sense that citations to Rodgers and Rodinson are overrepresented. Rodgers's' Generalship was relatively well-reviewed in H-Net, by John Walbridge, but military history is just one aspect of the topic's life. Walbridge's own review notes that Generalship is inattentive to the religious dimensions of the subject, which is frankly something that needs to be front and center in Wikipedia's article, since the source's primary notability comes from his influence in religion and status as the prophet of Islam. Military history in general seems overrepresented, with Richard Gabriel's Islam's First Great General also being cited more than 30 times. As is, there are very relevant authors who are minimally cited or entirely uncited. Only two citations to anything written by Karen Armstrong, for instance, one of the classic biographer's in English?
  As for Rodinson's book, religious studies has changed a lot since 1961. A historian or biographer's in-depth study might cite Rodinson in order to understand the historiography over time, but for Wikipedia's encyclopedic overview purposes, we really should be citing something much less outdated. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment, Hydrangeans. However, one thing to note is that Muhammad's life is divided into two periods: his life in Mecca and in Medina. The Medina period is when reports about his life are clearer and more organized, because it was after he moved to that city that he gained many more followers, particularly from the Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws. His life in that city was filled with battles, so much so that he was reported to have ordered raids at least 95 times on trade caravans and surrounding tribes. It was also during this time that the major battles with the Quraysh (Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, Battle of the Trench) and the Jews (Siege of Banu Qaynuqa, Invasion of Banu Nadir, Siege of Banu Qurayza, Battle of Khaybar) occurred. That is why many statements are cited to military historians like Rodgers. Regarding Karen Armstrong, there have been several discussions questioning her, primarily seemingly because Karen only majored in English, which is unrelated to the topic [136][137][138]. Some even argue that if Karen Armstrong is used, then Robert B. Spencer should also be used [139][140][141]. It might also be worth noting that Kecia Ali, in her book The Lives of Muhammad, published by Harvard University Press, around pages 189-190, points out that Karen Armstrong references a primary source, Tabari, for a particular statement, but that statement does not align with what Tabari actually said [142][143]. Meanwhile, on page 270, Kecia Ali states, "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad." Jonathan E. Brockopp, in his book Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities, 622–950, published by Cambridge University Press, on page 28, seems to classify Karen Armstrong among modern authors who "misrepresent the earliest period of Islam" by "downplay[ing] the confusion of the early community on how to be a Muslim." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there were plenty of battles in his life, but that doesn't mean there wasn't also plenty of religion. One might well say that, say, George Washington's life was filled with battles, before his presidency, but I'd consider an overemphasis of military history, over and against political history, in the George Washington article just as much of an issue.

  Fair enough that Armstrong doesn't have as many academic credentials as certain other authors, but it remains that her biography, A Prophet for Our Time, was published by a major mainstream publisher, HarperCollins. Meanwhile, Robert B. Spencer shouldn't be cited is because his axe-grinding interpretations aren't part of mainstream scholarly thought, weren't published by major mainstream publishers, and if incorporated into the article would likely violate WP:NPOV.

  Also, you bring up Kecia Ali and Jonathan Brockopp for a couple of errors on Armstrong's part; yet Ali is cited only once, and Brockopp only 6 times. If we can agree that Ali and Brockopp are academically published authors of WP:SCHOLARSHIP about the topic, why are they so underrepresented, especially compared to Rodinson's sixty-year-old book? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Kecia Ali's book, The Lives of Muhammad (note that the word used is not "life" in the singular but "lives" in the plural), does not discuss the life of Muhammad but rather the works of various authors, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who explore Muhammad's life. As for Brockopp's "Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities," as the title suggests, it discusses "The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities." There are indeed many books about Muhammad, but those that specifically chronologically discuss his life from birth to death by reliable secular authors and publishers are very few, and the books by Rodgers, Rodinson, and Richard A. Gabriel are among them. Others generally only discuss specific aspects of his life (or other matters), like this book, which only discusses stories about Muhammad's meeting with a figure named Bahira. I am not saying that religiosity is not a part of Muhammad's life; I am saying that Muhammad's generalship is an important part of his life and the spread of his religion. If you look at the article (which is quite long), many other sources besides military historians are also cited for other statements. As I write this comment, the total citations in the article are 419, while the citations to Rodgers are 43. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for quantifying the underlying issue, which was never one of reliability but always one of weight, dueness, onus and a hint of ECREE. There is no way Rodgers accounts for, or is owed by way of use by others, a one-tenth weighting within the corpus of relevant biographies. Nor is Glubb worthy of 30+ citations, or Rodinson 50+ citations. That's a quarter of the total referencing lent out to sources now at the margins of the body of modern scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Iskandar323 puts it well. 43 may be relatively few compared to 419, but that's some tenth of all sources cited. And with Rodinson cited over 50 times, more than 10% of all citations are coming from sixty-year-old scholarship! A source doesn't need to be a cradle-to-grave biography to be useful for the article (Generalship, for instance, isn't one such biography), and it may not even need to be book length. Surely there are peer-reviewed journal articles in Muslim history and religious studies that could and should be cited? Some partial biographies focusing on episodes of his life outside of wars and battles? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free, Hydrangeans, if you have sources as you described, to add them to the article. Rodgers and Richard A. Gabriel, unlike several other authors, provide citations for almost every one of their statements, whether it's to primary sources or other secondary sources, making it easy to verify whether their statements are extraordinary or not. Other sources that align with their statements are also given in the article as supporting sources. Actually, when one reads the scholarship about Muhammad, it is easy to see that the general view is that he is the founder of Islam, and that his religion spread as it did mostly because of his military strategy skills, not because of angelic assistance. So the truly extraordinary claim should be that Islam spread widely at that time because of angelic assistance, not because of Muhammad's generalship. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 23:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not as if the only two choices are "military strategy skills" or "angelic assistance". The point isn't that there should be no reference to battles in the biography but that other aspects of his life also matter: the appeal of his religious ideals, institution building, personal dimensions, etc. You speak of reading the scholarship, so I trust that between us you would be the one familiar with more recent sources than Rodinson, and less militarily focused ones than Rodgers. You asked this board for feedback on these sources, and you're receiving it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and I think those other aspects have more or less been covered, with sources also besides military historians, in my last version of the article (not sure about now, as there seem to have been some deletions and changes for various reasons). However, if you believe it is still lacking, as I mentioned before, feel free to add to it using the sources you previously described. We can't convey some expressions or intonations through text, but I appreciate your comments, as well as others' comments above and those to come. Thank you. :) — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with Russ Rodgers being used in the article. The problem is with the standard of reliability. Since Rodgers is reliable because his work was published by a University press, then sources such as Brown, Ramadan, Serjeant, Watt, Eposito and all the others should be reliable too. And as you said before, if WP:CHOPSY is not relevant, then the reason you provided that these sources "seem to parrot Muslim sources" would also not relevant. QcTheCat (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, but this section pertains to the RfC for the two sources listed above. If you want to discuss other sources, feel free to open a new section. If you wish to push for the wording "Banu Qurayza broke their treaty with Muhammad" without attributing the statement to Muhammad or Islamic sources, please open a new section in WP:NPOVN. I will refrain from commenting on those two matters here because it would be off-topic. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Section for Banu Qurayza is now on WP:NPOV Noticeboard Here QcTheCat (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggested additions

Suggested additions to reliable source list

• ABC News Australia (I was surprised it wasn't already there?)
• SBS World News (also Aussie)
• Channel 4 (UK)
• France 24

MWQs (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone is disputing it, there is a presumption of reliability for well known newsorgs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@MWQs, the perennial sources list isn't a "reliable sources list". It just captures community consensus for sources that have been repeatedly questioned/discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As Schazjmd said, generally we don’t add things without there having been a discussion. RSP isn’t a complete list of RS, but an index and summary of previous discussions.

In the case of France24, they are generally reliable but I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect.

You're making it sound like that is a bad thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources from Africa

Our perennial sources list seems to be missing an entire continent? They're are several huge English speaking countries in Africa, e.g. South Africa, surely we can find a few sources to include? MWQs (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They're assumed reliable if they have a reasonable editing policy and seem to be talking sense. They're only put in RSP if there's been questions about them a few times. NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSPCRITERIA and WP:RSPMISSING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

But when people are arguing toward a consensus on controversial international issues they often skim the perennial sources green list, which is severely skewed to UK / USA. We need to fix this somehow? MWQs (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that English Wikipedia has a lack of editors who are familiar enough with those sources to be able to make a determination. It's a known problem when writing articles about Africa among other under-represented regions. If you're interested in helping to correct this systemic bias, one good place I can think of to start is with WikiProjects. A bunch of the larger ones maintain lists of what they believe to be reliable sources for their topic area, such as WP:VG/RS. These don't have any official standing, but they're often a good starting point for discussions. It might be worth reaching out to either WP:AFRICA or other country-specific WikiProjects to set something up, since they have editors who understand and are interested in those regions and might be able to help come up with a list. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The lack of familiarity is why we need some suggestions. And it is not just for stories about Africa, we very often cite European and North American sources for international issues as if these two continents represent the global consensus (I've even seen people claim this based on sources only from the USA and UK). A couple of recommendations from elsewhere would really help, and South Africa would be a good start. MWQs (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is simply not what the RSP is for, and if editors are misusing it this won't solve that issue. Instead this is something better worked on within projects, see for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources.
The RSP is not, will never be, and should never be considered, a list of all reliable or unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify a source should only be on the list if it's reliability has been repeatedly brought into question, so if a source is reliable and no-one has ever doubted it's reliability it shouldn't be on the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• To address the posters original question: One suggestion is to compile a list of sources and put it somewhere. I am contemplating a similar move for a similar problem. Another is that when I was editing Panama Papers there was actually a lot of corruption going unaddressed in Africa, and yes, what is a good source is a problem, especially as online publications in under-resourced communities tend to get dismissed as "blogs" regardless of their adherence to the RS criteria. I found the website for the ICIJ very helpful for finding RS. PS: I noticed that a lot of South African sources were physically located i Zimbabwe. hth Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The Times of India

What is the reliability of The Times of India?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

-- Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Survey (The Times of India)

• Option 3 There's nothing to indicate the prior issues with paid coverage and bias have been cleared up, and the Munger article indicated a considerable lack of fact-checking - if it's AI-published, that's a cardinal sin of news media. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've removed my "/4" with respect to it being a paper of record, but I'm sticking at 3 - regardless of how widely-read it is, AI generation and/or poor fact-checking don't speak to reliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Times of India is the world's largest English-language newspaper, and the largest in India. It is has some occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on Enwiki. Most ToI links predate ChatGPT. -- GreenC 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 As per GreenC.The Times of India has been published since 1838 and it is a Newspaper of Record there are only 2 Indian newspapers which can claim so.It has been India's most reliable newspaper for large part of the time. It is politically neutral not aligned to the right or the left unlike most other Indian newspapers. There are occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on English Wiki.It is also India's most trusted English newspaper.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Our article on TOI gives examples of promoting political coverage in exchange for pay--they may not have an explicit partisan affiliation to any one political party, but that doesn't mean they're neutral. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is an invaluable source. As other editors said, it's the largest English-language newspaper in the world, and the largest in India. I'd have to see a lot more bad things from them to consider option 3, and option 4 is completely off the table for me. Pecopteris (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have to echo the above. Its usually been fairly good with its standard of reporting given its status but it does appear that recently there have been a few AI articles that have slipped under the editorial radar. Certainly nothing major to warrant depreciation but it is something worth keeping an eye on. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 In the previous RfC the TOI was judged to be somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3, mainly because of its poor fact-checking and the fact that it regularly runs paid advertorials and sponsored content that are not admitted to be as such (see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). None of this appears to have improved at all, and when you add the issue of AI content into the mix then I can't see how it can be trusted, certainly for anything contentious. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• It's cases like this where I wish there was an option 21⁄2. Broadly speaking it is definitely pushing limits (in a bad way), but does not fit very well into the definition of general unreliability for some of the reasons laid out above. I think leaving it in option 2 and assessing case-by-case makes better sense, though perhaps some sort of GUNREL post-X year should be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I don't think it puts past citations in danger or requires deprecation, but the embrace AI when combined with the other problems puts it "over the top" for me. I would endorse Curbon's idea just above me about post-X year, but we'd have to debate just what X should equal, and until that's sorted out, I prefer discretion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - I agree with the general criticisms that have been voiced by others. The paper may be a historic paper-of-record in India, but as documented by our Wikipedia article about it, it's also arguably a big part of why English-language press in India is so terrible, whether through its embrace of corrupt pay-for-play practices or through anti-competitive pricing that drove away its competition (and now it's adding AI to the mix, apparently). In a sense it's a free-market mirror image of the situation we end up in with Xinhua--it's one of the best major journalistic sources in the country, but that doesn't mean it's actually reliable or impartial to the extent that we would generally expect a newspaper of record to be. I have primarily encountered TOI's coverage of the Indian entertainment industry, and its average article on such topics is abysmal to such a degree that their content is typically indistinguishable from PR. That having been said, due to its readership, its opinions and perspectives will likely be DUE in many contexts to a degree that arguably outstrips its reliability for Wikivoice claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for the time being, retaining the current considerations. It has many faults but also has useful uncontroversial content as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. The Times of India has a history of dodgy fact-checking, but hasn't quite sunken into tabloid territory. I think it's an alright source for uncontroversial information. However, it should not be used for anything contentious that isn't independently backed up. Cortador (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. It has some dodgy qualities, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning Option 4. If they can't even be bothered to do a simple fact check about Munger currently being alive or not, I'm not sure why we'd even use them as a source at this point. I understand they're the large newspaper as explained, but this is getting silly. They've almost fallen to the level of tabloid media where they make up stories about Elvis being alive. AI generation (declared or not) being published as fact is shameful. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. While many of its old articles are good, it has become pro-government in the recent years though it still published about a number of incidents which the ruling government may not like. I don't see any reason to change the current consensus for this outlet. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option #2 The consideration for verifiability is expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. Also in our system which has a flaw in this are, the same classification is used for wp:weight in wp:npov and so knocking a major source in this area would also create a POV distortion. Which leads to that I'm against nearly all blanket deprecations/ overgeneralizations. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 The issues with undisclosed advertorials is already known and documented, an issue not confined to TOI or even the Indian news media. The AI issue becomes another problem to watch for, but I don't think it's enough to mark all it's content as unreliable. Caution should be used, and articles evaluated on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Markets for news media the world over are being squeezed, so AI and the more profitable types of advertising (such as undisclosed advertorials) are becoming more prevalent. It's something editors will need to keep in mind when evaluating such sources, and make sure to double check anything exceptional or unexpected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Generally unreliable but tending to deprecated. I had been reading this paper regularly since before "paid news" came into vogue. Now I do not find it reliable at all. It is definitely not fit to be a Wikipedia reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Yes TOI has issues, but the recurring problems with sponsored content are addressed in WP:RSNOI. This is a singular example of possible AI generated reporting, and although irresponsible on TOIs part, I don't think its cause for deprecation. We should monitor as part of larger efforts to reel in AI reporting in news media (as has been discussed many times on this noticeboard). Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I hate that it's come to this because we're basically screwing over a country of 1 billion people. I doubt the issue is "AI" in general; any decent large-language model can rewrite a news article while keeping the facts intact. Contrast the Times of India, which has consistently been unable to do that even before LLMs became commonplace. If the Times of India is using "AI", their complete disregard of quality means they've decided OpenAI's $1.50 for 1 million tokens (750,000 words) [144] is too expensive, which honestly is quite plausible.

Aside from that, the question I think we should be asking ourselves is whether it's better to have false information on a country of 1 billion people or no information at all. A vote for option 3 is "no information at all", and that's preferable since false information in one topic area ruins the credibility of the rest of the encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. The well documented issues with undisclosed advertorials should mean that we use the source with care. I don't see strong reasons for considering the source as unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation ((or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. There has been an ongoing issue with rampant paid coverage in Times of India, which wouldn't be considered reliable, and this problem has not abated. In fact, if TOI is now using AI to write articles, which in typical AI fashion would have a confident forthright and neutral journalistic tone while presenting bullshit, there's no good way to know what we're getting. The fact that it's the world's largest English-language newspaper is irrelevant if it cannot be trusted to be reliable. I would even lean to option 4 non-retroactively on a probationary basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: Undisclosed paid advert news articles, failure to fact-check that Robert Hale Jr. had become the late Charlie Munger as the main subject of their article, referencing Wikipedia articles. Just as The New Yorker described, the TOI does not worry about editorial independence and the poor quality of the journalism attracts the heaviest criticism.
  Size/distribution is independent to reliability. Very important newspaper, yes. Reliable newspaper, no. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • In agreement with James500's point below, no problem with leaving pre-1950 Times of India as-is. All of these reliability issues are relatively recent. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. My belief is Option 3 based on what I have read in this discussion, as well as in their articles, but as Schwinnspeed explained, RSNOI actually covers all of these concerns regarding paid reporting. Personally I think this section of RSP should be reviewed, and possibly overturned, but not via an RfC over a single paper. The lack of disclosure requirement is extremely concerning, given it's more-or-less law to disclose advertising in some Western countries, but otherwise as I said this is a broader issue beyond ToI. CNC (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• In the absence of additional evidence, option 1 for information within the expertise of newspaper journalists in editions of TOI published before 1950. No evidence has been presented that there was any paid news at that time: In 2010, the Press Council of India said paid news had existed for six decades. Consideration should be given to any other content that appears to be unpaid, and which is not objectionable for some other policy based reason. The paid content is said to be marked as such, and TOI denies publishing "paid news", as opposed to clearly marked advertorials in supplements and Medianet. In any event this is covered by WP:RSNOI. The Times of India is said to be accurate: [145]. The "poor quality" comment in the New Yorker actually says that the paper changed at an unspecified point before 2002. What Fernandes says is "This wasn’t the paper I had idolized all my life", which appears to mean it was different in the past. The New Yorker says that "private treaties" began in 2005, and therefore are not an issue for earlier editions of the newspaper. According to the New Yorker, the Press Council says the newspaper changed from the 1980s. I could go further, but I do not see any evidence for the period before 1950. We should not downgrade the paper all the way back to 1838 unless we actually have evidence going back that far. James500 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The Times of India)

@Amigao: Would you like to make this discussion a formal request for comment? If so, please apply the {{rfc}} template immediately under the section header per WP:RFCST, and place a copy of your signature immediately after the four options to ensure that the RfC statement is "neutral", per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If not, please remove "RfC:" from the section heading. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Newslinger - Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion here and at WP:TOI identified various issues with The Times of India. Mostly recently, on 31 May 2024, TOI published an article stating that the late Charlie Munger (who died in 2023) was alive and making donations. Whether AI-generated or not, there was no fact-checking going on here and the article remains live as of this time stamp. - Amigao (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India article claims that the published information was obtained from "a report in the Insider". Assuming that refers to Business Insider (RSP entry), which was rebranded as Insider from 2021 to 2023, the corresponding Business Insider article is "Billionaire CEO gifts 1,200 UMass grads 'envelopes full of cash' totaling about $1.2 million — but there's a catch", which states that "Robert Hale Jr., the CEO of Granite Telecommunications", was the actual person who made the donation to University of Massachusetts Dartmouth graduates. Hale is also described as the donor by Associated Press (RSP entry), The Boston Globe, and many other outlets.

As an example of inaccurate reporting, this reflects very poorly on The Times of India. Munger's name is mentioned in the article 13 times and he was described as "the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway", which shows that there was no confusion about Munger's identity. The article looks like a hallucination from a large language model. I'd like to see if there are any more examples of this kind of error on TOI that establish a pattern of relying on AI-generated reporting. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Edited 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — Newslinger talk 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons

If Pope Francis says there was a genocide at residential schools in Canada[146] -- largely run by various Catholic orders -- and the House of Commons unanimously declares that there was was genocide at residential schools in Canada[147] -- largely funded by the Canadian government -- is this RS enough to say that there was genocide at residential schools in Canada? Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC):

Not necessarily? It would be a bit odd to cite an off-the-cuff statement from a Pope on his plane and a House of Commons resolution for a claim of historical fact. But it is possible to use them for a statement like both Pope Francis and the House of Commons of Canada have described the events as genocide or something like that. There should be better sources if we're going to put it in WikiVoice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Both are opinions, and so should be attributed in text AS opinions. That said, both are noteworthy opinions that should be mentioned in the text. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The legislative branch of government was unanimous. How does a branch of government have a personal opinion? But talk amongst yourselves. I need to go do some stuff. Btw the sources are not the problem. CBC and CTV are both respected newscasters. There are literally hundreds of others. And then there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the medical officer in charge of the schools who was forced out of office for thinking there was a problem with so many children dying preventable deaths. What would a better source look like? Elinruby (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Government's declarations don't make historical fact, going down that route opens up all kinds of problems. What of declarations from the Russian, Turkish, or Sri Lankan goverments, or is it just governments we argue with on issues we agree with. This isn't the solution to deal with those that would deny the facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Their statements are potentially due with attribution, depending on RS coverage. However, we should (as always) prefer high quality peer reviewed texts from scholars. FortunateSons (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Journal articles it is. How many do you need and apart from peer-reviewed, do we care in what discipline? I'll crank up JSTOR tonight. And the requirement is that they describe this as a genocide? There are lots of those out there also. Scholar gives me 64,100 hits, but some of them will be about residential schools in the US. [148] I really do have to go right now though. But in Canada, this is incontrovertible fact, over which the federal government is currently paying reparations. There really is no both-sides to this. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not familiar enough with the relevant discussions to make a definitive statement, and this would like be a question of due weight or title policy, not a question of reliability regarding some sources. What are you trying to do? FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on certain podcasters and astroturf magazines, articles on the topic attract a constant stream of editors who insist that this did not happen. That the schools were just bringing civilization to backward people and everyone died all the time anyway in the 19th century. (Maybe, but a lot faster and younger in the schools). Editors who disagree are chided for being rude enough to think that a genocide might be a genocide. I am trying to discover how to get en-wikipedia to look at the sources on this. The usual reaction is to assume that this is a FRINGE notion when in fact it is Sandy Hook set against a historical background of institutionalized racism. It may need an RfC I guess, but I started here. My thinking was that the Catholic Church considers the pope infallible on Church matters. But I see why everyone is saying peer-reviewed. However I don't know how much more done the deal could be if the perpetrators agree that it happened. My ride is here and tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that, it’s rather unfortunate. I’m not sure on what measures already exist, but perhaps amping up the contentious topic restrictions might cut down on the worst disruptions?

You will probably need an RfC, particularly if you’re going for more than “x considers y to be z”. However, assuming there is a plethora of indisputably reliable sources, the rest is out of scope for this board.

PS: I’m not an expert on the catholic rules, but as far as I recall, Papal infallibility is a bit more complicated than that. FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not especially familiar with the topic myself but if the best relevant scholarship agrees it's genocide, then this would be genocide denialism you're dealing with and you can notify the fringe theories noticeboard to discussions pertaining to it (WP:FTN). I would say the statements by the Canadian government and Catholic Church are relevant, but I'm reminded of something mentioned on our page about the Rwandan genocide. It mentions that the Rwandan constitution gives a death toll significantly higher than scholarly consensus. So that's probably a good illustration of how government statements can't necessarily be relied on too heavily as a source in themselves even when they're trying to make amends for a past genocide. VintageVernacular (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I hadn't thought of that. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

WP doesn't deal with ultimate truth claims (see: WP:TRUTH), but instead what can be sourced from high quality sources. In an article on a crime like murder or assault, an article will cover the details of the case, and whether the person was acquitted or found not-guilty, but avoids actually saying if they are guilty or not. A concept like "genocide" is more of a legal term in international law, which means it depends on the definition that they're using, and whether it applies, so it's not as straight forward as it appears. You can imagine a case being brought for to the international criminal court, and legal scholars become divided on whether actions constitute genocide or not.

So Wikipedia itself should not say if x or y is genocide, because that's a conclusion, but instead cite reliable sources covering the analysis of others. So the real question is who's opinion is relevant to be cited because you can remain neutral and objective while citing the analysis and conclusions of others? House of Commons for sure. Pope? Maybe? He's an international respected figure, and he doesn't go around calling random things genocide. International bodies and human rights groups? Sure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. If the pope and the government of Texas (or Uganda) say that homosexuality is wrong, or abortion is murder, is that "sufficient RS" that Wikipedia must abide by the pope? Of course not. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s technically true, but non-analogous. The issue is that the Catholic Church and the Canadian government are admitting to wrongdoing they were (actively) involved in. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

exactly. Maybe I did not make that clear enough Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• No There are several issues here. First, I believe many sources have called this a "cultural genocide", not a "genocide". I don't think any sources claim the original intent was to kill off native populations as compared to something like the Armenian genocide where the intent was to kill off the people. Thus calling it a "genocide" without the important qualifier would be incorrect. Second, as Harizotoh9 stated, "genocide" would depend on the perspective of the one making the claim. While the fact that people have called it that is absolutely due for the topic, it should be attributed. While certainly some sources would call these programs some type of genocide in their own voice, I suspect others might dispute such claims while still largely agreeing on the underlying facts. Denying that something "is a genocide" doesn't inherently mean denying the truth of the facts that support the claim. Springee (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's get the definition straight of what a genocide is: [149] The ICC does not have jurisdiction here but their definition of the crime seems to be authoritative as working definitions go. Tl;DR there is no requirement that it look like the Armenian genocide: First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

• the point above about "cultural genocide" is repeatedly being made by far-right groups in an effort similar to what happened to "woke". Fluorescent Jellyfish may wish to comment. The term originated, as far as I know, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which wanted to say genocide but was constrained by litigation at the time the report was published. If that is wrong then I am listening. In any event, I am not referring to that term at all, and since Spingee seems to be answering me, he is beside the point. Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Fluorescent Jellyfish: Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) @Springee: Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks!

There are a number of peer-reviewed, scholarly, academic sources which state that Canada's residential schools were part of a genocide against Indigenous people. These are all, as mentioned, highly reputable sources.

For instance, this 2018 article by Anthony J. Hall, "A National or International Crime? Canada's Indian Residential Schools and the Genocide Convention" (from the peer-reviewed academic journal Genocide Studies International) describes it as a genocide, stating:

"Those who commit crimes against humanity on the side of triumphant power are usually put behind shields of impunity, and this propensity sets the framework for the contained domestic handling of the international crime of genocide in Canada. This justiciable genocide took place historically through the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their biological families with clear intent to terminate First Nations as distinct peoples. The Indian Residential Schools were one part of a larger complex of enforced laws and policies including the effort to enfranchise schooled Indian adults as regular Canadian citizens bereft of Aboriginal and treaty rights." (Hall, 2018, p. 72).

Another article," Introduction: Residential Schools and Decolonization" by Nagy & Sehdev (2012), from the peer-reviewed journal the Canadian Journal of Law and Society, states:

" “Home” to more than 150,000 children from the 1870s until 1996, the residential school system was aimed at “killing the Indian in the child” and assimilating First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children into white settler society. It was, in short, a genocidal policy" (Nagy & Sehdev, 2012, p. 67)

There are many more, but I'm running late for plans. If you widen the scope to include the term "cultural genocide", you get many many many more reputable sources making that statement. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care what the Pope says about historical facts, but I do think that the government of Canada saying this officially is in fact pretty strong evidence that it happened. We don't currently have a way to express this, as far as I can tell, but it seems pretty intuitive that if the subject of the accusation admits it, it's much more likely to be true. Not guaranteed, so I'd also want other sourcing, but if there was a source conflict this would push me pretty strongly towards "yes it was a genocide". Loki (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)er.

I don't care what the pope thinks about the American Revolution or the British Raj either. But here we have Wikipedia telling the final authority on Church matters (as far as the Church is concerned) that he is wrong about what the Church did in the 19th century in Canada. Put it this way, if that is what the Pope says, then nobody from the Catholic Church is going to contradict that. In legal matters, an admission of responsibility is dispositive and this one is not going to be appealed because it was the pope that said it. @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: may wish to comment even though I realize that this is a little out of his area of expertise. Even some approximate expertise would be welcome here however. Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In this case sure, but as a general principle, these things can be politically polarized and governments change all the time (if the makeup of the House of Commons changes a few years later and they put out the opposite statement, does that mean it didn't happen?). It's best to rely on scholars even if the government's position is relevant. VintageVernacular (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your point about precedent but this is Canada not the DR Congo we are talking about.Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My 2c: Technically, the answer to the original question ("if the Pope and Canadian government say X happened, are they RS that X happened") is "no, the Pope is only RS for 'the Pope says X', not for history"; however, if other RS which are reliable sources for history say X happened, which seems to be the case here, vs. certain other sources saying X didn't happen, the government and Pope admitting "yes, we did X" (where X is something they wouldn't admit to if it weren't true) suggests the RS saying X happened are right. (And the Pope and government, respectively, are reliable for "the Pope/government said X", and their statements seem to be given enough weight in RS to be due.) From other discussions on this page, it seems like the sources saying X (the genocide) didn't happen are mostly low(er) quality and less or un- reliable(?). -sche (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hits on Google Scholar

[150],[151] (note date), [152], [153], [154], [155] (see p.39 for example), [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161],[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168] Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The above were screened only for mentions of "genocide" in the text. Discredited author Ward Churchill was also omitted and I also skipped a publisher I did not recognize (SSRN?), a couple of links that didn't like my oddball browser, everything before 2000, and a couple of sources that seemed to solely discuss "cultural genocide" because they might not be on-topic. This is what is left from the first three pages of 30+ Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

SSRN is a preprint repository; articles posted to it might or might not have been gone through a review processs and been published elsewhere. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, so not necessarily what we mean when we say peer reviewed journal then. Given that there were another 27 pages of hits on Scholar, just as well to triage it out IMHO Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Social media analytic websites (e.g. Social Blade)

What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#Reliability of social media analytic websites)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

— lunaeclipse ^(talk) 21:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 For anything that can't be verified by the primary sources ('estimated revenue', 'views over time', 'subscription rate changes', or any kind of ranking) they shouldn't be considered reliable. This type of data is of value to the social media site (YouTube, Twitch, etc) and they wouldn't give it away, so third parties doing so should be considered cautiously. For anything else there is no reason not to use the primary sources, as they are likely to have more up too date and accurate information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - I'm unconvinced that the methods are transparent enough to take these numbers seriously, nor am I convinced that our reliable sources are relying on these data. Opaque data sites should be guilty until proven innocent. I don't think they should be deprecated either; I believe there are exceptions and fringe cases where it does make sense to use them, but I'm just not confident that it's wide enough go for the next tier up.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 but leaning Option 2. These sites don't have the reputation the Alexa Internet did, but I have no reason to doubt they're making stuff up. Without any sort of discussion or critical review of their methods, I can't accept their rankings as the benchmark Alexa was. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 also leaning Option 2. The bottom line for me is that there is no history of regular fact checking. Without a clear history on data accumulation, it doesn't seem right to qualify as reliable. Penguino35 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2, but why would such services be cited? These sites methodology for calculating "grades" or "estimated earnings" are not transparent enough to be reliable. If those rankings are not duplicated in any other reliable sources, it carries WP:DUE concerns as well. But I do not see how it can be unreliable for basic things like total views. However, in many cases, you can just cite the social media account itself. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation ((or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera - factual errors

I reviewed about half of the 76 articles (excluding videos, opinion articles, and live updates) that Al Jazeera submitted under their Israel Palestine conflict tag during the past two weeks. I included every error I identified, regardless of significance:

1. Israel bombs Gaza school housing displaced Palestinians, kills at least 40 and US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis

   Claimed that fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women. While this matches the initial figures put out by the the al-Aqsa hospital, this is false. The hospital issued an update hours later, correcting the figures to nine children and three women.

   The first of these articles was likely published before the update was issued, but we would expect a reliable source to issue a correction. Further, the second was published after the correction was issued, and after other reliable sources were able to publish articles with the correct figure.

2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts

   Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.

3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza

   Claims that before fighting begun while Israeli forces were still moving into position Israel started bombing the area, hitting the busy market the hardest. They also say that the intent was likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false: these air strikes began later, when Israeli forces who had rescued the hostages came under attack while trying to exfiltrate. The problematic nature of this falsehood is exacerbated by the partisan spin they put on the story in regards to the intent.

4. Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault

   Incorrectly claims that on Wikipedia edit wars are considered vandalism, along with other similar mistakes.

5. ‘Absolute priority’: UN agencies must work unhindered in Gaza, G7 says

   Claims the GDP of the G7 is $40.27 trillion, making up 40% of global GDP, with the source being www.g7italy.it. The site contains no claims about GDP, and the real figure appears to be $43.86 trillion, making up 43% of GDP. This contains two issues; publishing incorrect information, and making false claims about the source of the information - in this case, the latter is far more concerning.

6. Israel in Gaza, Palestinian fighters in Israel, what the UN accuses them of

   Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died. This is false; the health ministry says 8000. Few sources have reported the 15,000 figure, but it appears to have instead come from the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and Higher Education. (One, two)

7. US says Hamas is to blame for ceasefire delay – but is it Hamas or Israel?

   Claims Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari proposal. However, after this was initially announced, and well before this article was published, it was revealed that Egyptian intelligence had altered the terms, and the proposal was not the one Qatar had approved.

8. Will South Africa’s new coalition gov’t change tack on Israel-Palestine?

   Claimed South Africa has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is false; South Africa has repeatedly refused to condemn the invasion. The closest it came was a demand that Russia "immediately" withdraw issued at the start of the invasion, but that is not a condemnation, and even if it were it would mean that this statement is "merely" highly misleading.

9. Netanyahu slams US for ‘withholding’ weapons to Israel

   Claimed Israel closed the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This is technically true, but it is highly misleading; Israel shut the crossing when they first took control of it but sought to reopen it. It remains shut due to Egypt.

10. Gaza fighting continues despite Israeli ‘pauses’ announcement: UNRWA

    Claimed Israel has sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This, unlike the similar statement above, is false; the border is "sealed shut" because of Egypt, not because of Israel.

This suggests that at least a third of Al Jazeera's articles on this topic have factual issues, although the total is likely to be much higher as I expect I missed most errors even within the articles I did review.

It is possible that some of these are included because of errors on my part rather than on Al Jazeera, but unless most are I don't believe we can't consider this source reliable in this topic area; there are too many errors, and too many significant errors. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the last two, I can see multiple reliable sources claiming that the Rafah crossing is shut because of Israeli military activity there (i.e. WaPo), or at the very least report that this is what Egypt claims is the case, or that Israel and Egypt blame each other for the situation. So that one certainly isn't as cut and dried as "It remains shut because of Egypt".
• Also in the "Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died.", I can find no reference to that claim in the link provided.
• Also, are we really ragging on a source because they don't understand how Wikipedia bureaucracy works? Most RS don't, we've seen that repeatedly over the years. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the last two, outside of headlines (which, per WP:HEADLINES, are unreliable), the Washington Post source doesn't claim that Israel closed the crossing; it merely says it was closed, and that The United States, Egypt and Israel are in talks to reopen the crossing.

  Regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health, look at the infographic in the section "What did Israel do in Gaza?"

  Regarding Wikipedia bureaucracy, I did consider that the least concerning, and was tempted to exclude it - I only didn't because I decided I should provide everything I found, and allow editors to decide for themselves what is and isn't significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Moved to #Rafah Border Crossing

   – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm getting a strong much-ado-about-nothing vibe from a lot of these examples that can easily be chalked up to the fog of war, the fast-paced news cycle and the fundamental fuzziness of some of the information. The first example appears incorrect. The first AJ piece attributes the casualty claim to its progenitor, which makes it a static claim in time. It is not in AJ's voice, so there is technically nothing to correct. That figure was put out at that time by its source. I have been seeing this confusion a lot lately: the idea that publications have some sort of onus to correct attributed statements that are subsequently amended or disproven. They can, but they don't have to. The next couple of examples involve debatable timelines. Then we have some minor slights involving attributed figures – one possibly outdated, the other presumably correct but misattributed. Then another debatable piece of narrative, and only one genuine oddity, which is the statement about South Africa. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The first item contains two AJ pieces; the first one I can understand how you see it as attributed, but the second one, US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis, indisputably puts the figure in Al Jazeera's own voice - and was published after the update was issued.

  Can you explain why you believe the timelines of the second and third are sufficiently debatable to make Al Jazeera's claims accurate? As far as I know, there is no dispute that the Second Intifada erupted with violence, and the timeline of the raid appears to be non-contentious and supported by Palestinian witnesses; the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved and the shooting started, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  So the second Al Jazeera piece doesn't appear to have adjusted, no, although it is rather simultaneously published with the piece you present. As it has videography, it might also have been prepared some time in advance of its publication date. As to why no correction ... ? Has that hospital update been published widely? Al Jazeera explains the second intifada as beginning after the riot on the 28th, beginning with largely civil disobedience. On Nuseirat, why are we trusting the NYT (not a great source on the IP conflict since December) over AJ? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was published thirteen hours later; seven hours after the Guardian article was published noting the correction. As for the wideness of publication, AP published it.

  Regarding the Second Intifada, that article published on September 28 2020, on what Al Jazeera called the twentieth anniversary of the uprising, said it began on the 28th: The second Intifada ... began after ... Ariel Sharon sparked the uprising ... on September 28, 2000. Even if you interpret that as meaning it began the next day, that still includes the riot that resulted in seven Palestinian deaths, three hundred Palestinians wounded, and 70 Israeli police officers wounded - that isn't anyone's definition of "started off largely nonviolent".

  Regarding Nuseirat, it's not only NYT. I included an AP source above, and others include the ABC, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, NBC News, and more. Sources and witnesses are clear that the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see a bunch of sources relying heavily on IDF testimony. Simply being an outlier doesn't make AJ demonstrably wrong – such events are often only properly pieced together weeks, months or even years later. Currently, all we have is competing narratives. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian, the New York Times, and AP all say in their own voice and with reference to Palestinian witnesses that the bombing began soon after the Israeli team entered the apartment building. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The SA statement is not that odd, demanding a withdrawal > a condemnation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A substantive and lengthy discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 434#Al Jazeera reliability, only a couple months ago, did not lead to any change in WP assessment of this source. It included this early comment from opener:

"We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict."

Given this background, it would seem desirable that opener set a formal RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is the first systematic review of the source in this topic area I felt informal initial discussion was better than jumping into an RfC, in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. It has also been suggested we should consider it on three topics:

1. Israel-Palestine conflict
2. Topics related to the Qatari government
3. General topics

Since only the first of these has had such a review I don't think we are ready for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have taken a look at your examples and don't see anything appalling there at all, so may as well shut this down or move to an RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The second topic is important. AJ is state-run and most people don’t even know. The scope of what is considered “linked” definitely needs to be clarified too. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"State run"? Says who? Seems more like the BBC afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

See this. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a rather generic discussion about the issues that it may have, in exactly the same way as sources such as the BBC, presumably with an emphasis on domestic reporting. It's unclear what specific issues this translates into other than domestic favouritism. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So run the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

When was AJ last quoted on a topic related to Qatar where its input was questioned with regards to that in a dispute that turned otherwise intractable, thus warranting an RFC? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• How is it the conversation about Al Jazeera and its worth as a RS goes round and round and round in circles when it is basically the propaganda arm of Hamas?? Because it's too important as a source of anti-Israel sentiment. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be anti-Israel sentiment - but there's criticism of Israeli and then there's Al Jazeera. Over the years, how many stories from Al Jazeera have there been praising Israel? How many have there been criticizing Hamas? Even if it went to any sort of vote to strike it down as such, I don't there would be much chance of it passing. All this while there's a parallel discussion about removing the ADL as a reliable source...

Neutrality and balance are important here and when it comes to adding content here, that should always be the priority. Difficult find either of these 2 things in an Al Jazeera article about Israel, especially if the Al Jazeera journalist is on the Hamas books. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it that you think a news source should be praising Israel or criticizing Hamas? nableezy - 18:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All our major mainstream sources are defective. Most of them are Israeli or pro-Israeli. They may check better than al-Jazeera their facts, but as often as not they do not mentioning facts that al-Jazeera reports. Selectivity bias is more the problem here. To expect that by eliminating al-Jazeera, our key non-Western, Arab source for what happens in Gaza, esp. after the Israeli government shut it down, looks uncomfortably, eerily, like censoring anything that does not reflect a Western mainstream view. We are wasting time here, and NPOV should have told us that we cannot cover the I/P conflict by expurgating, with whatever itsybitsy technical pretext, all sources that don't reflect our Western/Israel perspective.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the list is nonsense reflecting the editor's POV and scarcely stands or warrant examination. I'll take just one piece apart.

• (2) Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.

In fact it did, unless one only scrapes up one's historical information from reading wikipedia's articles. 'Rioting' is the standard Israeli term for what everywhere else in democratic societies is called a 'protest' or a 'demonstration'. BM's POV is showing. 75 police weren't 'wounded', they suffered minor injuries. 3 Palestinians weren't injured, they were shot, and a furtherr two severely beaten up. All this is the second phase however. Sharon's hour-long visit, surrounded by 1,000 policemen in riot gear, went off without incident aside from a piddling incident when he tried to enter Solomon's Stables, which is a mosque. 20 Palestinians blocked their way, and a scuffle ensued. Through all of this over the following week apart from one incident) Palestinians protested en masse, and, with the expenditure of over 1,000,000 bullets within several days, missiles and machine-gunning from israeli helicopters, 47 were killed, and 1,885 wounded, 80% of whom were shot in demonstrations where no threat to security police was present. So Al Jazeera is quite within its rights to state that the Palestinian uprising in that first week was (more than) 'largely non-violent'. What was massively violent was the Israeli reaction, in fitting with Nathan Thrall's dictum that on each of the four occasions where Palestinians have gone on strike, demonstrated en masse, in an initially peaceful manner to protest the Mandatory or Israeli occupation, the response has been, rigorously, extremely violent repression by the authorities. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a silly complaint too, as it's subjective what counts as primarily nonviolent, but the terms "were injured" and "suffered injuries" are usually understood as synonymous. XeCyranium (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been hit quite often in stone fights, and was shot (with an airgun) several times. A source describes the Israeli police injuries from punches and stones as 'minor', rarely anywhere near as damaging or frightening as being shot with a bullet, live or rubber-capped. The Israeli tallying of injuries is often suspect. It can refer to people grazing their knees when they stumble as they run to an air-raid shelter.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Peace and War, by Anthony H. Cordesman, has an excellent timeline of the start of the Second Intifada. In the first few days alone there are large scale riots, clashes between Israeli Arabs and Jews, Palestinian sniper fire, and dead on both sides. To claim that sniper fire and riots are peaceful is almost Orwellian, and not something any reliable source will do. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your 'excellent' timeline comes from Anthony H. Cordesman, who, notoriously, got most of his 'history' of events by taking notes from Israeli briefings and quoting IDF spokespersons. Everytime I've read him, I've looked at his sources, and they are press handouts, extraordinary for a scholar of his standing (but then again he belonged to the upper echelons of the 'Security Establishment'). Don't take my word for it. Norman Finkelstein is one of the world’s foremost experts on both Gaza and the systematic disinformation in mainstream sources reporting on that endemic conflict. He made a close analysis of just one paper by Cordesman and concluded that Cordesman’s work ‘was based entirely on briefings in Israel’ (p.40) and repeatedly drew on comments by the IDF’s spokesman, incident per incident. He concluded that ‘Cordesman’s ‘strategic analysis’ consisted of reproducing verbatim the daily press releases of the Israeli airforce and army spokespersons,' and Cordesman 'obligingly dubbed them ‘chronologies’ of the war,’(p.41) Norman Finkelstein Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018 ISBN 978-0-520-29571-1 pp.39-42.

Though I have never removed Cordesman from articles, because he qualifies eminently as RS, he is not reliable on the IP conflict, also for many additional reasons, like his well known advice to Israel and the PA to adopt the same counterinsurgency policies against Palestinians that the British used in Northern Ireland, i.e., excessive force, disregard for human rights law, and torture. His views on this were so extreme Amnesty's Marty Rosenbluth called his blueprint 'bizarre'.

Your campaign against Al Jazeera expresses a 'sensitivity' to misreportage and yet, twice on just one example given, you yourself made a false claim, and justified it when criticized by citing (no page number, no awareness of later scholarship postdating Cordesman whose book 'War and peace' was written hastily in the thick of the early days of the conflict) a source that virtually plagiarized its content by relying on IDF press cuttings.

There is no simple way of ascertaining reliable source material for a conflict whose reportage hallmark is stamped by bias on all sides. A blanket ban on the only daily Arab source that provides a perspective sensitive to Palestinians, together with reliance on known decidedly pro-Israeli sources, is a recipé for laziness. And please note that you repeat the word 'riots', as all pro-Israeli sources do, to describe mass protests, on Palestinian soil, against the Israeli army which invariably spins popular outrage at an occupation as 'clashes' between 'Jews' and Palestinians, when they are mostly parades of protest against an army that shoots at 'disturbances' of the kind you can see in any Western street most weeks. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

you yourself made a false claim Only according to you. Personally, I think any source that claims riots and sniper fire is peaceful is almost Orwellian, and evidently unreliable. I would also recommend against relying on authors like Finkelstein who frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review - known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda. However, I won't get too focused on Finkelstein, as even if we accept his rejection of Cordesman there are thousands of sources that demonstrate that the Second Intifada did not begin peacefully. Since this discussion is unlikely to be productive I'll just provide a small sampling of those that are easily accessible and leave the discussion; I'm sure you'll find issues with all of them, but I'm confident my point has been made.

1. Arab Uprising Spreads to Israel, published October 1, 2000

   The rioting and gunfire seemed to spread everywhere today--to Arab towns and cities in northern Israel's Galilee region; to Jaffa, the scenic old port town just south of Tel Aviv; to Rafah on Gaza's border with Egypt, where a pitched gun battle was punctuated by Israeli missile fire; even to Ramat Rachel, an upscale kibbutz on Jerusalem's southern outskirts where molotov cocktails exploded this evening.

   Israeli forces and Palestinian police and gunmen traded fire in nearly every major West Bank town and city, from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south.

2. "Between Humanitarian Logic and Operational Effectiveness: How the Israeli Army Faced the Second Intifada":

   But unlike the first Intifada, which was basically a civil uprising against the symbols of an occupation that had lasted since June 1967, it very quickly lapsed into an armed struggle between Palestinian activists and the Israeli armed forces. Almost from the very start, armed men took to hiding among crowds of Palestinians, using them as cover to shoot from. The IDF retaliated forcefully, each time resulting in several deaths

3. The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah

   On October 1, Israeli helicopter gun ships fired on Palestinian sniper locations in apartment buildings near the Netzarim junction after Palestinian snipers started shooting at the Israeli military post.

4. Rioting as Sharon visits Islam holy site, published September 29, 2000

   Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins, and whatever missiles came to hand at the Israeli forces. Riot police retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets, shooting one protester in the face.

5. Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline

   30 September: In one of the enduring images of the conflict 12-year-old Muhammad Durrah is killed during a gunbattle between Israeli troops and Palestinians in the Gaza strip

6. Broken lives – a year of intifada

   The Netzarim junction, where Muhammad al-Dura was killed on 30 September 2000, was the scene of many riots involving demonstrators throwing stones or Molotov cocktails in the first days of the intifada.

7. Chapter 4 The Second Palestinian Intifada

   The Palestinian uprising, soon termed the al-Aqsa intifada, began with groups of Palestinian teenagers throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints at border crossings, but it quickly escalated. There were increasingly fierce clashes between armed security forces of the Palestinian Authority and the IDF. Palestinian snipers directed fire against Israeli civilian neighborhoods on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

8. Violence escalates between Palestinians, Israeli troops, published September 30, 2000

   At least seven Palestinians and one Israeli soldier have died and hundreds of demonstrators have been injured in three days of fighting, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials.

9. Sharon Touches a Nerve, and Jerusalem Explodes, published September 29, 2000

   Tightly guarded by an Israeli security cordon, Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader, led a group of Israeli legislators onto the bitterly contested Temple Mount today to assert Jewish claims there, setting off a stone-throwing clash that left several Palestinians and more than two dozen policemen injured.
   The violence spread later to the streets of East Jerusalem and to the West Bank town of Ramallah, where six Palestinians were reportedly hurt as Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets and protesters hurled rocks and firebombs.

Even Al Jazeera previously recognized that the Second Intifada started with violence, demonstrating how their quality has declined:

28-29 September 2000
Former Israeli army general and then opposition leader Ariel Sharon visits al-Aqsa mosque with his entourage, sparking a violent reaction from Palestinians.
Israel reoccupies the Palestinian territories amid fighting between the Palestinian resistance and Israeli army.

BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2. "Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins ..." – sounds like it was a slighty rocky student protest on 29 September ... followed by a massively disproportionate response. Oh how history rings and echoes! Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This newspaper snippet approach to history is inane. The point in the original al-Jazeera post was that the Palestinian intifada (mark 2) began with (1) an Israeli assertion the status quo would be broken on Al-Aqsa by allowing Jewish prayer on the 3rd most sacred site to Muslims, and the one remaining symbol Palestinians have for their fragmented warred down sense of identity. Sharon's walk itself caused no violence (2) The provocation some time later caused student reactions, and as the news spread through the West Bank, Israel's usual hyperoverreaction - shooting protesters kicked it. The statistics for Israeli shootings all over Jerusalem and the West Bank in the ensuing week underline that the 'violence' BM is attributing to the Palestinians (this is the standard Israeli POV) was overwhelmingly one of the use of massive shootings of Palestinians, for several days, causing close to 2,000 casualties with one Israeli killed. He refers to Muhammad al-Durrah without a link. The images of that atrocity were shown everywhere, and inflamed not only Palestinian but world opinion. I noted on the Al-Aqsa intifada page years ago, Jacques Chirac's comment to Ehud Barak, outrage at the Israeli use of helicopters missiles and machine guns to put down the widespread protests which followed al-Durrah's death (the suspicions seeded years later against the French video are not relevant). Violence quickly became a hallmark of the Palestinians' uprising, no one disputes that. The intifada became violent after a million bullets were shot by the Israeli army, and not, as BM would have it, from the outset from Palestinian 'rioters'. BM in citing a notoriously lousy source (Cordesman), to defend his reading of al-Jazeera's remark, only tends to confirm one's impression that his benchmark for true/falsenees here is apparently based on an assumption an official Israeli POV is reliable, and any source contradicting it false. Newspaper evidence dating from those days is absolutely immaterial, useless, because as always they are enmeshed in a frantic pursuit of partial reports, which necessity obliges us to use, but which, if these articles are to assume an encyclopedic dimension, must be edged out whenever secondary academic historical sources become available. In the meantime, getting at the one Arab source that has been accepted, would leave us with only Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet and the New York Times, as the default mainstream papers, a recipé for making structural the subfusc Palestinophobic tenor which characterizes most of them the basis for I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said to another editor, arguments about lessening our criteria for reliability with the intent of "expanding" the number of sources from a particular point of the world/viewpoint/etc should not even begin to be discussed. Wikipedia policy does not care if every source from a region is unreliable. In such a case, other sources from other regions can be used to cover the subject, or failing that, with consensus for individual points and solid reasoning other sourcing cannot be found, the less-than-reliable sources from the region can be used with attribution. In fact, there are already regions of the world that don't have any "generally reliable on all topics" sources - North Korea, Russia, Myanmar... to name a few. Wikipedia is not in the business of accepting sources without attribution just to "cover all sides". If your only argument is that we must keep the source because of their POV, that's not a valid argument and in fact flies in the face of our actual policies on reliability which do not reduce or lessen the requirements just because a source has a different POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

And I would add that in writing, in response to a close 3 page scholarly analysis of Cordesman's amateurish fudging of the Al- Aqsa Intifada, you cannot come up with anything other than a cheap, tawdry and offensive ad hominem attack on its author, Norman Finkelstein, drawing on the standard POV pushing smear recycled for low brow consumption by the usual suspects. I.e.

authors like Finkelstein who 'frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review - known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda.

Is close to a BLP violation, apart from the laziness of responding to a serious analysis by implying Finkelstein supports a white racist antisemitic rag. It's shameful but says something about the intolerance of dissonance to any source that might dare advance a different perspective than that customarily trotted out in the name of defending Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: I disagree.
  • Regarding your 1st claim Al-Jazeera's article with the outdated casualties looks like it was published at 02:22 on 6 June (not sure which time zone, maybe UTC?). That was published before Guardian got the correct figures, not after. And Al-Jazeera did update the new figures when they came in: right here.
  • 2nd claim responded by Nishidani above.
  • 3rd claim. Firstly, Al-Jazeera doesn't explicitly say bombing began before IDF moved into position as their article isn't necessarily in chronological order. Assuming the AP article is in chronological order (because if it isn't, then nothing about the chronology can be inferred), it quotes a witness saying "Clashes and explosions broke out" before the IDF team got stuck. Finally, the AP News doesn't make any assertions in its voice, but simply quotes witnesses and the IDF. It is entirely reasonable for them to come up with different stories (either by mistake or by design) without it being AJ's fault.
  • 4th claim. Agreed, clearly AJ hasn't read WP:Vandalism carefully.
  • 5th and 6th claims only make sense if we consider the list of references below their infographics to be exhaustive. It doesn't seem like they are strict with citing all their sources, but that's still better than newspapers who sometimes (often?) don't list references at all.
  • 7th claim. The allegation of Egypt altering the terms is based on an unnamed sources. While the refutation of that allegation was based on named sources (Diaa Rashwan) willing to stand behind their statements. So I wouldn't blame AJ for not giving much weight to anonymous hearsay.
  • 8th claim. Politico says "South Africa and much of the rest of the continent have experienced a different evolution — shifting from initial, tepid condemnation of Russia, to being non-aligned to — at times — seeming supportive of Russia’s war.". I think both Politico and that particular article of Al-Jazeera made a mistake (actually its possible the AJ article has a typo because if you consider the paragraph they likely meant to say SA has not condemned the invasion). An earlier AJ article said "Pretoria has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    1. I provided two articles, and as I said the first was probably published before the correction; the second was published after.

    3. The source is quite clearly chronological - and even if it wasn't, it does say Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp.

    5 and 6. While publications don't need to cite their sources, when they choose to do so they need to get it right - and failing to get it right is a reliability issue. 5 also has factual issues, which makes misattributing the claim worse - they're effectively saying their source got it wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    1. At what time do you think the articles were published?

    3. I'm not seeing where the AJ article says "Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp". Instead it says "It began around 11am, with what witnesses say were several civilian trucks and cars entering a neighbourhood near the camp’s market."

    5 and 6. Again nowhere did AJ said they had published a comprehensive list of sources. They could have published some sources but not others.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  On 1st claim, updating the figures on a live article that is fast-moving and will bury them is not the type of retraction/correction we expect from reliable sources. Reliable sources would've gone back and added a footnote explaining that initial figures were revised and are now corrected, or at a minimum edited the article to fix the figures. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  on 8th claim, al jazeera has already published an infographic talking about South Africa's policy of strategic nonalignment here.

  It can be explained that South Africa's position on the war is intentionally confusing, as their foreign office has previously called for russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territories before.[169]

  I think if the position is meant to be strategically confusing to the point that Politico, a well known and well regarded newssite, has stated South Africa has provided support for Ukraine that Al Jazeera probably should not be judged for similar sort of mistake when doing the news race, especially when they are publishing much more in depth analyses about South Africa's position that are correctly explaining the full position of the government. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This topic was opened right after ADL was declared WP:ADLPIA in the 2024 RFC, after editor lost his POV. Its clearly some tit for tat exchange in a POV war. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this appears to be entirely civil POV pushing. Combined with the fact that the last discussion on Al-Jazeera was started only 2.5 months ago, and VR's debunking of the specific claims of error above, I am not convinced that this thread should stay open because I'm not convinced there's anything productive to say here. Loki (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please drop the WP:Personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS, both of you. You're incorrect, and even if you weren't your concerns are inappropriate to raise here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We are clearly correct. This is a waste of time and a repeat of an earlier forum around Al Jazeera's reliability regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the timing after the ADL decision is obviously clear.

There is no reason to post this except that you are upset to have lost the ADL povwar. (I don't even know if this is that much of a change, we can still cite ADL, just use attribution as always?) User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Come on Sawer, this is inappropriate and aspersive. BM raised a bunch of factual errors—even if you think they don't constitute a reason to change how we regard AJ, or indeed that they aren't even errors, there's a conversation to be had here about facts, and "the initiator of this conversation has a secret plan" is not how that conversation starts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

And yet, VR has a bunch of arguments that these aren't factual errors, as do the rest of us.

Much of the non-Israel-Palestine factual errors are due to WP:AGEMATTERS or are small errors that we could identify in other articles, and are a function of a fast moving news cycle forcing quick prints that are quickly corrected. Other reliable sources make the same sorts of errors. For example, the issue with Al Jazeera covering wikipedia is cringeworthy, but so were any of the others talking about the ADL "ban" (its not banned, just use attribution)

The rest are POV issues due to Al Jazeera clearly having an opinion and POV on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a position we have decided in many forum posts before hand.

I'll cast aspersions when the reputation is clearly rotten, the pattern repeats. And you will no doubt argue I need to be banned because this time is somehow unique. And so goes the cycle of internet debates. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would be considered a "factual error" here. If they are using attribution, and that attribution later changes, it is not their fault, as is the case with any other RS. AJ is not an encyclopaedia, it is a news source that reports on live-time events, whose interpretation differs on a day-to-day basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

They don't use attribution in this source, which was published after the corrections were issued. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Unlike User:Makeandtoss above, I think that there are definitely some factual errors presented. Attributing a claim does not absolve you of responsibility to issue a timely correction (whether by editing/altering the article, or by posting a new article) when the attributed-to source changes their story. The first example also shows quite clearly that AJ has continued using inaccurate information well after other reliable sources have ceased publishing (and in some cases issued explicit corrections/retractions of old stories) such information. The second example clearly states Both Intifadas started off largely nonviolent. Our own article on the First Intifada states that by the second day, protestors were throwing petrol bombs, rocks, and other violent activities. Second Intifada also shows that it didn't "start off largely nonviolent". AJ is free to have its opinion on whether people intended to remain nonviolent. But stating that as a fact when it flies in the face of historically confirmed instances of violence within 24-48 hours of the months-to-years-long intifadas. Example 3 was quite clearly shown by BilledMammal - falsehoods by omission or by "misleading" timelines are not what we expect of a reliable source. To put it another way, if they weren't presenting the article as a timeline, they could say the information in whatever order they want. But since the article is purported to be a timeline, it's a factual error to say To provide air cover, Israeli forces started bombing from above right after talking about the cars just entering the area, and before discussing any further activities. That's intentionally misleading in a timeline. Example 4 is a non-issue, many reliable sources display a lack of knowledge of WP policies/procedures/terminology. Example 5 is barely an issue - it appears there is discussion hidden in the documents of the GDPs, and the 40% (well, rounded to 40%) is actually present in official documents from that conference. GDP is inherently a subjective measure, since different authors/politicians can include or exclude various "borderline" things, or calculate them in different ways. The World Bank site hasn't been updated for any country since 2022 (most recent data) - it's perfectly reasonable for AJ to assume that the G7 meeting that occurred within the last couple months has more recent/up to date information. Example 6 - AJ cites Al Jazeera, Palestinian Ministry of Health, Palestine Red Crescent Society, Israeli Army, Israel's social security agency. Ultimately, I doubt it's possible to verify that none of the other sources (including their own investigation) have come up with 15,000 as a number, and there are a handful of other sources (including the UN) that have published numbers over 10,000 that, if extrapolated, would be near 15,000 in mid June. Example 7 - misleading, but not outright false. Incomplete does not equal intentionally false. Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did. It's possible for political parties to act independently of official government foreign policy. Example 9 - again, incomplete is not misleading. Example 10 - not even sure this is misleading. Israeli army maintains operational control over the land of the checkpoint, and thus it's not really misleading to say they've sealed it shut. Whether they've expressed an intent to open it or not, that doesn't make it open.

So, where does that leave us? I count 3 examples of intentional falsehoods (or information presented in such a way to lead the reader to assume an intentional falsehood), 1-3 that are misleading, 2 that are incomplete information, and a few non-issues. That all said, 3 clear examples of intentional falsehoods or presenting information in a way that any reasonable reader will make inaccurate inferences - all of which have had ample opportunity to be corrected, retracted, or edited to present the information in a clear manner? To me that's clear that they cannot be trusted to publish factual information only on this topic at least. This is different than the ADL discussion above - in that discussion, many editors made claims of bias and how that bias means they can't be factually accurate. In this case, we not only have strong evidence of bias, but strong evidence of intentional factual inaccuracies. An RfC is the next step. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On the intifada stuff, as highlighted by Nishidani, it's both subjective and a matter of perspective. If there are nationwide protests and violent incidents at only one or two locations, those protests could still be termed "largely nonviolent". Highly debatable. Timeline stuff ... also unclear. There was bombing before and after for sure. As for during, I'm not convinced that there is a single, authoritative chronology anywhere to benchmark this against. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't only one or two locations, it was nearly every major West Bank town and city. That can't be termed "largely nonviolent", and reliable sources don't term it "largely nonviolent". BilledMammal (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of perspective, nor is it subjective. If protests erupted in multiple places simultaneously, then sure, "started nonviolently" may be acceptable. But our own articles on the topic, as well as reporting from many sources that BilledMammal identified, all agree that both intifadas started with violence, or if they didn't 'start' with violence, erupted into violence so quickly after to make "started nonviolently" deliberately misleading.

I also feel it's very, very telling that Al Jazeera themselves used to continuously call the intifadas violent from the start - they only stopped doing so once the term "intifada" started being actually viewed as a call for violence. So basically, they've began starting to try to "rewrite history" just because it doesn't fit their bias/narrative now. And that's textbook inappropriate behavior for a reliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On a purely procedural note, we really shouldn't use our articles as a measuring stick here. Articles with timelines are particularly susceptible to selective sourcing and chronicling. More generally, bad news speaks louder, so there is a media bias tendency to fixate on violent incidents over non-violent protest, which is generally dull. Take for example the 2018 Great March of Return, which began as an almost overwhelmingly non-violent action, and yet this is something that you would almost struggle to determine from the current Wikipedia page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The violence started within 24 hours in both cases according to reliable sources. This is in comparison to months-to-years-long protests in each intifada. That's akin to saying that "I started as a bundle of a few thousand cells" - well, sure, I guess that's technically true, but it's irrelevant and misleading because I have been alive for decades. And that's if we accept your claim that they were nonviolent at the start - which multiple reliable sources present in our articles (which are a good place to start to look for sources, as you probably know) already refute.

It's ironic though, because I was explicitly calling out the source in question (Al Jazeera) has engaged in selective sourcing and chronicling in response to another point - to the point that they are deliberately misleading people. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Largely non-violent does not mean there was no violence. That is a tendentious reading of that report, and their reporting is backed by other reliable sources. See for example Hallward, M.C. (2011). Struggling for a Just Peace: Israeli and Palestinian Activism in the Second Intifada. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-4071-4. Retrieved June 20, 2024. The first weeks of the second intifada consisted of "an unarmed popular revolt," and it was only after heavily armed Israeli soldiers killed several dozen young demonstrators that Palestinian soldiers joined the confrontation. Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel did not begin until three months later. nableezy - 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Something need not be an armed conflict, or include "soldiers", to be violent. The fact the quote you give pulls out "soldiers" and "suicide bombings" as its definition of when it becomes "violent", ignoring the rest of the violence that didn't have professional soldiers or suicide bombings. That's what's actually tendentious - trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The source: an unarmed popular revolt. Berchanhimez: trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence" Who is it being tendentious again? nableezy - 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone need not be armed to be violent. You are trying to redefine violence to mean armed violence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ill let that stand on its own. nableezy - 22:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The First intifada is widely regarded to have been largely non-violent. The idea that "all agree that both intifadas started with violence" is total nonsense. If you are relying on an unreliable source, such as Wikipedia, to prove otherwise, Id be happy to provide you with reading material to correct that misimpression. nableezy - 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Example 5 is barely an issue

Well done on finding that - I spent a lot of time trying but was unable to. I've struck that issue. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I conducted additional research on Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did:

• South Africa confronts cascading fallout of Russia’s war, from July 2022, says The ruling ANC in South Africa is isolated in its failure to condemn Russia. It also says that South Africa withdrew their demand that Russia withdraws from Ukraine, which rebuts any arguments that "demands withdrawal" are sufficiently similar to "condemned".
• New South African party hopes to capitalise on discontent with ANC, from April 2023, says The ANC has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• South African President’s Allies Want Democratic Alliance Deal, from May 2024, says Under Ramaphosa, South Africa’s government resisted US pressure to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

The Bloomberg article isn't an exact match, while the earlier two are a little out of date, but I think this is sufficient to establish that neither the ANC nor South Africa has condemned the Russian invasion? BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't access the FT article, and I'm not sure I like the first one - since before the quote you pulled, it says Pretoria faces mounting criticism for failing to condemn Russia - making it more likely that "The ruling ANC" is being used to refer to the government in its official capacity - at least in my view. Obviously it's still unclear. Ultimately, I appreciate that it's an issue - and that you did the more research - but I'd say the disagreement over how to word the nuances of the ANC's party opinion, the ANC's member opinion(s), and the official government opinion makes this something not important to focus on. In other words, you've provided what I see as at least 3 much stronger true factual inaccuracies/deliberately misleading/omission of information/etc - those would be best to focus on as reason for unreliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As a helpful trick, if you're unable to access an article because of a paywall adding "archive.li" to the start of the URL usually provides the content, including with that article: https://archive.li/https://www.ft.com/content/a14b6cc9-a709-4b0f-a027-6839fb7505bd

However, I think you're right that we should forget about these less significant/more ambiguous issues and focus on the three strongest examples. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed "frequent" from the section header. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, this is nothing to do with AI/IP, which is what you claimed this was all about when you opened this discussion. Secondly, On 1 February AJ reported "Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, South Africa has been careful not to condemn Russia’s invasion including declining to support a UN resolution on the matter." Perhaps this needs more looking into yet. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone else suggested somewhere here, it's actually pretty plausible that it's simply an unnoticed typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That Al Jazeera has a feature about the neutrality of South Africa regarding Russian aggression suggests that they agree with the consensus that SA is pursuing strategic non-alignment, which necessarily has confusion built in.

That Politico and other MSM has stated that South Africa has some degree of condemnation/disapproval suggests that strategic ambiguity regarding the conflict exists, similar to how US both sometimes acknowledges China's claim to Taiwan and refuses to have an embassy to Taiwan and vehemently opposes China's aggression on Taiwan at the same time as part of some strategic ambiguity plan they maintain. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

the wikipedia page of the second intifada gives off the impression that initial uprising and rioting by palestinians followed the pattern of a general strike, and that the lionshare of initial violence was perpetrated against palestinians, especially with regards to the post visit riot section indicating 7 palestinian deaths and hundreds of injuries for only 70 israeli injuries... Much of the phrasing indicates that it was protests and riots that turn violent

but arguing semantics won't go anywhere, this is clearly a matter of viewpoint and arguing that Al Jazeera is biased for having the viewpoint that the intifadas started off peaceful is rehashing the whole conflict. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Like many others who have commented, I find that almost all the claimed cases of "factual error" aren't cases of fact or error, just situations where OP would prefer something be characterized differently than AJ characterized it. The few cases that are questions of fact, like citing the figure a source was providing at the time the report was made (at or shortly before the time it was published), are also underwhelming. The claim above that this story says the Palestinian Ministry of Health [says] 15,000 children have died also seems to be wrong: AFAICT the "15,000 children" number only(? am I missing something?) occurs in an infographic which is sourced to a multitude of sources including not only the PMH but Al Jazeera itself (their own investigations or prior reporting); since it seems the issue is not with the number—which is also reported in some other places—but with its supposed attribution to the PMH, but AJ does not actually attribute it to the PMH, this supposed error too seems upon investigation to be another non-issue. -sche (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera is generally unreliable for certain areas including I-P, for a few reasons

• General factual errors, per BilledMammal.
• Failures to properly retract errors, e.g. in the Jamila al-Hissi case
• Framing questionable statements as (unattributed) statements of fact, e.g. in the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, which they referred to as "Israel’s attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital", "the deadly Israeli air attack on al-Ahli Arab Hospital", etc. well after that assumption became dubious.
• Overall lack of scrutiny against certain narratives, e.g. often quoting unsubstantiated speculation.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The questions we need to ask here are "Does Al Jazeera ..."

• • 1. frequently make factual errors relative to its overall output?
  • 2. fail to promptly issue corrections to errors?
  • 3. double down on errors?
  • 4. publish under a censorship regime?
• If #1 is true where a source is publishing factual and avoidable errors in every third story, then the editorial staff are inept and the source isn't reliable.
• If #2 is true and corrections are not published, then the source isn't reliable in that it lacks self-correction expected in journalism.
• If #3 is true and the source peddles in conspiracy theories or hoaxes, then it tabloid and is not usable.
• If #4 is true, all publications are suspect when covering any POV counter to its censor's interests.

I'm not convinced the at Al Jazeera hits any of these points based on my (light) reading of the discussion so far. We cannot expect a source to always be correct, only that they correct themselves when they are and that errors are kept to a minimum. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding #4, its important to note that Qatar was among the first Arab countries to establish relations with Israel. Qatar hosts the largest US base in the Middle East. A recent Israeli article notes that Qatar would readily agree to a US demand to expel Hamas leaders, and that article goes onto note that Qatar only allowed Hamas leaders in at "Washington's behest". There appears to be no reason here why the Qatari government would force Al-Jazeera to be pro-Palestinian. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even enemy states often have some kind of (informal) relations and negotiations, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Qatar is one of 28 (UN) states to not officially recognize Israel, and of course provides funding to Hamas. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of specific examples

• Are there significant examples outside of the two contexts which at this point we've more or less beat to death (Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Qatari domestic politics) or are the alledged issues limited in scope? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  How many contexts would be enough to be a problem? Side note, holy shit this page is huge. Arkon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The claim was made that the factual errors are freuqent, if that is the case I'd expect to find them in all of the topic area. We don't seem to be able to reach a conclusion on whether the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue and we already note the Qatari domestic politics... So this is the time for those who think that AJ is widely unreliable to demonstrate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just from this review there are some suggestions that the issues will extend beyond IP as some of the issues, while in articles tagged as IP, aren't themselves related to IP. I'll try to conduct a review within the next week, hopefully before any RfC is opened.

  I'll also try to conduct a review of topics that Qatar has a COI on - perhaps the World Cup - as while we have sources saying that in this area Al Jazeera can function as an arm of the Qatari state we haven't yet determined if it makes factual errors while doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of the critical coverage is that the critiscism is less about non-factual coverage but about selective coverage... Non-factual coverage is a big deal for us here, selective coverage is not just because of how we operate (plenty of reliable RS present their POV/bias through selective coverage, overall they cancel out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I do wish people wouldn't treat only those whose identities have been confirmed as dead. The OCHA figures are for those whose identities are known. People can be dead and noted as fatalities without their names and id numbers being known The Health ministry figure of 7,797 dead children being compared to 15,000 from Al Jazeera was for those childremn whose identities were known. And if you look at the citation to the Eeducation ministry they point to thie https://www.palestinechronicle.com/horrors-of-war-unicef-says-70-children-injured-every-day-in-gaza/ which cites the health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Rafah Border Crossing

Moved from #General discussion

 – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the literal headline of the WaPo article is "With Rafah crossing closed by Israel...", but the article doesn't contradict that. I still can't see a figure 15,000 in the infographic, though I am behind a heavy firewall so something might be getting blocked. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps you find it; the figure is in small text, beneath large text saying "37,202".

  The article also doesn't support it, and if you look at articles like this Reuters one Egypt makes it clear it is refusing to open it; The Rafah border crossing critical to aid deliveries into Gaza from Egypt cannot operate again unless Israel relinquishes control and hands it back to Palestinians on the Gaza side, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Monday. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  F24 today "The Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt has been shut since Israeli troops seized its Palestinian side in early May". Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's true; it was closed after Israeli troops seized the Palestinian side. The coverage in that article is limited to that; it makes no claim about who closed it or why it is still closed. The issue with Al Jazeera is that it does make such a claim, blaming Israel, but sources make it clear that the reason it can't reopen under the current circumstances is because Egypt won't let it.

  However, the entire discussion seems to be getting bogged down over this one example; even if I am incorrect about it and it is a genuine matter of dispute, there are many others. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  WAPO June 15 With Rafah crossing closed by Israel, Gazans have no way out It then says that there are talks between US, Israel and Egypt to reopen with no progress.

  Seems like a simple cause effect, if Israel had not taken the crossing, it would be open now. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's the article provided by Black Kite. And yes, that's true, although reductionist and misleading - but Al Jazeera didn't make the claim, it made the claim that Israel had sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt.

  Regardless, I'm going to step back from discussing that specific example now; I don't think we're making progress, and I don't want us to get too bogged down in that one that we forget about the others. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a source that says Israel has not sealed shut the border crossing? You said it was false and that it was Egypt but provided no source. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  So much for stepping back. I've split this out so that at least it shouldn't be too distracting.

  Including the two I've already provided:

  1. "Egypt rejected on May 16 an Israeli proposal to coordinate the reopening of the Rafah border crossing, according to two unspecified Egyptian security sources"
  2. "The Rafah border crossing critical to aid deliveries into Gaza from Egypt cannot operate again unless Israel relinquishes control and hands it back to Palestinians on the Gaza side, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Monday."
  3. "Egypt has rejected an Israeli proposal for the two countries to coordinate to re-open the Rafah crossing between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and to manage its future operation, two Egyptian security sources said."
  4. "Egypt has rejected Israel's control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing, saying it can't reopen as long as it remains under occupation."
  5. "The US official said that Egypt is unwilling to reopen the crossing so long as it is the IDF that is the IDF that is securing the other side, not wanting to be seen as complicit with Israel’s occupation of the gate."
  6. "Egypt stuck to its position that Israel must withdraw from the Gazan side of the Rafah crossing for it to operate again."

  Now I will step back, regardless of your opinion of these sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are two ways of reading this:

  • The Rafah crossing is shut because Israel refuses to return it to Palestinians, as Egypt demands
  • The Rafah crossing is shut because Egypt refuses to work with the occupation, as Israel demands

  Clearly, AJ takes the first view, and its not unreasonable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are any number of sources for Israel having sealed the Rafah crossing, NPR: Israel's takeover and closure of the vital Rafah crossing for Gaza cuts off a key aid route into the territory for example. That it has not been re-opened since is, according to Israel and only Israel, on Egypt. That does not in any way make what al-Jazeera reported false, and this repeated effort to claim so through a tendentious accounting of what happened is only evidence of the bias of this request, not of al-Jazeera's. nableezy - 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What a waste of editors time. Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69012303 I suppose there is a row over who is to blame at the Rafah crossing. But honestly considering what has happened at the other crossings controlled by Israel are we actually supposed to believe Israel isn't effectively blocking this one as well? In that BBC article it talks about a full blown famine in northern Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My call - all of this is WP:RECENTISM. It’s a war zone. That certain crossings or areas are currently inaccessible isn’t surprising or noteworthy. Next week it will be some other crossing or some other area. NOT NEWS! Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reasonable call on the face of it but...this is all linked to the aid/starvation issue -> no crossings = no aid = starvation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would still say too RECENT. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then the entire war is too recent on that basis. We should all stop editing immediately. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's recent. But if anything, a news organization (such as AJ) has a responsibility to either (or both) identify their information as preliminary, estimated, etc., and/or engage[] in fact-checking and ha[ve] a reputation for accuracy [as signaled by the] publication of corrections - quote is from that section of NEWSORG with minor edits bracketed to make it fit the sentence. AJ has done neither in some cases - they've deliberately said Israel bombed at a time that they didn't (as verified by other news organizations outside the region), they've stated that a certain number of people died without identifying it as an initial report, and even worse, even after the information was corrected by the hospital not only did they not publish a correction, but they published another new article with the now-known incorrect information...

A news organization has an even higher editorial responsibility with the accuracy of its "breaking news" or similar reports. Al Jazeera doesn't routinely publish corrections and has been shown to continue parroting incorrect information even in articles they write and publish well after the information is corrected. That is not the responsible editorial practice we expect - well, we don't even know, because they don't even publish a corrections policy, and there is no method to contact them to ask for a story to be corrected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You replied to a bit about the Rafah crossing completely ignoring it. But anyway are you going to engage your corrections policy after having reading "Evidence of retractions and corrections" below? NadVolum (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Echoing what Nishidani said above, attempts to remove AJ from wikipedia will worsen our WP:Systemic bias. Currently, of the 5-10 news sources listed at WP:RSP that are at least partially based in the Arab and Muslim world, AJ is the only one considered reliable. We are artificially creating an WP:SBEXTERNAL problem by axing sources coming from a large fraction of the world.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

agree Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree vehemently. Systemic bias is already a problem of titanic size and scope...why we would go out of our way to proactively make it worse is unfathomable to me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This argument would forbid the designation as unreliable of any source whose inclusion would superficially remedy geographic biases on Wikipedia. Sources that get facts wrong should be treated differently. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sources getting the facts wrong is concerning. However, plenty of RS get facts wrong, without us re-examining their reliability. I find that editors are often very excited to downgrade non-western sources for minor offenses that would never lead to downgrading a western source.

One example that I often cite: The New York Times, deliberately and over an extended period of time, repeated misinformation fed to them by the CIA about Iraq's WMD program. The terms "misinformation" and "propaganda" are both used by multiple high-quality RS to describe the NYT's coverage of the WMD story. NYT's misleading reporting played a significant role in generating support for the invasion of Iraq, which was a pointless war, based on lies, that resulted in misery, death, pain, and destruction on a level that is almost unfathomable. Oops. If we were to measure "unreliability" in terms of real-world harm caused by misleading reporting, the NYT would be a candidate for the most unreliable source in modern history, surpassed only by WWII-era German newspapers that promoted the Holocaust.

The NYT has a documented history of spreading misinformation about other topics, as well, such as Israel/Palestine and trans issues. My user page has a (woefully incomplete) list of RS that have covered NYT's misinformation, factual mistakes, and propagandistic content. Yet to my knowledge, there has never been serious consideration of downgrading NYT's reliability - and at this point, I'm fine with NYT being labeled "generally reliable"...although if we downgrade Al Jazeera on the basis of "they've made a handful of factual errors", I'm going to emphatically insist that we downgrade NYT as well.

My point is: I find that many editors are quick to suggest downgrading non-western sources (or sources critical of western governments) for peccadillos that would never lead to a re-assessment of a consistently pro-western-government source like NYT. We all know that if a source uncritically repeated talking points that came straight from the FSB in order to justify Russia's unprovoked invasion of another country, that source would have been deprecated immediately.

I have observed a double standard here that does, indeed, deepen systemic bias, and for that reason, I'm not convinced that a re-assessment of Al Jazeera is appropriate, their occasional factual blunders notwithstanding. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

agreed. If nothing else, for Israel-Palestine, if Al Jazeera says something particularly biased, we already give attribution.

Sidenote: It appears this topic was opened in retailiation for the change (?) in status for ADL when discussion Israel-Palestine... Which practically is just still giving attribution to any claim made by ADL on the topic? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this source is biased, but this does not disqualify it per WP:V, just as sources on the other side like Anti-Defamation League and Times of Israel (discussed recently on this noticeboard). It is another matter that it frequently makes errors tilted to the certain side of the conflict, as illustrated in the discussion above. As about balancing one POV by another POV (assuming they are reliably published), I think it follows from WP:NPOV but rather skeptical about good content created by political partisans. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• If a source is deliberately reporting false information, and does not abide by our expectations of issuing corrections/retractions to correct themselves, then that's a good bias for us to have. WP:RS is not only policy but is one of our most important policies. We should never lessen our requirements for reliability in the name of "avoiding systemic bias". I also don't think this discussion is advocating for AJ not being reliable overall - but in terms of their reporting about the country of Israel and the territories of Palestine, they have demonstrated a lack of reliability. Wikipedia isn't here to create the news, or to "fix" the lack of reliable news from a certain part of the world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The claim that they have reported "false information" is hogwash, based only on the idea that sources that regurgitate Israeli army press briefings should be accepted as gospel and those that do not as liars. But that is not, last I checked, how Wikipedia worked. nableezy - 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not hogwash, though, because three solid cases of them providing false information, not issuing any retraction or correction, and deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers have been shown above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  That remains to be seen. Considering that most of the rest of the "frequent" examples turned out to be not so solid after all. AJ is green at RSP for a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Each of the claims of a solid case of them providing false information fails further scrutiny. The claim that they are deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers is fantasy. nableezy - 22:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which ones? And is there independent verification besides what Israel says? NadVolum (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  al-Sardi school casualties, Second Intifada violence, and Nuseirat bombing timing.

  1. US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis

     Claims Fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women and at least 74 other people were wounded in their own voice. This is false. Several hours before the article was published the organization that provided the death toll corrected the figures from an initial report of fourteen children and nine women to nine children and three women. This has independent verification by al-Aqsa hospital and AP.

  2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts

     Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false, as documented by a multitude of sources, with widespread gunfights, use of petrol bombs, and rioting. This has independent verification from countless sources who document this violence in their own voice.

  3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza

     Claims that prior to Israeli forces reaching the apartments the hostages were held Israeli forces started bombing from above, hitting the busy market the hardest, likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false; multiple independent sources have documented this in their own voice and relying on reports from reporters on the ground and Palestinian witnesses. Instead, the bombing did not start until after the Israeli forces arrived at the apartments.

  Importantly, these errors all advance a specific point of view; Al Jazeera is indisputably a partisan source, and this demonstrates that they present false information in support of it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  All three of these have been discussed, and your claim that any of them is false, rather than in the first instance based on information that was later changed, in the second also backed up by other sources, and finally based on different eyewitnesses is, as discussed above, based on nothing but your own perspective. You want us to say that these other sources are right and this source is wrong, and there is zero basis for it. And for the first, an Al-Jazeera report says The hospital morgue later amended those records to show the dead included three women, nine children, and 21 men. It was not immediately clear what caused the discrepancy. nableezy - 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the first, the information was changed before the article was published, not after. Al Jazeera also puts the claim in its own voice, so it doesn't matter that someone else was incorrect first. Finally, publishing the correct information in a brief live blog post doesn't address the issue of publishing false information in articles - no more than previously saying the Second Intifada began with fighting between Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian resistance addresses the issue of later publishing false information contrary to that.

  The others I think I've sufficiently proved with reference to large numbers of reliable sources, and so won't discuss again here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Largely nonviolent is not no violence, that is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. And it was not false information, it was information that was based on what was being reported by health officials, and an AP reporter per ABC (Australia) for that matter, at the time (that source says The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in the nearby town of Deir al-Balah received at least 33 dead from the strike, including 14 children and nine women, according to hospital records and an Associated Press reporter at the hospital.) Again, a tendentious reading of the source. nableezy - 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not at the time; Al-Aqsa Hospital had corrected it hours earlier. And even if they hadn't, Al Jazeera put the information in their own voice. A reliable source needs to be able determine what is appropriate to publish as fact in its own voice and what to attribute, and when it makes a mistake issue a correction. If they fail to do this then we are unable to trust that information a source publishes as fact in its own voice is true, which is the definition of an unreliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. That article links to their story on the attack, which attributes the number to the Media Office. An analysis that is focused on the weapons used and not the casualties is being used here as though they are just making up the numbers. nableezy - 00:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources that publish articles based on information that is later “changed” are expected, by our policies and our editors, to not only issue retractions, corrections, or to edit their coverage accordingly, but to do so in a timely manner. The evidence shown is that there are articles based on “changed” or “inaccurate” information that have gone over a week without such a response from Al Jazeera. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well then youve got a problem with Reuters as well for not updating their initial reporting either. nableezy - 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reuters doesn't put the claim in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  They also dont update that the source updated their information. And, as I said above, you are distorting the in their own voice bit here. That is a story on the weapons used and links to their article on the attack where the material is indeed attributed. nableezy - 00:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Reuters has a mechanism to report errors - so report it to them and see what they do with that report. We don't expect sources to be perfect. We do expect them to be a) open to feedback from other news organizations and the public, b) have a clear mechanism to request changes/corrections to articles with inaccuracies, c) seriously investigate any reports of errors and determine if changes/retraction are needed, and d) clearly publish and make clear when a retraction/change was necessary for people who had read the prior inaccurate information.

  Reuters has a history of being very good at retractions and corrections when necessary. Sometimes they do this in a brand new article, acknowledging past errors. That said, even if Reuters has failed on this one topic/data point, that does not significantly change the fact that their history is, unlike Al Jazeera, one of quickly correcting and publicly doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

AJ reports unreliable information, which was pointed again and again in RFCs. My RFC a few months ago was closed for example because of completely unrelated issues such as "name calling".

The method seems to be very clear - every time there's a factual issue with AJ, here's a 101 Wikipedia tactic on how to solve it:

1. Claim it's the first time, or happens only once, and does not show any systemic issue / bias.

2. Claim that AJ retracts the article (even though it doesn't always happen, and when it does, if you keep on publishing false information and retracting it because of backlash - that is not the hallmark of a reliable source).

3. Claim that AJ Arabic is different than AJ English, even though the report is against AJ English.

4. Claim that it already says that it's biased on the conflict, even though the current wording makes the impression that AJ Arabic is the only real issue.

5. Claim that AJ is the only reliable source in the Arab world, i.e. prefer to lower the standards, ignore the issues, and claim it's reliable because "we have no other choice", which is a fallacy and problematic in many dimensions at best. Being the big one is certainly not the only one, and does not make a source reliable giving factually true information. Unless of course you believe RT because it's the biggest in Russia or any other "biggest", "only option" or anything else.

6. When that fails - start claiming that the authors of the RFC or the responders are Jewish / Israeli / whatever so they're biased, which is what happened multiple times in the last RFC - effectively saying that Israelis or Jews can never be reliable for anything related to Israel. Speaking of bias...

7. Close the RFC because of those unrelated comments regarding the intent of the RFC opener, completely disregarding that about 50% of the editors deemed it unreliable, and the actual faults found.

That's exactly what happened time and time again, and I wouldn't be surprised if it'll happen again here. That's why I have stopped contributing - that system cannot be fought against, and because we have Israeli editors on this discussion, their voices don't matter anyway per point 6 and as evident by the closing of the last RFCs. The only solution left is to be submissive and claim it's reliable because we said so. Bar Harel (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal you're playing against a biased system claiming it's reliable. If AJ will claim that aliens launched a nuclear bomb on Russia and retract it, they still count as reliable according to Wikipedia's standards as evident by the dozen RFCs against AJ. If it can't be verified because the bomb went in the sea and did not explode, then they get the benefit of the doubt as "no one can be sure what happened". Even if it would be deemed incorrect by a dozen different countries, it wouldn't matter as it's "the only Arab source", so they can effectively say whatever they want. There is no way that Wikipedia will deem AJ as unreliable, even if people writing its opinions column would kidnap hostages. Wait a minute... Bar Harel (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In terms of systemic bias, there are other news sources such as The New Arab and Al Arabiya, both which were created in response to to Al Jazeera’s bias.

From the New Arab Wikipedia article: In 2015, Fadaat launched Al Araby TV Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera and its perceived bias.

From Al Arabiya: An early funder, the production company Middle East News (then headed by Ali Al-Hedeithy), said the goal was to provide "a balanced and less provocative" alternative to Al Jazeera.

I think The New Arab and Al Arabiya should be on Wikipedia’s reliable sources list. I do not like Al Jazeera because of their biased reporting of witnesses on Al Shifa siege. The hospital director who lied on Israel not providing fuel and incubators (there was photo evidence of incubators) and the false witness who said the IDF raped people and set their dogs on them. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get either of those sources as reliable on WP:RSP. You'll get much the same pushback as AJ is getting now.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I extremely strongly agree with other members here who have voiced concerns regarding that censoring Al Jazeera would completely slant Wikipedia in a far too onesided manner regarding the reporting of conflicts in the Middle-East, currently particularly the ongoing massacre against Palestinian civilians.

It is possible to find a conflict of interest in virtually any western news source owned by governments, corporations, or oligarchs, which would be almost all of them at this point, and even sources such as CNN and The New York Times insistently used to claim that there were WMDs in Iraq, to further the goal of invading the country, just to make one significant example.

The best we can do is to allow different perspectives, not just ones that further the agendas of the extremely far-right government of Israel.

Also, hasn't BilledMammal extensively attempted to censor Al Jazeera in Wikipedia previously, and had that attempt rejected? David A (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of retractions and corrections

One of the characteristics of a reliable news organization is that it engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy [such as] the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. I would love to see evidence of Al Jazeera's correction/retraction policy, and how readers/others can request review of an article for a correction/retraction. The only thing they have anywhere prominent is in their "Code of Ethics", which states Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. - one sentence that isn't actually followed as evidenced by the re-use of old numbers in articles published after the numbers were corrected by their source - and no corrections on any of the articles.

As comparisons, the following news organizations all post their corrections/retractions policy publicly and visibly (linked from every page or at most from one level down from any homepage/article): NYT (linked from Contact Us prominently as "Report an Error in Coverage"), NBC (Contact Us, linked on bottom of every page, and direct emails for authors/editors provided on every article), Australian Broadcasting Corp (Linked from Editorial Standards, themselves linked from every page), BBC (linked from Contact Us), [SCMP https://www.scmp.com/policies-and-standards#corrections] (Linked from Policies and Standards in footer of every page), Reuters (corrections link at bottom of every page), Associated Press (linked from Contact Us and other places), The Globe and Mail (entire policy posted and contact us links to a request), The Guardian (Complaints and Corrections linked from every page). And this isn't just limited to western/developed world sources - even sources such as The Wire (India) (RSP generally reliable, clear information on contact page of how to report errors), The Hindu (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us to the editor and published editorial policy), Indian Express (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us for reporting issues), Kommersant (RSP generally reliable but questioned, clear feedback for errors), Rappler (RSP generally reliable, published editorial policies and AI policies)...

This is just a sampling of sources rated as GREL on RSP, trying to pick from all around the world, or that editors seem to consider GREL from my memory. I've also included some that are "yellow" (unclear, add'l considerations, etc) or only reliable for some topics - because ultimately, even those sources tend to have published editorial policies, published corrections policies, a specific form for reporting errors/corrections, and/or have a clear link to corrections from their homepage/articles. Al Jazeera does not have a published editorial policy aside from "Code of Ethics" which is woefully lacking, and does not have a clear mechanism for reporting corrections/errors - only a general "feedback" form that does not mention errors anywhere. Obviously it's not necessarily required that a news organization go as far as to publish an entire editorial policy online, but a reputable and reliable source as shown by most other reliable sources will at a minimum have some evidence of accepting error reports and posting corrections in a timely manner. In fact, the one full retraction I can find evidence occurred during their coverage of the conflict was the removal (without any record) of an interview/article that had been up for over 24 hours regarding IDF soldiers raping civilians. Stories were edited/removed after the better part of 24 hours without so much as a formal acknowledgement of their inaccuracy in the first place.

Given that the editorial procedure is important in determining whether a source can be considered reliable or not, do editors have any other evidence that suggests that Al Jazeera complies with having a robust editorial policy and the issuance of timely, and publicized, retractions when they do get something wrong? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Here's Al-Jazeera's editorial policy. It literally only took Googling al-Jazeera editorial policy to find it. Loki (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Namely pp.25ff.Nishidani (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading these, and the ones provided below by Starship.paint, they all seem to be concerned with live broadcasts (it is mandatory to swiftly rectify any error committed during any bulletin or live show, apologize to viewers, etc). Is there one that applies to their website?

It also mentions publishing corrections to the Aljazeera Net webpage. Can anyone find that? Unfortunately, my ability to search for it is limited as I don't read Arabic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One shouldn’t have to result to “googling” it to find a corrections/error reporting policy for a reliable news source. Reliable news sources openly admit they make errors sometimes because nobody is perfect, and they make it easy to report them and see their policy for actioning them, including publicly admitting and correcting.

Not to mention, as identified below, that Code Of Conduct references broadcast media, their TV - not their website at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One should be able to put a random string of letters into a url and just conjure up their policy? Huh. nableezy - 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If I am on the homepage of a news site, I should not have to “google” their policy for retractions or corrections, nor how (or if it’s even possible) to report errors to them. Every comparison I identified above has their policy linked clearly, most with the words “correction”, “errors”, or similar - from either their main page or their contact us page (itself linked from the main page). Al Jazeera has only a one sentence “nothing burger” in their Code of Ethics, and no mechanism for reporting errors that’s clearly labeled as such. Further, please feel free to engage with their retraction frequency and show some evidence that they actually do retract articles with errors on the same or similar frequency to other reliable news organizations. Hint, they often don’t, and the few times they do is often simply by removing an article altogether, with no public acknowledgement of the error or public statement of retraction/correction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See also, Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. Found within a minute or so. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I did reference the Code of Ethics. The long PDF listed above refers to broadcast errors.

Even if they intend to apply that to print/digital prose news, the evidence suggests they do not apply it. Googling for retractions and corrections on their website shows no more than one every couple years. Not what’s expected if they’re correcting a majority of the errors they’re publishing.

Furthermore, them having a long PDF and a short version of the same words that references broadcast does not mean they actually make it easy to report errors, actually investigate those errors, and take action on those errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Avenue to submit errors for Al Jazeera: link What would you like to provide feedback on? / I would like to provide content feedback / Please choose one of the following options: / Content Suggestion / Content Correction starship.paint (RUN) 02:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, thanks for finding that. The problem is that I searched - I spent the better part of 45 minutes doing research for this section - and I looked all over the contact us form(s) listed on their website, and nowhere does it suggest that by clicking on "AJ English feedback" will I get the option to report an error. If you review the contact forms I identified above, most allow a simple email to be sent - and those that don't present the error submission form either by clicking a link that goes straight to it, or prominently giving an option for error correction on the page without having to select other things first. So no, I do not consider it equivalent to the other reliable sources I'm comparing it to, because you have to click contact us, be presented with general enquiries, then somehow know that it's under "AJ English feedback" that gives you the option to submit a correction.

  And this is honestly slightly off topic - the discussion is also over what they do with the corrections/errors reported - because they do not issue timely corrections/retractions, and on the rare chance they do, they usually simply remove the article rather than actually publicly acknowledging and remedying their error. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Believe they call ^^^ moving the goalposts. nableezy - 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I made the goalposts clear in my original opening of this section. My goal is for any editor that has actual evidence that their editorial policy has more teeth for their internet news coverage (not their broadcast media) than the one sentence Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. Furthermore, and to begin, it would be great if any editors could actually provide any evidence that they follow that one sentence, given that the only retractions I find that their English language site has published are from 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018, 2015... and going through the first 100 or so Google results (as I've been doing so far) for retraction site:aljazeera.com shows no more than 1 per year generally speaking, and often times none. Of note, there has not been a retraction since May of 2022 - at least not one that was publicly retracted rather than just deleting an article. This is quite odd - have they simply stopped making errors in 2022? They've become perfect? It's quite difficult to investigate corrections/edits added to the top of an article, or put inline within an article - but please feel free to provide proof that they actually do issue them more frequently than ~0-1 per year overall.

  And especially proof that they've issued retractions, corrections, or error notices for articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict - as only one of those retractions, and the one from way back in 2015 at that - was related to Israel or Palestine in large part. I find it very hard to believe that with all of the reporting Al Jazeera has done, and noted factual inaccuracies or ambiguities as above, that they have not made an error requiring retraction or public correction while covering the Israel-Palestine topics in almost a decade. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would require significant time for other editors to do the necessary research to find corrections or retractions there were. We don’t have a file of Al Jazeera corrections lying around in our computers, so the evidence is not going to magically appear just because you asked for it. You had the advantage of knowing you wanted to open this talk page section. For other editors this is just being dropped on our heads. starship.paint (RUN) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not asking for it to be presented now, and I don’t think there needs to be a deadline for presenting it. I opened this section so that other editors could attempt to refute the appearance of a lack of corrections/retractions. I understand that this is going to take time, and that’s one reason why I haven’t supported BilledMammal going and opening an RfC on the subject. That’s the whole point of this notice board, is it not? I did some preliminary research that suggests two problems - 1) their retraction policy for internet news is only one sentence, and the method to report issues is obfuscated behind multiple contact links and is not clearly stated, and 2) that either because of reason 1 (difficult to find report for your average reader) or another reason such as unreliability as a whole, that their retraction and correction rate seems to be lower than expected for a source publishing as frequently as they do. This is, for that reason, a very pertinent request to make - for any editors who wish to to begin researching so that, in the event an RfC is opened, the information has already been found and editors don’t have to then go hunting for it with a deadline of “before the RfC closes”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't intend to open the RfC until early July; part of the reason I opened this discussion, rather than diving into an RfC, was to give editors time to do research.

  And FYI, I didn't discuss this with Berchanhimez or anyone else prior to opening this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before, I am personally content for an RFC to be run right now, I think that should be done so as we can properly deal with unsourced commentary such as I do not like Al Jazeera because of their biased reporting of witnesses on Al Shifa siege. The hospital director who lied on Israel not providing fuel and incubators (there was photo evidence of incubators) and the false witness who said the IDF raped people and set their dogs on them.

  The only question I have at this point is whether the RFC should be limited to the question of reliability as regards AI/IP, perhaps we should just deal with that aspect. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think it should be limited to reliability as related to Israel-Palestine - and I'd even be willing to go one step further and say that it's only for narrowly construed topics of the conflict itself (and not tangential topics such as protests/etc). I just spent 30 minutes or more going through and picking apart the "corrections" that someone kindly compiled - and the evidence suggests that, even if they historically have published timely retractions/corrections, that since Oct 7, 2023 the timeliness, quality, and quantity of those corrections regarding the I-P conflict have all decreased - to the point that I can't find a single one issued since late January/early February - and those both took a couple weeks or over a month to issue.

  However, before a RfC is started, I think it is a good idea to continue to try to compile evidence and discuss it - and at the same time, some administrator attention to address the editors attempting to deflect/distract from the discussion and cast aspersions on others for discussing it is necessary. Whether this is in a request/restriction to not have threaded discussion in the RfC, or whether it's by warnings/sanctions against participating in the RfC if the editor will not comment on the actual substance of the issue, I don't know. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  So to be clear, the initial problem raised: "no editorial policy and no feedback mechanism" has in fact evaporated right? All that's left is "I shouldn't have to Google", and, "how would I know to click 'feedback' on the 'contact us' form to provide feedback?" ... Yeah? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Searching for the wrong word is a nice way to not get any results. Here is a fraction of what I found in the first few pages of google hits searching for "correction". Many of these are I-P related. [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] In conclusion, it is utterly false to claim that Al Jazeera rarely issues corrections. On the contrary, they do so frequently and I'd be surprised if it isn't more often than many other news sources who nobody thinks to challenge. Zero^talk 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, just compare that to the ever reliable Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/12/photo-baby-dead-hamas-israel-palestine-blinken/ on the dead babies story. No retraction on that page that I can see. Even the Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-takes-foreign-journalists-to-see-massacre-site-in-kfar-aza/ is better saying in a correction the story of the 40 babies 'has not been confirmed' - and then saying 'You see the babies...'! And how about all the burnt bodies the media referred to without saying how most of them came to be burnt? Al Jazeera is well up the scale with its corrections.

As to bias if Al Jazeera was trying to bias the story about the number of women and children killed in that school where Hamas was being targetted it would have been easy to put in a bit asking why any women were killed at all since there was a mens room and a womens room and the IDF were supposedly being so precise. Do you think anybody is going to be swayed in any way by a couple more or less being killed because they put out the earlier figure rather than checking every five minutes for the latest figure and updating? NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I specifically said they rarely issue retractions publicly - and in fact there are instances where instead of issuing a public retraction of a completely inaccurate story, they've simply removed that story entirely from their website. On the topic of the corrections you found, about half a dozen or so are from 2023, and are about the I-P conflict. And that's great - it shows that, at least generally speaking, pre-October 7, 2023, Al Jazeera has a good track record of issuing timely retractions and corrections.

But that's not what's in question here. BilledMammal opened this discussion specifically about the war in Gaza against Hamas. So, looking specifically at their coverage after Oct 7, 2023, I'll pull just those links out and discuss why only some of them are evidence of legitimate editorial processes:

• 24 Oct - not a correction, just the addition of a statement that hadn't arrived before publication.
• 30 Oct - fine correction - but keep in mind this is a correction that is anti-Israel in nature (I intend to show that they have a habit of quickly correcting when it makes Israel look bad or doesn't affect the meat and potatoes of the story, but not when it may make Hamas/Palestine look bad). While undated on the website, Internet Archive shows it appearing at most 5 days later.
• 15 Nov - correction of a factual error within a day of publication. Neutral correction.
• 12 Dec and 17 Dec - two corrections, both issued on 19 Dec, meaning the inaccurate information was in the first article for a week. While misquoting can happen, it should not take an entire week to resolve it. And again, this is a neutral/pro-Palestinian correction.
• 15 Dec - minor editorial error that doesn't have a date published for the correction - relatively minor error overall, only tangentially related to the conflict, but it's interesting there is no date published on the correction (unlike most corrections). The correction had not yet been published one week after the article, but was present a little over 2 weeks later. I can't be arsed to go through and find exactly what date and time it was added - but regardless, it's yet another example of a correction taking over a week.
• 29 Jan 2024 - this correction took a month and a half to make, and left pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli information that was incorrect in the article for that entire period. Odd that they can issue corrections when it favors one side within a couple days to a week at most, but it takes over a month when it is damaging to the side they're biased towards.
• 29 Jan - this isn't a correction, it's a clarification and quite honestly doesn't really even add any context to the article.

So... to summarize, the most recent ones presented are from the end of January - so going on 5+ months without any. And even then, of those that are presented that are actual corrections (so minus the ZIM 29 Jan correction and the 24 Oct YT statement), there are 5 total. Only one of those corrections was issued within a day of publication. Another (the anti-Israel removal of the warning incorrectly reported as given) was reported within a "few days" of publication. Two others were corrected/reported about a week to two weeks after the first publication of the inaccurate information. But the kicker here really is the second to last bullet point - the last correction for which we've been presented here. It took over a month to issue that correction. And the pattern has continued past the ones you identified but not by more than an additional week or so - editorial mistake took almost 2 weeks to correct in early February (neutral to "less harmful to Israel" territory). I have yet to find a single correction of any article about the conflict issued in the past 4 months or so.

It is not likely to be fruitful to surmise why it took them over a month to issue a correction that would be vaguely pro-Israel or anti-Palestine. But it's not limited to corrections that are of that nature - the majority of news organizations have a track record of fixing errors within a few days of publication at most. Perhaps the issue with Al Jazeera is due to bias, perhaps it's because they intentionally obfuscate their editorial policies and how to report corrections/errors, or perhaps they simply don't care about being reliable. While it is true they have issued a couple corrections of articles published after January, none I've seen have been related to the I-P conflict. It would be quite odd for them to have published inaccurate information about once per month related to the conflict for the first 3 months of it, but then have suddenly never published any inaccurate information about it since - wouldn't you agree?

Ultimately, the evidence shows that they rarely retract articles entirely, and that while they do publish corrections, they do not publish corrections in the timely manner that is generally expected of a reliable source, nor have they posted any corrections on articles published February onwards. This shows, for whatever reason, that while they may have used to have a good editorial control, there has been some change - either in editors' willingness to correct information that is less beneficial (after correction) to their desired opinions of Palestine, or in their staff's ability to do so in a timely manner. Example 1 BilledMammal provides is ripe for a correction - the numbers were updated within 24 hours, and now two weeks later there still hasn't been a correction of it.

TLDR: Something has changed at Al Jazeera - whether they have intentionally withheld corrections from articles when it damages their viewpoint, or whether it is honest editorial mistakes, the quality, number, and timeliness of corrections on the Israel Palestine conflict have all greatly decreased (if not become nonexistent) since October 7th, 2023, and especially severely since Late January/Early February 2024. I have no problem with them being considered reliable before October 7th, 2023. But there needs to be serious consideration given to sources after that time about the I-P conflict, up to the point of potentially considering them generally unreliable due to a steep decline in editorial processes in this topic area since that time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So do you consider the Times of Israel correction saying they had not got confirmation of the 40 beheaded babies enough then while the article still talks about babies and the stuff you have above about Al Jaazeera is somehow damming? That story about the babies really did have a propaganda effect. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

When I provided a list of corrections, on random topics in random order, I knew for sure that someone would claim that they aren't the right sort of corrections, that they took too long, whatever, whatever. If I answered those objections, further objections would be raised. Everyone here knows that an argument can be made for virtually anything. It means nothing, and a few anecdotes don't establish anything close to Berchanhimez's general assertions. Zero^talk 00:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, in all my examples, something is specifically highlighted with a section heading "Correction". I didn't include any examples where an article was updated on the basis of further information, even though such articles are very common (but hard to search for). Those examples also count as evidence of reliability. Zero^talk 00:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And some of those corrections are simply “we got a statement from the involved party that they didn’t provide to us before publication”. So you actually did provide evidence of that.

And if new information comes out, and an article is updated, then we do expect that to be prominently called out. Reliable sources don’t try to “hide” their corrections and updates. They prominently display them so that past readers know when visiting that something has been updated/changed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Taking one of the corrections you listed above: AJ notes the correction in bold and at the top of the story. I'd say that counts as "prominent" display.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are just some of their corrections post-Oct 7: [195], [196], [197] etc. And here are post-Oct 7 corrections that make IDF activities look more positive: [198], [199].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A step back to look at the metacontext of this complaint

All information in Israeli news outlets on the war must pass the censor who often rewrites it. Independent media access to the Gaza Strip is banned. The IDF censor blocked the publication of 613 articles in 2023, and rewrote (‘redacted) a further 2,703 over the same period. That means operatively that we are using as our core sources (here unchallenged) Israeli news outlets that repress reportage under a military regimen.

No journalist can enter Gaza except as an embedded person whose reportage is controlled by the IDF. It even seized all of the broadcasting equipment used by the Associated Press near Gaza until heavy pressure from the US forced Israel to cancel its decision The reason for seizing AP’s broadcasting cameras were that AP fed images to Al Jazeera, Israeli actions have killed 108 journalists and media workers in the Gaza Strip, and arrested a further 46 (effectively disappearing them) The son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau was assassinated by an Israeli strike, as was a cameraman, making the number of Al Jazeera journalists killed by Israel since 1996 13. High numbers of journalists have been arrested and even killed in the unrelated West Bank. The most famous case was Shireen Abu Akleh, almost definitely taken out by an Israeli sniper, responsibility for which was challenged intensely by the IDF in protracted media statements that were consistently modified as independent evidence undermined them. No charges were laid against the sniper. It is one of the charges laid against Israel in the International Criminal Court, with al Jazeera a party. The war has been ‘sanitized’ within Israeli media.

Each evening, Israelis are sitting down to watch their prime-time television news programs to see what happened that day in this war.And each evening, the pattern is much the same — night after night pictures of Israeli soldiers walking through streets of Gaza; Israeli tanks driving across fields in Gaza; interviews with families of hostages taken by Hamas on October 7; a military progress update by Israel's Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari. There will rarely, if ever, be a picture of a Palestinian. . . All of which means that most Israelis do not see pictures of injured Palestinian women and children or the destruction of Gaza into kilometre after kilometre of rubble to the point where it will be difficult to rebuild it.

The suffering of Gazan civilians barely features, veteran journalists say, three months into an Israeli offensive that has killed more than 22,000 people, displaced nearly 2 million, and left nearly half the population on the brink of famine and stalked by disease. “In general, the Israeli media is drafted to the main goal of winning the war, or what looks like trying to win the war. If you want to try to find some similarities, it’s along the lines of the American media after 9/11,” said Raviv Drucker, one of Israel’s leading investigative journalists. . . “[Israelis don’t see the pictures from Gaza that most of the world is seeing,]”

Israel banned Al Jazeera, the one media outlet it could not manage to bring under its control and the key one for showing the world what actually occurs on the ground in Gaza-material repressed in Israel -, on the 5 May saying it endangered national security. The ban was for 45 days, renewable.

The ban was renewed for a further 35 days (shortened by a court order) on June 6 but, according to Reuters extended to a further 45 days on 9 June.

That is the metacontext hovering over BM’s opening up this thread, two weeks later, suggesting Al Jazeera was unreliable as a Wikipedia source.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, could do with an article, Al Jazeera and Israel, the long running saga of.... Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Or compare that to this where they argue literal Israeli propaganda is a reliable source. It’s an attempt to ensure only avowedly pro-Israel sources may be used. And the basis for it is consistently lacking when one actually looks at the claims made. nableezy - 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. Not only that but since Oct 7 the frequency and severity of Israeli censorship has considerably increased. Zero^talk 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think something ought to be done to put a stop to this abuse of process. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point." — tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree with the two points above. Uninvolved but following this from a distance Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well put, Nishidani. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a shortage of press that's critical of Israel, with highly reliable sources like AP and NYT covering the conflict in reasonable detail (less than Al Jazeera, but most significant developments). More importantly though, there's no policy based argument for relaxing our WP:RELIABILITY standards based on such concerns. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a recent UN report which received broad support at the UN and is already journal material, including the Journal of Genocide Research.

AJ reported it and so did the BBC. I couldn't find any reports from US media. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like CNN covered it? And while BBC, Reuters and Times of Israel aren't US based, they also seem like reliable sources that could be used for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• This time sink (based on some editors' irrelevant opinions) won't change a thing as far as the reliability of AJ is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify on censorship -- it's a pretty typical wartime use of government power, even in a democracy. There isn't a conspiracy to fix narratives or hide major events; the Israeli press constantly criticizes the military from every angle. The military censor mainly blocks tactical coverage of ongoing operations, pictures of identifiable Israeli casualties, and especially the publication of names of casualties before the families have been contacted. The names are usually allowed out a few days later, clearly marked by "הותר לפרסם" (=now permitted to publish). Western outlets would publicly complain the instant they were prevented from publishing anything of analytical or political import. Similarly, outlets covering the US military were required to submit articles to the Department of Defense before publishing during the Gulf War. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli military censorship regime is not restricted to wartime. nableezy - 19:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

C'mon now. Israel banned all of AJ for being too pro-Palestinian. That's not censorship? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This entire subsection is an attempt to cast aspersions on the motivations of editors who are attempting to start and have a discussion on the reliability of the source in question. Even if the aspersions cast about BilledMammal are true (which I doubt), it doesn't change the fact that editors (including myself) have been trying to have a serious discussion about the issues BilledMammal brought up. I suspect the goal here is not only to cast aspersions, but to make this discussion so unwieldy that if/when an RfC is started it will be hard for editors who are monitoring only RfCs or are invited to it by the RfC bot and wish to contribute to the discussion to do so. This subsection will not change anything about the discussion of reliability - it does not matter that Israel is censoring media for the purposes of this discussion on the reliability of Al Jazeera. This section should be shut down and any editors attempting to stifle legitimate discussion by casting aspersions/disrupting the discussion process may need to be removed from commenting on this matter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting an editor is casting aspersions against another when they did not is itself questionable, and disruptive. I simply placed the raising of this spurious (in my view) issue about AJ's reliability in a larger context, which is that Israel censors a huge amount of war material and is particularly concerned by Al Jazeera being extraterritorial to its comprehensive afforts to control the narrative/reportage inside Gaza. Zero provided 26 diffs which contradicted the wild assertions based on a handful of dubious cases that AJ doesn't self-correct. What was the response? Silence. These humongous threads full of random assertions and their tedious rebuttals are a waste of our editing time, in the way they demand immense distraction from article composition and correction. If any RS source makes an error, and most do quite often, it can and almost always is corrected by talk page review. One cannot solve the problem by throwing out the baby with the barfwater. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources are not evaluated in "context", aside from the one exception of sources can be compared on similar necessary corrections to see if some (reliable) sources make them and others (less than reliable) don't. The larger context is irrelevant - it does not matter that another source was recently considered unreliable or discussed. The reliability of one source with completely different ownership does not impact the reliability of this source, and there have been legitimate concerns raised.

You're correct that Zero provided 26 links (not diffs, but mental typo presumably :P) - but if you'd notice, the majority of them are pre 2023, and of those since October 7, 2023, only 6-7 relate to the I-P conflict (I found an additional one myself too). Of those 6-7, they took over a week to publish in half of the cases, and all of them were before late Jan/early Feb - not a single correction/retraction has been found since then, even when BilledMammal identified clear need for them (inaccurate numbers corrected by health ministry, etc). If nothing else, this shows a clear decline in reliability on the I-P conflict since Oct 7th. I personally am not even interested in looking at their reliability on other subjects, hence why I have structured my discussion replies to be specifically about the I-P conflict. Why Zero and others (such as yourself) continue trying to make this a dichotomy of "they're either reliable on everything or they're not, and since they're reliable on other things like science they must be reliable on the war too" I don't understand. I get that you say the response was silence, but there's no rush, and I prefer to take my time to be able to address all pertinent information when I formulate a response. Sorry if that makes you think "silence", but I had posted that response about 10 minutes prior to this. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you had already started replying here and didn't see it.

There is not random assertions. Discussions of reliability are necessarily tedious - you have editors who believe it may be unreliable and others that believe it is reliable, and thus the discussion of reliability necessarily is tedious as it requires investigating their history and especially recent history of their editorial processes' rigor. Discussions about the editor's motive for starting this thread detract and distract from the ability of editors to have the tedious discussion that will preclude a larger RfC on the topic. And by the way, I stand by my claim that you are casting aspersions by opening this subsection. There is zero other reason the "metacontext" adds anything to this discussion, because it doesn't matter what happened with another discussion about another source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions of reliability are necessarily tedious, especially unnecessary ones. Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary, but they haven't issued a single correction on any article published about the I-P conflict since early February while they had issued about one to two per month between Oct 7th and that time? Funny how they somehow magically stopped making any errors in that topic area at that time. And the last two corrections they did publish took almost two weeks and over a month respectively. If that's not evidence that the editorial team has either stopped caring about corrections/errors as much, or that they are being required to limit them for bias reasons, I'm not sure what is. Sources' reliability can change - in fact, multiple sources on RSP are treated as generally reliable for a time period, and after a certain "cutoff" they are considered wholly unreliable (either in certain topics or altogether) as a result of changes in their reporting.

So what's unnecessary about this when without this discussion, there never would've been the analysis of the retractions and corrections that shows that there has been a steep decline (if not complete cessation) in their corrections related to the I-P conflict since Oct 7th and especially since early this year? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You've made your point. Try to exercise some discursive restraint, so that the already unmanageable mega-threads don't develop into unreadable subthreads. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

they haven't issued a single correction on any article published about the I-P conflict since early February while they had issued about one to two per month between Oct 7th and that time - well from Feb-May 2024 I believe there was a relative drop in the amount of fighting after victory at Khan Younis and preparations for the attack on Rafah. There’s a section on that in our article. Perhaps, simply, less controversial events happened. Or fewer errors were made. One need not immediately assume malfeasance. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern in the area is how they handled the Al-Shifa rape hoax, from late March 2024. Reliable sources are defined by their ability to assess the veracity of information presented to them, and determine whether it is sufficiently solid to present in their own voice, to presented attributed, or to not present at all.

However, we don't expect such sources to be perfect, and they are permitted to make mistakes - but when they do how they handle the mistake becomes important. This is particularly true when their mistake resulted in them spreading deliberate disinformation.

In Al Jazeera's case, when they discovered the story was a hoax they didn't publish a retraction, and while they have silently deleted some of the coverage some is still up. This behavior demonstrates that their process to correct errors is flawed, and insufficient for us to consider them a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure live blog of recent/breaking news events would be a reliable source anyway - my understanding is that the general consensus is that "live blog" events are not generally reliable as many reporters/editors have access to post on them and they generally have separate (if any at all), more rapid/relaxed editorial review before posts are allowed. And in live blogs, it's generally more acceptable to issue a correction/retraction as a new post to the live blog, since by the point it's realized one is needed, the original post is likely too far "down" in the timeline to be seen by many people anyway, thus a correction on the one post itself is likely useless.

I agree that the fact there are multiple stories for which Al Jazeera has simply deleted entirely rather than replacing them with a retraction notice shows that, since Oct 7th at least, there has been a shift away from acknowledging retractions and an attempt to hide the fact they published incorrect/inaccurate information. And that's not what a reliable source is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Al Jazeera's live blog is currently treated as reliable. There are 3689 references to it in mainspace, most of which appear to support claims in wikivoice. If nothing else, I think we need to make it clear that the live blog is not generally reliable, and should not be used to make claims in Wikivoice.

Regarding how to issue corrections, I would agree that it would be acceptable - even ideal - for Al Jazeera to have retracted that story by making a new post on their live blog, but they didn't do that either.

This is why I see Al Jazeera's behavior in regards to this hoax as so concerning; they published disinformation that generated widespread outrage, and when a few hours later it was found to be a lie made no attempt to correct the record and instead silently and partially removed it. A reliable source would be concerned that they had misled their audience and seek to correct the record, but Al Jazeera was not - and I think the fact that the nature of the misinformation was aligned with Al Jazeera's bias is relevant to why they had no interest in correcting the record. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't silent. Their former managing director himself called it "fabricated"[200]. Plenty of retractions in other news sources don't elicit a comment by senior staff, let alone a managing director (albeit a former one).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A reader shouldn’t be expected to read another news source to learn that a story was retracted. That’s the entire point - a reliable source should not “hide” their retractions, and especially shouldn’t be blabbing about them on other news sites while hiding the retraction on their own site. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm surprised it isn't at least marked as ACR for certain areas but I'm not sure I'll be commenting on any hypothetical RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

State funding and influence

There are multiple reliable sources which confirm the influence the Qatari state (which is an absolute monarchy) has on AJ:

• The Qatari Crisis and Al Jazeera’s Coverage of the War in Yemen by Gamal Gasim

“ its sudden increased coverage by Al-Jazeera English following the Qatari crisis would probably raise some legitimate concerns regarding such questions as whether Al-Jazeera English has been guilty of selection bias. ”

• Al-Jazeera’s “Double Standards” in the Arab Spring by Zainab Abdul-Nabi

“ the sudden change in Qatar’s foreign policy from a “cordial state” to an aggressive interventionist during the Arab Spring in 2011 has been followed by a similar shift in Al-Jazeera’s coverage. It demonstrates how this shift has altered the channel from providing effective public diplomacy to broadcasting blatant propaganda that directly serves Qatar and its agenda. ”

• Dominika Kosárová, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya: Understanding Media Bias

“ Several studies have been dealing with the question of whether state-sponsored Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are biased. Their findings suggest that the message of both media reflects the interests of their respective state-sponsors... The analysis shows that both media, when covering Muslim Summit, used manipulative techniques to deliver the opposite message about the Summit, which is in line with their state-sponsors’ often incompatible regional ambitions and foreign policy ”

Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Accuses Al-Jazeera of having selection bias. Of course it has selection bias! American newspapers focus far more on US politics than international. Can you really blame Middle Eastern media for focusing on the war in Yemen?

2. The Arab Spring was a seismic event, and it makes perfect sense for AJ to "aggressively" cover it. AJ's "aggressive" attitude (wherein they send their journalists into places other journalists don't go, do investigative journalism and ask uncomfortable questions) is a good thing.

3. All it says AJ is WP:BIASED, which doesn't make it unreliable. Most news sources have a bias and stick to their bias for commercial reasons (WaPo's anti-Trump stance is basically a part of its brand).

Let me ask you a question, Alaexis. The UN report that "At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped" in recent months was picked up by Al-Jazeera[201], Guardian, CNN[202] etc. But it was not picked up by Times of Israel AFAIK. Does that make ToI unreliable? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you got my point. The problem is not just that AJ has a bias. The problem, as these articles make clear, is that their biases are driven by the interests of the Qatari rulers.

1. They started covering the war in Yemen waged by Saudi Arabia more after the crisis in the relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
2. The change of AJ's coverage followed the change of the Qatari policy. AJ started broadcasting "blatant propaganda that directly serves Qatar and its agenda"
3. The AJ's bias reflects their state-sponsor's interests

Their coverage is directly affected by the interests of an absolute monarchy with no freedom of press to speak of.

Also, WP:BIASED doesn't say that the bias can be ignored. Even if it had no factual errors it would still mean that we need to balance their bias per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. Alaexis_¿question? 20:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is another example of Qatar using AJ for their political purposes [203]

“ Qatar is using the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders and offering to cease critical transmissions in exchange for major concessions, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

2010? That article also says "It has been seen by many as relatively free and open in its coverage of the region" Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Objective statement in WikiVoice or an opinion requiring attribution for Swift album

Does the following statement, to be added to The Tortured Poets Department, require in-text attribution or can it be stated objectively in WIKIVOICE:

"The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions."

Sources for this statement are:

• "Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17." Romano, Aja (June 1, 2024). "Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the Feud Real? Who's Dissing Who?". Vox. (Romano is a culture reporter with over a decade of experience; see WP:RSPVOX)
• "There was a moment, late in the week, when it looked as if Brat would debut at No 1. Then, on Thursday, Swift stepped in: at 6.57pm, Taylor Nation, Swift’s public-facing PR arm, which interacts with fans and provides news and updates, announced the release of six deluxe reissues of her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), each with different additional live versions and voice memos, available only in the UK until 11:59pm that evening – the end of the tracking week for the album charts. (The new releases bring the total number of TTPD variants to 34.)" D'Souza, Shaad (June 14, 2024). "Taylor Swift May Have Captured the Charts, Cut Charli XCX Captured the Zeitgeist". The Guardian. (See WP:THEGUARDIAN)
• "Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish are poised to have a heated chart battle this week as Eilish’s latest album, Hit Me Hard And Soft, will compete with The Tortured Poets Department to top the Billboard 200 albums chart, as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales"; "Releasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." Murray, Conor (May 23, 2024). "Taylor Swift Could Block Billie Eilish From Debuting New Album At No. 1 As Fan Rivalry Grows". Forbes. (Murray is a Forbes staff writer, which means his article falls under the generally reliable standard of WP:FORBES)

Previous discussion can be found here. Pinging Ronherry as the other editor involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is fine without attribution.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to provide attribution, such as: "According to some journalists, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts—a method other artists have also used to bolster album sales and chart performance." ℛonherry☘ 17:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But why is such attribution for a well-sourced, objective statement necessary? This is the consensus of multiple reliable sources. Also, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts unnecessarily makes Swift a passive actor in the release of multiple versions and deletes the sourced statement regarding active fan engagement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Like you stated before, we've already discussed in circles in the talk page. My response here is simply providing an alternative way of phrasing the prose you added. I'm not placing an argument here. But to answer your question, it's simply because it's not "objective". The sources state it is Swift's intention to release multiple editions to stay at the top spot, but how could any source know Swift's intention unless she stated it herself? I'd like to highlight WP:V here. As it's the source's belief that she is doing it for that reason, this is why attribution is important. If unattributed, it would not be neutral and would just pushing a POV. An objective statement would be "Swift released an edition", whereas a subjective opinion would go on to guess why she released an edition. Opinions about a release, just like the critical reception section, must be attributed to the source(s). ℛonherry☘ 10:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a guess, though. This is a known marketing strategy, described as such by not critics but rather reporters. In any case, we now have a decent consensus in favor of including this information. If you want, you can appeal elsewhere, but three editors to one seems fairly conclusive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. This discussion here is barely a day old. Excluding you and me, only two other editors have expressed their opinions. I'm not going to edit the contended prose during an ongoing discussion like you just did, but I have to let you know there's no hurry. I'll wait till more editors show up. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to leave it unattributed given the certainty and unanimity in sources. XeCyranium (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think attribution is warranted here. It is a strong consensus of sources without any contradictory evidence.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing a need for attribution. This isn't an opinion like 'the album has some of the most stirring music of the generation' or 'Swift's lyrics are well-worn but effective' (to just invent some hypothetical statements that would require attribution). The sentence/claim in question an observation that involves some interpretation, but in the way that, say, a historian or social scientist or journalist interprets human behavior as an observer attempting objectivity, not as a critic assessing subjective merit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Absent the actor’s statement of intent, we should attribute historians who assert about the motivations behind an act. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Curiously enough, 90% of my edits are related the attribution of viewpoints. That's not what our rules on sources state, nor is it how they are used in practice. If we do not have a statement on the intentions of a historical actor, but all historians who voice an opinion agree on those motivations, there is no need to attribute.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You do agree the journalist is "interpret"ing an act from Swift, then shouldn't the prose be "media publications interpreted the release of [...]"? ℛonherry☘ 16:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I disagree, as stated above. This is a consensus of reliable sources, so we can state it without attribution.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that needs attribution. Any reader would wonder if Swift or her camp actually stated that, or if it was the impression of the stunt received by critics and journalists. It's the latter; attribute. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, only Vox comes out and says "Swift did this so she could stay on the charts". The others intimate it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If Swift or her team provided a rationale for why they released multiple versions of the same album, that would require attribution. Multiple reliable sources acknowledging a widespread market trend do not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A market trend, sure. But an assertion about intent? What privileged insight could these sources have into the motivation behind releasing lazy deluxe issues? We have to consider how this sort of motivation gets ascribed in music journalism—it’s not because they got a memo. They’re surmising. But actually in this case they’re not even stating their guesses, they’re just nudging about it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you square the Forbes source saying "as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales" with just nudging about it. Either way, the journalists are surmising and publishing researched claims subject to editorial processes. Nor is anyone suggesting Swift is just accidentally releasing multiple versions. According to Wikipedia, that's what characterizes an objective statement, rather than a subjective appraisal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That was my point. It would not need attribution if Swift or her team said so, but that's not the case. In case of such claims about a person or their estate, the information should abide WP:BLP. A journalist's interpretation of a work is most definitely not a fact, but just their opinion. This is textbook media frenzy and feedback loop. It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts, and catgorize the rest as interpretations with attribution. There are no statistics or research in the above sources, breaking down the album-equivalent units of Swift's album and its contender (the #2 album); two of the three sources quote tweets from "stan accounts" criticizing Swift for releasing the editions to "stay at the number-one spot". If something is this uncertain regarding the intent, what is the harm is adding the clause "According to some journalists" or something similar to the claim made in the prose, like we always do in these cases? It is also to be noted that there are not enough sources. Only the Vox source supports the "were a way for Swift and her fans to stay at number-one" claim; the other two simply say Swift released the editions and do not say that her intent is to "stay at number-one. ℛonherry☘ 16:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Claims about a person or estate would only fall under BLP if the subject is living or recently deceased. "It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts" just isn't true, who told you that? We publish plenty of opinions, analysis, interpretations, and whatnot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Further evidence regarding the multiple versions being a tactic to maintain the number-one position from Variety (WP:VARIETY) and The New York Times. From the NYT: "Swift has also demonstrated a highly effective strategy in releasing successive 'versions' of her albums. In the days before last week’s chart, when she was competing with Eilish, Swift released six limited digital editions with bonus tracks. Over the weekend, she announced two CDs, each with an exclusive acoustic track. Week after week, fans keep buying them, helping Swift stay strong on the chart." This is verified fact, not opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, your quote says it helped "Swift stay strong on the chart", where does it say "stay at number-one the chart"? All the sources you've showed here only say the versions helped the album's chart performance. None of them (except only Vox) say it helped "Swift and the fans stay number-one of the chart" like the claim you make in the contended prose. ℛonherry☘ 17:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be splitting hairs... "strong" "top" and "number-one" all appear to be substantially equivilent in context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"Substantially equivalent in context" how? You cannot assume what the author means. That's not how sourcing works. An album morving forward from No. 168 to No. 5 is also a "strong performance". That's not equivalent to going No. 1. You can add a citation only when it explicitly supports the prose you're adding. "strong" and "stay at number-one" different words with different meanings. ℛonherry☘ 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's an article explicitly about how Swift has remained number one on the charts. It describes the competition between TTPD and Eilish's album for the top spot, saying "This week she is atop the Billboard 200 album chart for a sixth consecutive time, after a monster debut in April and a series of challenges — each handily fended off - from Billie Eilish, Dua Lipa and the rapper Gunna" and "In the days before last week’s chart, when she was competing with Eilish, Swift released six limited digital editions with bonus tracks".You're suggesting an article entitled "Taylor Swift Is No. 1 Again, With Little Competition on the Way" isn't about Swift's album holding the top spot. Are you worried that this information is somehow defamatory or negative towards Taylor Swift? The NYT, Variety, Forbes, Vox, and The Guardian all have editorial boards that seem confident in stating objectively that multiple versions sell more albums meaning more time at number one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:HEADLINE, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly." Did the authors of the sources you've shown here say the versions helped "Swift and her fans to stay number-one on the charts"? No. Only Vox makes that claim. The NYT, Variety, Forbes, and The Guardian don't make that claim and only say that Swift released the versions to boost her album; there is not a single mention of "staying at number one" in any of those four sources. Hence, the material you're trying to add is poorly sourced, as per WP:BLPSOURCE, which also states such material "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", which is in turn the point of this discussion. ℛonherry☘ 18:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the body of the article directly tied the release of multiple versions to Swift and her fan maintaining the album's position at the number one position. Those quotes I provided all bear that out. Look, seven editors have chimed in to discuss this. Two (including you) have opposed the material going unattributed. However, five editors believe it can be stated in WIKIVOICE, and three (including me) have even reiterated their support for the proposed version. What more do you need? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Can you quote me the prose from the sources you listed (apart from Vox) that supports the claim "helped Swift and her fans stay number-one on the charts"? Thank you.

Plus, a RSN discussion is not about anybody "needing" anything. It's about the article and what's best for it as per Wiki guidelines. Do you have a problem with the discussion happening under the discussion topic that you opened? ℛonherry☘ 14:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary that you personally be satisfied as to the wrongness of your initial position, it is sufficient that there is a clear consensus here that you are wrong. (With which I agree.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said. I don't "need" anything. I don't need to be satisfied. And I don't believe there is right or wrong here, just what most editors believe is good for the article. ℛonherry☘ 16:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Substantially equivilent in that in the given context they appear to mean the same thing. How does one read the english language without making assumptions about what the author means? Thats how our langauge works, its largely context based which means that you make an assumption about the meaning given the context that the word is presented in. Its not a word match game, and those who insist on playing a word match game on wikipedia tend to eat up the patience of their fellow editors at an alarming rate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the rest of my sentence? I said "It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts, and catgorize the rest as interpretations with attribution." The "plenty of opinions, analysis, interpretations" fall under the latter, which are always attributed in Wikipedia. Thanks for making my point for me. ℛonherry☘ 17:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

But they are not always attributed in Wikipedia, what makes you think that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. "Opinions, analysis, interpretations" are always attributed. It's the uncontended facts that have critical consensus that are not attributed. ℛonherry☘ 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. If it were, any statement about the motivation behind an individual's actions which was not confirmed by their own words would have to be attributed. We don't do that. The consensus is against you here, move on.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about and are going to be lucky to avoid a competence block if you keep this sort of act up. If the seven eminant experts in a field all share the same opinion/analysis/interpretation then its perfectly reasonable to put that in WikiVoice... For example "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." is unattributed analysis... We don't write "According to a number of highly regarded academics the Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I am glad to let you know I definitely know what I'm talking. Can you please stick to the topic and cease commenting on me personally? Every other editor in this discussion are only talking about the topic of this discussion, while you have been trying hard to provoke me. You've been previously told to stop hounding on me. I have stuck to the topic of this discussion and tried ignoring you, following me everywhere on Wikipedia, but as your attacks targetting me don't seem to cease, I believe it I have no other choice than directly addressing this here. I think it is you who is going to be lucky to avoid a block if you keep your well-documented sealioning up. ℛonherry☘ 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a rather strong way of saying "Yes you guys are right, I was wrong about how in-text attribution worked on wikipedia." To quote another user "That is simply not the case. If it were, any statement about the motivation behind an individual's actions which was not confirmed by their own words would have to be attributed. We don't do that. The consensus is against you here, move on." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I was not wrong about how in-text attribution works on Wikipedia. But if the consensus is not what I believe in, so be it. You seem to think I have a problem with that? I don't. I will accept the implementation of the consensus in the article and I will move on, but that does not mean I have to agree with the consensus. I don't agree with it but I won't stand in the way of it being implemented. That's a foreign concept to you, I know. Your sealioning, hounding and battleground behavior is very real and you're literally doing it right now. Looks like you have not made any improvements that have been suggested in this vast ANI discussion delving into your unconstructive pattern of behavior. ℛonherry☘ 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree on how attribution works then. I would note though that after saying that you "won't stand in the way of it being implemented" at 17:26 you then took to the talk page at 17:58 to stand in the way of it being implimented complaining that "you're rushing to wrap up the discussion and pulling up the percentage "in favor" when a formal poll did not even take place. You, the editor who opened the RSN discussion, have self-declared a consensus (when guidelines suggest a third person uninvolved in the original disagreement as best-suited to declare a consensus) and have already restored the contended edit on what is now a good article before even formally closing the RSN discussion."[204] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable with no in-text attribution needed. These sources are discussing the business ramifications (album sales rankings) of business decisions (album release strategy), and the context indicates that the intent of Swift's album release strategy is not unusual or extraordinary in any way. What is extraordinary is the number of album variants released, which The Guardian places at 34; that number should be attributed if it is not supported by multiple reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

[205]

The source that is being reintroduced in that diff quotes unnamed band official as "attesting" to a "paucity of excavation work and absence of bones", which is, I guess, *one* way of saying that the community is divided about whether to excavate any remains that are found, and therefore there have not been any excavations to date. The source's exquisite drive for accuracy and meticulous attention to detail is reflected in its quote from one of the foremost denialists of residential school deaths, whom it refers to as "she" even though his name is Jacques. This is not a mistake a Canadian publication would make, and indeed, it is owned by a corporation based in India. It is most certainly not an authority on indigenous affairs in British Columbia and by no means the only source available about the underground radar findings in Kamloops. 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Code Talker: reinserted the material, along with another uncited sentence to the same effect. Perhaps he has reasons he would like to share. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw this when following a link to the page on WP:RPPI and I was also doubting that this was a proper source. It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this

Time Now wasn't the only source. Times Now was reporting on a Canadian news agency called Western Standard's coverage on the issue that made headlines.

There are other agency apart from Western Standard independently reporting the same issue such as Blacklock's Reporter.

See this [206], [207] for the sources and lines അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this page, Western Standard and Blacklock's also appear to be unreliable sources. If the main sources reporting on this are all unreliable, mostly or entirely with similar editorial bias, that makes this look quite questionable indeed, and Times Now getting even basic details of the people they're quoting wrong doesn't instill confidence that they're reliable, either. (The overall effect of seeing so many unreliable biased sources being used is to suggest there's a POVPUSH going on.) -sche (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

PS I have just noticed the Times of India RfC above. This website is owned by the same corporation as the Times of India. Elinruby (talk) NB - Daniel Case just now ec-protected the article but a good 40% of the issues are coming from editors with accounts, so this is not resolved. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) @CodeTalker:

Well, if those edits are coming from autoconfirmed accounts, it is. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case Don't get me wrong. Because the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc were the first to announce underground radar findings, Kamloops Indian Residential School is the nexus of the denialism, and protecting it is huge. I have removed this sort of stuff from these articles...too many times. So what you did allows long-standing accounts but not new ones, is that what you are saying? I am not sure how many edits everyone has but this will definitely cut down on the Sandy Hook BS that's been going on. So thank you. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

EC is 50 days and 300 edits. We can also revoke it if it is abused. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

noting here that the source was previously reverted back in [208] by Riposte97, who may wish to comment. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby claiming that editors who disagree with you are engaged in 'denialism' and 'Sandy Hook BS' is simply not productive.

Regarding the source, I think it should logically follow the Times of India RfC as a subsidiary thereof. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since the same corporation owns them. You do know, however, that the reliability of the Times of India is being questioned in an RfC just a few sections up? As for your objections to "denialism", huh. We go by sources and that is the word that they use to describe people who are convinced that there are no bodies in those graves Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC in parent companies do not necessarily follow to subsidiaries. One only needs to take a look at Murdoch's empire for why that isn't the case. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. But doesn't it suggest that it deserves some scrutiny? Not that it matters, since the thing about the pronoun indicates MT and and I mean, look at it. Meanwhile I got 64,000 hits on Scholar, some of which would have been American residential schools. Still shows there is no need for this sketchy source definitely-not-best source Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course scrutiny is warranted given everything presented above. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby, I think you didn't address the main issue in your post. Are there other sources whose reliability is not in dispute that contradict the claims added here (that no bodies were excavated and no evidence of graves was found)? Do you believe that they are false, and if yes, why? Alaexis_¿question? 06:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So the question would be: How would they know and what is THEIR source? Did they dispatch reporters to BC or are they just repeating what has been told? Presumably British Columbia or Canadian sources would know more about this because it's a local story. The CBC covers stories like this all the time with a lot of depth and neutrality. So the simple question is: what do they have to say? They should have priority for sourcing over foreign media. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: No question the CBC is a reliable source. On a par with the BBC. I would put CTV a little lower than that but not much. The daily nearby (!) would be the Prince George's Sentinel, afaik a broadsheet, and a tabloid in Hope does come out with a print edition. The Hope Standard is one of several online news sources run by something called Black Box Media, but they do a pretty professional job of keeping track of road closures and the local emergency levels. Also stuff about elections and bylaws and what ever. There are about 10 to 12 of those in places like Williams Lake and Agassiz. The Vancouver Sun is a fine paper of course. Globe and Mail is equivalent to the New York Times. Toronto Star is kind of People Magazine. I assume people know the Washington Post and the New York Times. I put a sample of journal articles in the thread above titled Canadian House of Commons and the Pope. Elinruby (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

These are all other sources are or could be used in the article. What do you want a source for, exactly, Alaexis? Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I understand that the source was used to support this edit which added two claims to the article:

1. As of March 2024, no remains have been excavated
2. As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves.

Do you believe that they are false? Are there sources whose reliability is not in doubt that contradict these two claims? If yes, the question would be a no-brainer. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools

Does westernstandard.news seem like a good source for residential schools in Canada? I have my own opinion but I would prefer to hear yours. The sentence is: In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This was at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I removed it because the allocation was already mentioned and cited and it did not seem notable to me that the band had no particular comment. As mentioned elsewhere, there are literally hundreds of RS and at least dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss these findings. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I just discovered the following on the talk page: [209] Riposte97 may wish to comment. Since I removed the material today, apparently this discussion was ignored, despite the suggestion from FJ that dispute resolution might be appropriate. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)@Fluorescent Jellyfish:Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone with no connection to Canada except as an occasional visitor and only a vague outsider's understanding of the problems with the residential schools and Canadian treatment of First Nations more generally, after comparison with our article, the linked newspaper article comes off as a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. Your talk page link confirms a likely bias. I don't know about the newspaper's reliability in general but I think we should avoid using this source; I'm sure better sources can be found for this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's being used for the bare claim that no bodies have yet been found. The allocation need not be used if there are NPOV concerns. However, it's an essential fact that no bodies have been confirmed through exhumation, as the core claim relies on this work being done. Merely pointing out that this has not yet occurred does not a 'hit piece' make. Riposte97 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also the case that no zambonis. leprechauns. icebergs or obelisks have been found. Why are we beating the dead horse of something not having been found yet? Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not the facts in the story that make it a hit piece, but the way those facts are cherry-picked and carefully ordered to cause readers to draw an inference. If we did the same thing in a Wikipedia article it would be a violation of WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection with Canada other than I've visited annually for most of my life. However, I have researched residential schools in the US and Canada quite extensively. The reliability of this source should be questioned. I agree with David. This piece seems to be written to delegitimize the claim because of the absence of evidence while the scene is still being investigated. If they had simply stated "no bodies have been recovered, at this point, but evidence is still being gathered" that would be an accurate statement but that would also not generate as many clicks. There is an obvious bias here but the bias isn't the issue. It is in what they wrote and how they wrote it. Because of this I would say we shouldn't use this source for this subject material. I would need to evaluate their reporting on other subjects to judge their reliability in those instances. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not familiar with this source, but it appears to be a website/online publication, so out of principle I would prefer an actual newspaper like The Catholic Register, which can be used to source the same claim: No accounting for burial sites’ funding. Astaire (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems The Catholic Register here has news on the issue that can be used as citations instead of Western Standard. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussion of reliability of sources. Not for workshopping edits to articles. You should take your suggestion up in the relevant article's talk. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never been to Canada (and I'm not sure why we're all announcing whether we have or not), and in any case I'm inclined to agree with ARoseWolf and David Eppstein that this Western Standard piece and its citation to support the sentence OP pointed out is not a WP:BESTSOURCE and seems quite skewed and undependable. As David Eppstein phrases, Western Standard seems to be attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money [and] haven't produced immediate results. I agree with not using this source for this subject material. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant in that we have some really egregious errors of fact going on and we are discussing what is in fact conventional wisdom in Canada. One of my passports is Canadian. I lived elsewhere most of my life but moved four years ago to a remote village in British Columbia. I attended an indigenous ceremony for children who died in Kamloops. There is in fact a very vibrant local journalism scene, both online and print usually, and this was extensively covered by all of them. All of them are RS; see for example the Hope Standard [210] (print), Prince George Citizen [211] (print), Chilliwack Progress [212] (print) and CFJC [213] (TV). And then of course given the subsequent announcements all over Canada, all of the big papers in Vancouver, Toronto, New York and DC covered the story and at this point the journal articles have proliferated: I have cited settler studies, medical, indigenous and Canadian history journals as well as historical writings in this topic area. Kamloops is a day's drive away. I edited all of the associated Wikipedia articles extensively at the time. We flew our town flag lowered for over two years here. Depending on where I sit in my house Google sometimes reports my location as a reserve. Most of the people I know are indigenous to some degree, but the definitions for that are fraught; let's just say the local indigenous community is extensive, close-knit and ancient. They have always been here. I myself am not indigenous, btw; I am uncomfortable speaking for those who are, but nobody else seems to be doing it in this case and somebody somewhere has for two years been getting their jollies by inciting people to show up at the burial site in Kamloops with shovels to "prove" that there are, as they believe, no bodies. I can cite those arrests. I don't see why we have to amplify these... struggling to find the right words for Wikipedia... shall we say very poorly sourced and very harmful claims. Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely second (and appreciate) your statements, as well as the depth of feeling behind them. I'm also in BC. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, I have IRL done academi and research, etc., about the Canadian far right, and indeed Canadian white supremacy. It's interlinked, insidious, horrendous, and it was deeply upsetting to see these far-right, racist, disinformation-spreading publications used as sources on Wikipedia, on a topic of *such* importance. Wikipedia is where so many people get their info, and it's where so many people also find further reading, for that matter. It's shameful to add legitimacy to these disreputable sources, and thus aid in the spread of racist conspiracies.

And it's so heartening to see multiple people upset about it, too

This article, especially, is deeply, deeply important. I don't know if people outside of Canada would be able to grasp how very much care must be taken with it. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they do. One of these three sources became the #1 Google hit for residential school gravesites after the last rewrite. I noted that at Wikiproject Canada at the time. That was new. People were already trying to dig up burial sites. Go team Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked and it was the Fraser Institute, actually, another such source, and this morning Wikipedia has it by a nose. Except that its article too implies that there are no bodies in the suspected graves. Elinruby (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Fraser Institute is unfortunately another of the far-right publication milieu in Canada, though framed as a think tank. It's very unfortunate because in previous, well, decades, the Fraser Institute was pretty conservative but not fully conspiratorial. These days? Quite fully conspiratorial, and shares authors/members with various far-right publications.

It's very unfortunate.

The far-right 'alternative media' miasma in Canada is very depressing. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't use it. The WS does not have a reputation for reliability, nor does it have the trappings of a reliable source. I have traveled to Canada. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone who aspires one day to visit Canada, I just wanted to add that bias =/= a reason to exclude a source, especially for factual claims. There is nothing to suggest that WS isn't reliable. We may need an RfC to resolve the question definitively. Riposte97 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a laughable source. It got something as basic as the right pronoun for their subject matter expert wrong. Nobody named Jacques is ever a she. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the Western Standard with Times Now. Riposte97 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time for another round of this. The source that you used in the article. I clicked the footnote link. I read the article several times then went to the About page. Also I don't understand the piping in that wl. You are piping a link to this section of this page to "Times Now" for some reason. Why? Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided extensive evidence that Western Standard is unreliable, in my original responses to Riposte97's refusal to allow my edit. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this and starting this discussion here!

As mentioned by @Elinruby@Elinruby I wrote an extensive reply providing evidence that Western Standard is not a reliable sorcery (after my original edits were reverted by Riposte97).

To quote myself (hopefully that's all right):

In real life I research disinformation, misinformation, and the Canadian far-right. I'm familiar with the Western Standard from my work. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought you were quite eloquent and it's a shame you were ignored. He has since doubled down on claiming that it is a reliable source and yesterday demanded that I restore it. He also mischaracterized my editing, but this is not the venue for going into that. Point is, he claimed I had done something wrong and demanded I restore this material, whose purpose does not appear to be encyclopedic. See the section titled "removal of content" at Kamloops Indian Residential School. And thank you for speaking up. This has been ongoing since the underground radar findings were announced. Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby To be absolutely clear, I did not demand you restore the material. Please strike that claim. Riposte97 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. It's a reliable source too. You are bluffing that no one will go read the page. I would say "heavily suggested in a bullying manner while suggesting that I was... something." I think that is pretty synonymous. Elinruby (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is I who first cited Western Standard in that page whose news article circulated around the Globe through other established news outlets quoting WS including news outlets from India.

one of your @Elinruby reply to @Riposte97 at talk page of Kamloops Indian Residential School under the section removal of content yes. RSN isn't going to go in your favor.

A handful of people under this notice board deciding for entire Wikipedia which has millions of articles generated from every corner of Earth, which sources are reliable which sources are not to be used in Wikipedia in a matter of time is injustice to the level that when I checked the Wikipedia list of reliable sources, all the news media outlets that has news which seemed to be right wing or conservative is silenced in Wikipedia, possibly through discussions like this involving a few people with same set of bias mind set. It is to the point I have read some comments that implies even if no bodies are uncovered because the First nation community decides so out of their community's sensitivity, the mass grave reports equates to be a fact and not to be questioned, like it would result blasphemy. It is not how provisional truth and investigation works. If there are bodies there needs to be a solid proof, narratives on ground disturbances, missing records, are not solid proofs until the supposed graves are uncovered with bodies of children with archeological data, whether the first nation like it or not. Here the Western Standard themselves claim they have tried to contact the first nation community but they declined, also says about a Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirming the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. Spokesperson's response and first nation community's decline is a news is reliable unless proven wrong. Until then the news has to stay.

Silencing a section of medias does no good to Wikipedia in long. As the world is for everyone to exist, Wikipedia do also need to represent views of every wing and sides sans silencing them. Or else in long run it will result in exclusive use of Wikipedia as a platform for one sided narratives, and eventually the increasing global distrust in mass media will also get translated to Wikipedia making it obsolete. What value does a shadow has if there is no light? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree more: it is truly shameful that The Onion, Weekly World News, China Global Television Network, Bentham Science Publishers, and Infowars are not allowable as sources. How can Wikipedia possibly highlight the fullness of human knowledge if we do not allow our readers access to read articles based on fraud, spam, propaganda, nonsense, and conspiricizing? --JBL (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You've not given any sensible argument for why the source is reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Elinruby that this particular sentence doesn't seem to add much to the article (considering that the allocation is already mentioned) but I'm not sure it's a reliability issues. Do you believe that any part of this sentence is false? Are there other sources contradicting it? Alaexis_¿question? 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what to call it, but that source is definitely not reliable. The editing looks like some sort of SEO if you ask me, but I can't prove it because I don't have the tools to prove it. That wording goes with a wave of news coverage about the early use of the word "mass grave", a mistake made in some early news reports, as proof of something or other. (These would be individual graves). It's like when people start talking about pizza parlours.

Let's make this easy. I just saw a CBC source that says no decision had been reached about excavation. But look, when you dig into it a lot of bodies have been found. They were washing into the river after a flood at a school out on the prairies somewhere, and one band did the underground radar specifically to avoid its contractors digging up bodies when they did utility maintenance or whatever. Because that had been a recurring problem. We also know that a lot of children are unaccounted for. The don't know where the children are buried, that is the point. And why they are looking.Elinruby (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Like Firefangledfeathers, I'm not finding evidence that they have any reputation for fact-checking or reliability, nor that they are used by other reliable sources (as opposed to the occasional random blog); indeed, the only cases I've found where RS mention Western Standard are cases where RS mention that Western Standard published something with so many errors that they had to retract it ([214], [215], [216]). The specific WS article in question seems designed to mislead, as David Eppstein laid out, which is also a bad sign. On a balance, and pending more information being presented, WS does not seem reliable. Elinruby said above that there are many much better sources covering this topic, which seems likely, so there does not seem to be any reason to try to use WS. -sche (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Dorchester Review, again

Is The Dorchester Review reliable for the statement A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin. that is for some reason currently in the lede of Kamloops Indian Residential School? The Wikipedia article for the Review says: In 2022, the Review posted an article by Jacques Rouillard on their blog, suggesting there was no concrete evidence of mass unmarked burials at Indian Residential Schools. which was cited in an article in the United Kingdom's The Spectator. In 2022, Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Marc Miller expressed concern about the rise of residential school denialism and rebuked those that criticized "the nature and validity of these and other recovery efforts" following the announcement of the discovery of potentially unmarked grave at the St Joseph's Mission School. In a Dorchester Review blog entry, Tom Flanagan and Brian Giesbrecht replied to Miller. In another Review blog post, anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein challenged Miller's statement about the reliability of indigenous knowledge.Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Dorchester Review article mentions neither a tooth nor a rib being discovered, animal or otherwise. There is some discussion in the comments of that article about childrens' teeth/bones which have allegedly been found, but comments by pseudonymous members of the public are clearly not a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not only do I think we should probably avoid that source, but I think the claims regarding teeth and bones are, as Caeciliusinhorto noted, wholly original to comments made on the article. I would support removal of that spurious claim that was originally made by an unqualified internet commentator who was seeking to delegitimize the search for buried bodies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So am I hearing consensus that it should be removed because the source is not only not reliable but also misrepresented? I didn't actually check the text; I just know the source because I looked into it on previous occasions and every I have reference I have ever seen from it was always maddeningly inaccurate in obscure ways. I personally think it should be deprecated but it has to be discussed first und so wieder. Elinruby (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I support full deprecation of DR at the moment, but it definitely has the trappings of a problematic source (I'd characterize it as a partisan source less suitable for the encyclopedia than National Review). In this case, though, the claim about bones definitely needs to be removed. That's a flat violation of WP:USERGEN and I'm glad your instincts told you something was off. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

less suitable than the National Review works for me for now. I will try to get to removing that, but it won't hurt to give people a little more time to talk if they want to. I just feel the need to check if I am going to be the one who does it and I need a break right now, I had a lot of notifications last night when I came home. If somebody who has already looked and knows it's bad wants to remove it, I promise to throw confetti. Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Further reading:[217] (for level of emotional reaction and some back history) Elinruby (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The question of the general reliability of The Dorchester Review, or even the particular article being cited, is irrelevant to this discussion because, as User:Caeciliusinhorto-public pointed out, the actual source for the the claim in the wikipedia article is a reader's comment (by a "Ken Finlayson" responding to another reader "M Craft") appended to that article, which is unambiguously unusable as a source. Abecedare (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

• I removed the statement and citation from the lede; there was no mention of this tooth in the body and I am unsure whether it is due in the lede anyway, in addition to all of the above. Elinruby (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• While agreeing with Abecedare, I wish to note (for posterity) that The Dorchester Review (TDR) ought to be treated as a GUNREL source. TDR claims to be a semi-annual journal of history and historical commentary but regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. It is mostly described as a conservative media outlet and all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:

  The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
  — Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.

  Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
  — Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.

  Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
  — MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2

  [T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
  — Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.

  Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

RfC: The Dorchester Review

What is the reliability of The Dorchester Review?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Note, see previous discussions at RSN: here and here. See previous discussion on an article's talk here TarnishedPath^talk 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

No need for RfC How often is this source being used? It seems it's being mentioned only in context of the Canadian Indigenous Schools topic. Is the source being used so widely that we need a universal statement? Are we past the point where we can ask "is this source acceptable for this claim"? We really need to limit these general RfCs for cases where we have had many discussions regarding a source (Fox News for example). Since this isn't such a case I would suggest closing this RfC and focusing on specific uses. Note, my view is more procedural vs anything related to the specific use question above. Springee (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've demonstrated above that the source has had many discussions. The threshold has been passed for an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 15:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In real life I'm a researcher. I have done a lot of research into disinformation publications and the Canadian far-right. The Dorchester Review is part of the Canadian far-right publication ecosystem, alongside publications such as the Post Millennial, True North, Rebel News, the Western Standard, etc, (which also share many authors among them). They are well-known for propagating many, many, many far-right conspiracy theories, and for their racism, homophobia, etc.

In particular, they are a big proponent of anti-Indigenous racism and Residential School denialism, which is a very big deal: Canada's Residential Schools have been identified as essential tools of Canada's genocide against Indigenous people.

Chris Champion is the editor of the Dorchester Review. He is well-known - and well-condemned - for being a Residential School denialist. For instance:

"Champion again generated controversy after claiming claiming Indigenous students at residential schools had an “absolute blast.”" [source]

Champion - alongside Tom Flanagan, author from the extremely unreliable far-right publication The Western Standard - co-authored a book of residential school denialism.[source]

It is a heavily biased source with a major agenda. It should not, in my opinion, be considered reputable. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So, basically, I would firmly support Option 4. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this seems premature: the source has barely been discussed (just two tiny discussions of barely 1 screen each), and never outside of one very specific context; I have not seen evidence provided of whether the source is reliable or unreliable outside of that context: we need such evidence, and RFCBEFORE discussion of it as a general source, before having an RFC about it whether it is "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable". (In the most recent of the only two tiny discussions there've been about it, it turned out it wasn't even making the claim it was being cited for, so the reliability or unreliability of the source was irrelevant, the user who cited it had just erred.) -sche (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above comments that this is premature or unnecessary. This does not seem to be an especially notable source, so a thorough RFCBEFORE is required. The two previous discussions linked above are not particularly informative. Astaire (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation ((or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Articles on Wikipedia that link to The Dorchester Review: [218]22:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I for one am unwilling to slog through a discussion on Stephen Harper. Is it possible to modify the RfC to only address the denialist topic area? Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby, too late to adjust an RfC once there's been a number of comments. If you want to address the denialist topic area only then do that. TarnishedPath^talk 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

While you may not find the two previous discussion informative they do constitute RFCBEFORE. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 as noted in previous discussions The Dorchester Review has been known to publish misinformation on some topics. Further it is noted by Media Bias Fact Check that the source has been rated mixed for factual reporting and has a right wing bias which is edging towards an extreme right bias. On the balance of things I'd say this source is not reliable and is generally unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 06:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)t
• Option 3 - I actually think it will come to deprecation but yes, actually, BEFORE. And in hopes that maybe we can find a consensus there for now. N.B. I am not critical of the RfC, just noting that the early returns are running against it. But I hope it succeeds. This is up to you of course, but since a lot of editors still seem to be processing that genocide is in in fact in common usage in the field, I personally would let this run. But I don't know how exciting a life you are willing to lead either. I think some quiet editors are going to start speaking up. I put a link to the Dorchester Review thread in the case I just opened at ANI. Not sure who I am supposed to notify but I did get the guy whose name is on it. No matter what, this source is part of a big problem, though, and I have removed it many times. On the topic of residential school graves, it claims that the deaths of children were a hoax, and we are being polite about this. No no no.Elinruby (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we get some examples of false statements published by this source? Being accused of being far-right, or even actually being far-right, is not the same as being unreliable, nor is having an editor who holds certain beliefs, even if those beliefs are terrible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. As noted in a previous discussion the source used a picture of smiling children as propaganda to push the unevidenced position that there was no abuse happening.
  2. There's also been discussion on the source on the articles talk at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School/Archive 2#The Dorchester_Review in which it has been discussed that source pushes propaganda. Links to discussion of the source offwiki are provided in that discussion.

  TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the article in question? It doesn't seem to state that there was no abuse happening. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  From the story on their social media post liked above, "They were put through hell" and yet they are having an absolute blast on that play structure. What gives? That's clear propoganda pushing the position that there must not have been abuse because of the existence of a picture which showed them playing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  But we're talking about the reliability of The Dorchester Review (the journal), not TheDorchesterReview (the Twitter account). Twitter is already generally unreliable. WP:RSPTWITTER. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Twitter is generally unreliable on the basis that most tweets are self-published. Tweets from the official accounts of a publisher should be taken as publications of that publisher. WP:RSPTWITTER states Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. In this instance the user's identity is confirmed as being the official twitter account of the publication and we have what seems to be a reliable source discussing the tweet. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Tweets from the official accounts of a publisher should be taken as publications of that publisher I disagree. Official social media accounts are often operated by different employees than would be involved in the activities of the rest of the organisation - and we have no information about what editorial process applies to the tweets. By its nature the medium is akin to an attention-grabbing WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't treat as reliable even in a reliable publication. Bad tweets from an org don't automatically infect the parent org's reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 TDR claims to be a semi-annual journal of history and historical commentary but regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. It is mostly described as a conservative media outlet and all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:

  The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
  — Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.

  Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
  — Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.

  Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
  — MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2

  [T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
  — Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.

  Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Limited use by others, gatekeeping process, physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Grab-bag instances of errors, etc., aren't sufficient to classify it as unreliable, we need RS chronicling a pattern or propensity for false reporting. (Also, MediaBias/Factcheck is, itself, unreliable (see: WP:MB/FC) and shouldn't be used to determine the reliability of a person, place, or thing.) The lack of peer review is irrelevant as it doesn't portend to be a scholarly publication, 90% of the sources on the perennial sources list aren't peer reviewed. Similarly, the fact it doesn't publish footnotes is irrelevant; the Wall Street Journal doesn't publish footnotes in its articles, Popular Mechanics doesn't publish footnotes, CNN doesn't flash references across the screen. That said, as a "a journal of historical commentary" and self-described "robustly polemical" publication [219] it should not be used for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, unless attributed, and care should be exercised when using for WP:BLPs. Chetsford (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike CNN or NYT or WSJ, TDR has loftier aspirations. I have never heard Popular Mechanics claim that their goal is to prove how "establishment physicists" have gotten it all wrong. TDR seeks to "upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession", and "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"; as they openly admit, challenging "establishment historians" is their reason-of-existence. In other words, TDR is engaging in the realm of academic scholarship and has to be judged accordingly. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

Iranwire

Is it a reliable source for statements about Iranian politicians like in 2024 Iranian presidential election#Debates ? AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

From a cursory search they seem to more or less get WaPo and the USHMM's approval. So my initial thought is yes. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is The Australian reliable?

The Australian has recently come under critique for comparing the leader of a major Australian political party to Adolf Hitler. Refer to this episode of Media Watch on ABC News (Australia). The source has previously been discussed here and here. A search indicates that it is currently in use in 10.887 articles. Is this source reliable? TarnishedPath^talk 15:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That was in an opinion piece. Oddly enough the paper changed the online headline afterwards (but not the body text which contained the same comparison). It's Murdoch media which makes me initially skeptical of reliability by virtue of what some other such media is like, but that's really saying nothing substantial. I don't think this opinion piece affects anything. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and so has little bearing on reliability unless it contains outright lies. No one will be using this article to state in wikivoice that Adam Bandt is similar to Hitler. All major newspapers publish clunker opinion essays from time to time, it's silly to suggest that this could somehow overturn a consensus for general reliability. Astaire (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All major newspapers publish clunker opinion essays from time to time, it's silly to suggest that this could somehow overturn a consensus for general reliability

You can say that but it doesn't stop other users from trying to do that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Bandt is similar to Hitler is an outright lie. If this ends up in a courtroom, this would very likely end up quite costly for The Australian given Australia's deformation laws and the lack of a US style constitutional protections on free speech. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's speculative/subjective. Even if that did happen it would probably tell more about Aus defamation law than The Australian. I mean the argument in the op/ed literally started off with "In my opinion..." VintageVernacular (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

While it may say a bit about Australian deformation laws, any editor would have some basic knowledge of the legal framework which they operate in and allowing obviously defamatory material to publication speaks to a lack of oversight. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It remains the leading Australian newspaper. An opinion piece says nothing about its reliability. Riposte97 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The leading Australian newspaper? Firstly, I don't know what's given you that strange idea. Secondly, even if that was true (which it's not under any metric), that's not something which would determine its reliability. That it's an opinion piece is beside the point, given that there is a demonstrative lack of ng editorial oversight which has allowed obviously defamatory material to be published. TarnishedPath^talk 06:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

omg. I know almost nothing about Australia but I would suggest that anyone who arrives here take a look at the other five or six threads about Riposte97's grasp of policy and guidelines on the rest of the board. Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby, The Australian is one of Murdoch's News Corp newspapers in Australia. Murdoch's newspapers in Australia can at times be not much better than his Fox News. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Aha. Well to chine in just a little on something I *can* comment on, you are quite correct in pointing out that a source's reliability has nothing to do with its circulation.Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear the circulation is amongst the lowest of the major Australian newspapers, which is why I find the claim that it's the leading Australian newspaper to be quite odd. Not that it is even a relevant argument, which we agree on. TarnishedPath^talk 08:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason I say that, is because it has historically been crucial in setting media narratives in Australia, partly because it is one of the only print newspapers published nationwide. If you want to know what will be on the ABC at 19:00, read The Australian at 07:00. Riposte97 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It sets narratives for the rest of Murdoch's Australian papers, a large amount of which is tabloid journalism. That's hardly something of note and again does not speak to it being reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

They say they are bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council and have an editorial code of conduct, and that they publish corrections. Seems to be the trappings of a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG source. An inflammatory opinion piece going full Godwin has little bearing on this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council is an extremely weak statement given the standards have no power to enforce any undertakings, which is no great surprise given the real conflict of interest the Australian Press Council has given newspapers representatives form part of the council. Having an editorial code of conduct and actually adhering to it are two different things. Point 1.4 of their code of conduct, which is also applicable to opinion pieces, states However, this does not allow us to knowingly publish inaccurate or misleading information and publications should correct significant inaccuracies or misleading material once they have been recognised as detailed in Section 2.0 - Mistakes. Clearly they are not adhering to their code of conduct and there is therefore a demonstrative lack of editorial oversight. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the Hitler opinion falls into the realm of factual vs non-factual. Most of it is the barely falsifiable personal reflections of the author. Rants about politicians being like Hitler are nothing new, nothing peculiar to this source, and nothing that would stand a chance of making its way into wikivoice anyway, so what are we trying to evaluate here? We already shouldn't be using these polemics as sources or weightings, except (as may actually be the case here) where the opinion piece itself receives significant coverage in other reliable sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• (e/c) We should distinguish between The Australian's general reliability and the reliability of Francis Galbally's opinion piece on Adam Bandt. As usual for newspapers' opinion pieces, the latter is only reliable for the fact Galbally has these opinions on Bandt. A newspaper can publish contentious opinion pieces without impacting on the reliability of its broader newsgathering operations – indeed, if we downgraded newspapers whenever they published an iffy opinion column, we would end up without any newspapers to cite. A relatively recent, well-attended discussion was near-unanimous in finding The Australian reliable for facts; a howler in its opinion pages is not grounds to revisit this. – Teratix ₵ 10:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor believes they are exempt from adding references

I have had a content dispute at Turkmeneli with editor Kirkukturk3 who believes they are exempt from adding references when asked to do so. User_talk:Kirkukturk3#June_2024 This is the talkpage discussion. Semsûrî (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This should go to WP:ANI because that is a behaviour problem and this noticeboard is about whether specific sources are reliable. I have not looked at the article at all but no, they would not be exempt from adding references. That does not happen. So I encourage you to raise the issue at ANI, and focus on the fact that he is doing whatever he is doing. Do not mention content dispute. The problem is that he thinks he does not have to add references. Elinruby (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I was unsure if it was here or ANI, but thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As you noted this is "when asked to do so".....presumably requests on specific items. That is when citing it becomes mandatory....when the requirement changes from "verifiable" to "verified" North8000 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know all the details, but the map used in the infobox is based on this[220] map of unknown providence on a now defunct website. It would be good to have something reliable to back it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious error in article, sourced to a reliable source

What should be done when there is a clear and unambiguous error, whose source is considered reliable, but didn't fact check or proof read that particular error? The specifics are a claim that "from November 1977 to October 2000, no Israelis were killed inside the Green Line." , sourced to a book by Oxford University press. This is an obviously false claim, (see for example Dizengoff Street bus bombing), and editors are saying it is a typo - the 1977 should be 1997 - but he false claim remains in the article, with its source. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not be fact-checking sources, but what we should do is say what the bulk of sources say. So in this case remove the text as there are plenty of sources that refute the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is premature, there is an ongoing discussion about what to do about this. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:WSAW. Loki (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If there was evidence that this was more than a typo, I’d say a discussion here over if the individual book is still able to be considered reliable or not. Even with the claim that there may have been a small number of deaths after 1997, however, I can’t imagine that this is a big enough issue to call the book into question as a whole. And one book having issues isn’t generally grounds for calling into question an entire publisher.

As we should always be doing, when sources contradict and there is a strong consensus among other sources that one source is wrong, the incorrect source shouldn’t be cited for that piece of information unless extenuating circumstances merit inclusion with attribution. This is a discussion that appears to be ongoing on the talk page and there isn’t really anything for RSN at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can developer guides be used as RS by 3rd party

I have an article I'm working on, Draft:SurrealDB. The database has dozens of online articles about the database from various sources such as 3rd party/secondary company blogs unassociated with SurrealDB. These company blogs and programming guide websites have no direct affiliation with SurrealDB, and otherwise seem generally notable.

Can these sources be used as reliable sources to establish notability for software and databases such as SurrealDB? I ask because as a developer, we often use guides such as these as reliable sources of information. Mr vili talk 15:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that (a) the draft purports to be about a company, not one of their products, and (b) the draft didn't cite any sources at all for this off-topic content. As for 'generally notable', I'd have to suggest that this particular non-sequitur illustrates (once again) why the Draft, and the previous AfD, (along with other content from this contributor) drew so much negative commentary regarding sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Are they about the database or the company? One doesn't inherit notability about the other. As to the particular question there's no simple answer, in general blogs are not considered reliable sources (WP:BLOGS) but that may not fit the definition of the sources you are asking about.

For reliability sources should be reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

For notability you should look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

One thing to be careful of with products is sources that have a financial interest in their promotion, such sources wouldn't be considered 'independent'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What specific source cited for what claim are you talking about? This board is not the best venue to try and get feedback on the reliability, independence and quality of coverage of 26 sources currently cited by the draft; that is best done on the draft talkpage. See also WP:THREE. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

1: https://docs.zeet.co/guides/deploy/surrealdb/

2: https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/surrealdb-for-web-applications/

3: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-use-surrealdb-with-fresh-framework/

@Abecedare @ActivelyDisinterested, they're not exactly blogs, but more so guides and tutorials - could you provide thoughts on each one? What can and can't they be used for. (if you can also, let me know whether they are more applicable to an article about the database software, and/or to the database company) Mr vili talk 17:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The first is very minor, the second is within the promotion of something they have a financial interest in, the third is better but it's mostly to do with how to do something on the database rather than discusion of the database or company. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify the third has discussion/opinion about the product, but it is still passing. It could be used for verification, but I'm unsure how much it adds for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User guides can sometimes be used as reliable sources for information on software, but other sources are generally necessary to show that the information itself is actually something that would be covered an in encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia isn’t a user guide, nor a manual, nor a compendium of all features of a software. In any case, the mere existence of user guides does virtually nothing to establish notability. It is routine coverage - it is expected that tech websites and other websites will publish how to guides and the like for software. Significant coverage would need to go beyond that routine coverage that’s expected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And needless to say, guides to a product a company sells can't be used to demonstrate notability of the company. The company the article is supposedly about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your comment misinterprets the distinction between significant coverage and WP:ROUTINE. If a reliable source publishes detailed coverage of a piece of software, that's WP:SIGNIFICANT as it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Perhaps the sources provided here don't meet that criterion, but it's strange reasoning to say that because technology websites frequently write about technology, they can't be used to establish notability for technology. Would a book on a piece of software not suffice if it was published by O'Reilly Media, which routinely publishes guides on technology? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That wasn’t my intent - my comment was intended to talk solely about developer guides and how tos, not to comment on actual in depth articles published about a software on a tech website or other source. I personally don’t believe something that entirely or virtually entirely (all but a couple sentences) serves as a user guide/manual/how to/etc. qualifies as “significant” coverage, regardless of how detailed the guide is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin and The New Statesman falsely claimed that Noam Chomsky died

See here. Though they have both retracted the claim, it is in my opinion still a problem that they published it in the first place. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

These mistakes happen, and Jacobin appears to have responding appropriately by publicly correcting themselves.

I'm more concerned by the New Statesman. For an error of this size we would expect a public retraction from a reliable, but as far as I can tell they have not made one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Given his serious health issues and advanced age I don't think we should be so quick to throw the book at these publications for going off half cocked. Its not the same thing as reporting a healthy 45 year old as dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the nature of the error is relevant. Repeating a report of the death of a 95-year old man, who was in fact hospitalized with a fairly serious stroke, may be jumping the gun but is not exactly a hallmark of a source being generally unreliable. BD2412 T 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HEB and BD2412 here; while it is a failing, in terms of reliability it is a venial rather than a mortal sin. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Infallibility is not a condition for being a reliable source. If there is a long pattern of serious errors or fabrication of stories etc, that would be an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is where WP:RSBREAKING comes into play. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That may be fair, though frankly I'm skeptical that the most recent RfC on Jacobin was correctly closed. Reading through the discussion, it does not seem like the community found the source to be better than marginally reliable, but the closer slapped GREL on it. It might be worth having another discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: +972 Magazine

What is the reliability of +972 Magazine?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

See previous discussions at RSN: [221], [222], [223], etc. See previous discussions in article Talk space: [224], [225], etc. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

1 for the Levant: While +972 used to be a group blog, it is now a more conventional online magazine with editorial controls [226]. There is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS including The Washington Post [227], PBS [228], Al Jazeera [229], Vox [230], NPR [231], and CNN [232]. It has engaged with The Guardian on collaborative journalism projects [233]. It has named gatekeepers [234] and a physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Use should be limited to news/events in the Levant; the publication's budget [235] precludes the realistic possibility it has original newsgathering capabilities beyond its home region and any reportage from outside the area are likely précis and should be referenced to their source. There is no evidence of USEBYOTHERS for coverage of topics outside the Eastern Mediterranean. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying addendum as to purpose of RfC: Dispute and contention have been endemic with this source, and the hundreds of articles in which it is used, on an ongoing basis for 10 years, with the most recent discussion ending without clear resolution just three months ago (e.g. here [236], and here [237], and here [238], and here [239], and here [240], and here [241] and numerous other places). Due to these frequent and ongoing disputes, often metastasizing into discussions that are left unresolved, I am left with current and active concern and confusion as to whether or not I can use or remove this source from an article and this question can only be resolved by formal community input, as all informal processes -- exhaustively and repeatedly attempted over the last decade without previous resort to RfC -- have failed. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1ish for investigative pieces, 2 for opinion pieces: We should probably still use WP:OPINION policy for opinion pieces and only use opinion pieces with attribution. Some of the investigative pieces seem to have garnered respect from other respected news orgs, such as the Lavender AI piece being cited by WaPo. Does anyone know which articles are opinion pieces and which ones are investigative, and how to tell?User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad RFC The concept of pre-approving sources isn't valid. Any editors objections in the future can't be heard in this discussion, as that is the nature of causality. Without any current concerns with the sources there is simply no need for an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No valid reason to have this RFC per discussion below. In addition, there is no reason not to use this source.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think an RfC on this source is needed at this time, per RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. The source is only used in about ~150 articles, and the most recent discussion on the source was nine years ago. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussion was three months ago (sorry, neglected to add the March '24 discussion to the lead; now fixed). It's been cited ~500 times [242] (albeit not exclusively in mainspace). Given its extremely limited editorial focus, I feel that meets the threshold of wide use. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any active discussion that the source is unreliable? Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable. This appears to be getting the source pre-approved, which is unnecessary and not a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable." My read on the March discussion was the exact opposite. Fortunately, we'll be able to sort-out these divergent interpretations via RfC. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The March discussion was the result of disputed usage at an article but note that the cite remains in that article so it can be said that the objections were not upheld. If there are not any other recent disputes, then it seems that the credibility of the source is not being seriously challenged so this RFC may not really be needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the outcome of that discussion. As for the source at the center of the last dispute remaining in the article in question, I'm inclined to apply Occam's razor to assume it simply means no one bothered to remove it, rather than it representing a coded message that the source is reliable. Given our impasse, some means of resolution is apparently needed. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The first type of consensus is by editing, so yes the source staying in the article does show some form of consensus. Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed, having an RFC just because shouldn't be how it's done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed" While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, you have stated your interpretive assumption the last discussion arrived at a clear conclusion that +972 is reliable and I have said my interpretation is that it arrived at a clear conclusion that it's unreliable. That seems like an issue that needs to be resolved. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. "The first type of consensus is by editing" The second type of consensus is through formal process when an editorial impasse occurs, as is happening here between you and I. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS ("When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit... several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment...") I have chosen not to remove +972 from the article in question -- despite my interpretation of the March discussion -- only in the interest of maintaining editorial decorum and order. With due respect, it seems unnecessarily pointy and procedural to intransigently insist it first be removed to create a formal record of disagreement before you will indulge any further discussion on the topic. Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss once more that particular cite, that can be done, at the relevant article, or even here, once again. There is no need to have an RFC to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss once more that particular cite" I want to address all the citations in which it's used across the project, and in every article in which it appears. Chetsford (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat agree with BilledMammal. No need to start a discussion for a source that is not used that often. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be used more often if people stopped claiming it was less than reliable. nableezy - 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable? If there has been it would certainly give more meaning to this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable?" Here [243], and here [244], and here [245], and here [246], and here [247] (and more I'm omitting for purposes of brevity), plus numerous instances where editors have reverted statements sourced to it sans discussion with non-RS edit summaries, etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No not discussions from a decade ago, recent discussions. Who recently has been claiming it's unreliable? Diff of edits were it's been removed as unreliable would be as good (if they are recent). Otherwise go use the source, if someone objects start a discussion with them, if you can't come to a consensus come back here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This continually moving target where you won't engage in discussion unless your demand for examples is met, then when examples are provided they're not of sufficient currency, then when those of sufficient currency are provided they're not of sufficient quantity, is difficult for me to track, though this may be a personal failing and, if so, I apologize.
In any case, it seems we're at a discursive impasse that informal processes are incapable of resolving and a formal process would be the best way forward. If you'd like to start an RfC on the applicability of the RfC I won't object, though, I'd suggest it'd be needlessly procedural and would be easier to simply participate in the RfC or not, at your singular discretion. This will probably be my last comment on the matter as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I appreciated the conversation. You raised many interesting points on the ontology of the RSN that are worth future contemplation and I can assure you I will spend time thinking about them and seeking-out ways to incorporate them into my own editing. Chetsford (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is questions of reliability necessarily the reason why its not used often? I mean it clearly still is used, often with attribution.

Though, I suppose based on Chetsford's reasoning, if folks have questions about reliability, we should consider doing this RFC to confirm reliability, even if some of those questions happened a while ago. Having more choices of reliable sources is always good. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP and news articles that report what it says

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

---

I was going to comment in an RfC about a certain publication above on this page, but I found that there are so many problems with RSP itself that I cannot comment on how the source should be ranked at RSP. So, I think we need to discuss RSP itself. And my thoughts are as follows:

• Oppose all further listings at WP:RSP. WP:RSP is promoting a false dichotomy that all sources are either 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate, and that their pigeon hole can be determined by (invariably recentist) cherrypicking (and sometimes outright misrepresentation) of sources, evidence and facts, chosen in accordance with the nominator's own confirmation bias. My view is that the problem is WP:RSP itself, since WP:RSP is the worst kind of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:POVFORK and vehicle for (sometimes inept) original research (WP:OR) and unverifiable or demonstrably factually inaccurate claims and unproven or fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and WP:HOAXES and propaganda etc etc etc. Because WP:RSP is in the project space, it is allowing editors to publish what is in reality a fake encyclopedia article, while completely bypassing FAKEARTICLE, V, NOR, FRINGE and NPOV, amongst other content policies, and to entrench that fake article content against WP:BOLD in such a way that it cannot be removed without an RfC, even when it is demonstrably factually inaccurate. Worse than that, WP:RSP is creating dangerous citogenesis, because supposedly "reliable" sources are actually taking WP:RSP's claims seriously, and reporting that those claims affect a source's credibility, even where they are being made by Wikipedians whose identity and academic/professional credentials are unverified (meaning they could be sockpuppets/meatpuppets, with no relevant education or knowledge or competence), who could have an ideological agenda, and/or an undisclosed conflict of interests, and whose consensus is likely to amount to Wikiality, or even a hatchet job or puffery. The result is that the completely unreliable (and sometimes demonstrably false) claims made by WP:RSP end up increasingly being put into the Wikipedia articles about the sources listed in WP:RSP. [This in turn is liable to create a feedback loop of ever increasing puffery, or ever increasing smears, generated by the opinions (or opinion mongering) of the Wikipedia "community" itself (or its sockpuppets). An enormous list of brief comments that are typically very uninformative is not actually useful either]. I strongly advise that WP:RSP be marked with Template:Historical and put out of its misery. Failing that I advise that the listing for WP:RSP in WP:RSP itself (it is presently included in the entry for Wikipedia) to be downgraded from Option 3: Generally unreliable to Option 4: Deprecated. And I advise that all external news articles that report the claims made by WP:RSP, so far as they report those claims, be downgraded to Option 3: Generally unreliable on grounds they are inherently WP:CIRCULAR (to stop the claims made by WP:RSP about particular sources being directly or indirectly cited or quoted in Wikipedia articles about those particular sources). [For example, our article on CNET should not report that "Wikipedia editors began the process of downgrading CNET's reliability rating as a source" because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for whether CNET is reliable. The article CNET should not report that user generated content even if CNET really is completely unreliable. I choose this example because CNET is not, as far as I am aware, politically controversial. Unfortunately, WP:RSP contains a number of entries that are so politically controversial as to constitute a serious threat to Wikipedia's neutrality. The whole point of V, NOR and NPOV is that Wikipedia is not supposed to change anyone's reputation, or to change public opinion, from what it already is, as expressed in reliable sources.] Other editors have expressed concerns about WP:RSP recently: such as this editor and this editor and this editor and others. I think we have reached the point where, unless the issues with WP:RSP are dealt with, we are going to need to have an RfC on WP:RSP sooner or later. James500 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) I have struck my comment because, although this proposal has already been withdrawn due to lack of support (see below), editors are affecting to be unware that this proposal has been withdrawn. James500 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly are the "fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and WP:HOAXES and propaganda" that you are claiming exist in WP:RSP? — Newslinger talk 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you give examples of fake articles it has allowed or instances of citogenisis it has caused? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

To take the CNET example to begin with, this article and this article are citogenesis, because both have been included in CNET as evidence that it is unreliable. (In this case, I am not saying that CNET is reliable, I am saying that the opinions of Wikipedians about CNET's reliability should not appear in the article CNET, because they prove nothing about CNET's reliability). There seem to be a lot of of other cases where "Newspaper X says that Wikipedia says Newspaper Y is reliable/unreliable" comments are starting to appear in mainspace articles. James500 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite citogenisis, but rather reporting on Wikipedia. The article doesn't (and shouldn't) say CNET is unreliable, but it should included that third parties have reported on relevant internal Wikipedia discussions. Citogenisis would be the websites reporting that CNET was using AI based on the Wikipedia discussion, and then Wikipedia aren't using that website to say that CNET was using AI in the article on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If the article says "Wikipedia editors began the process of downgrading CNET's reliability rating as a source" that implies that CNET is not reliable because Wikipedia says it is not reliable [from the relevant date]. At the very least its inclusion in the CNET article is a suggestive juxtaposition. Any reader who read that article would think that it means that Wikipedia downgrading CNET is evidence that CNET is not reliable. Look at what the article CNET does not say. It does not say something like "Wikipedia is not a reliable source and what Wikipedia says is not itself any evidence that CNET is unreliable". For example, the Futurism article actually says things like "Wikipedia editors aren't the ultimate authority for what qualifies good journalism" but this kind of caveat is omitted from the article CNET, and it is very difficult to understand why Futurism do not say that Wikipedia is no authority at all. [The Wikipedia discussion in 2023 was based on articles published in Futurism and The Verge. If there was any "authority" it would appear on the face of it to be those articles in Futurism and The Verge, not Wikipedia.] If the two periodical articles are reliable sources for the content of "internal Wikipedia discussions", they might in theory be due weight for the article English Wikipedia, when placed in the context of all the sources that say that Wikipedia is user generated content, and which discuss the lack of quality control of that content, the lack of verification of the identity and credentials of the editors, the fact it is typically banned from use in university coursework, and etc etc etc, and which make it clear that Wikipedia's claims do not prove anything about CNET. [I have to question whether a Futurism article the gist of which is "Wikipedia endorsed something Futurism said" and "Wikipedia agrees with us" actually is due weight.] If, on the other hand, the two periodical articles are claiming (and I do not think they clearly are) that Wikipedia is reliable for CNET (as opposed to being accurate by chance or luck), they are proving that they do not understand, or that they do not want to understand, what Wikipedia actually is, and that they are not reliable for Wikipedia. One way or the other, reporting of "internal Wikipedia discussions" does not belong in the article CNET or any article on any other non-WMF publication. At the moment, we are using ourselves as a source for CNET, and the fact we are citing ourselves to Futurism and Ars Technica does not help. James500 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this CNET example is citogenesis at all. Citogenesis is when "facts" not about Wikipedia are sourced, ultimately, to Wikipedia. I don't see any such claim in any version of CNET - the article does not say or imply, "CNET isn't reliable because it was discussed on RSN/RSP". Rather it says, "CNET was discussed on RSN, and its reliability for use on Wikipedia was downgraded at RSP as a result", which is (1) accurate and (2) DUE, because reliable sources off-Wikipedia say so.

After all the recent discussions of the Anti-Defamation League, on and off Wikipedia, the idea that Wikipedia discussions that are reported in RS should be excluded from articles on a subject because of "citogenesis" shows a woeful misunderstanding of what citogenesis means, and of the relationship between Wikipedia and broader culture. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (on non-wiki topics), but that doesn't mean that the effects Wikipedia discussions have, once they are reported by independent sources, should be excluded from Wikipedia articles where these effects are relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw from this discussion because I do not think the majority of the community is going to accept any opinion that I express, or evidence I advance, on this subject. If anyone wants further explanation or evidence from me, they can ask on my talk page, to avoid prolonging this thread. James500 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The concern I have with the proposal is that WP:RSP simply collects and summarizes consensus about sources based on RfCs/discussions. Removing/deprecating that page simply makes it much more difficult for editors to locate prior consensus. (I think the issue of including WP's reliability determinations in mainspace articles when reported on by independent sources is a different issue that should be discussed separately.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Back when RSP was created, the intent was to have a quick reference guide that summarized prior discussions… and more importantly discussions on sources that had been discussed over and over (that’s the “perennial” part of RSP). The idea was that we wouldn’t have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over.

Sadly, it has grown beyond that original intent. It is now a white/black list of “good” and “bad” sources. We are far too quick to add sources to it.

Prior to the adoption of RSP, it was not at all uncommon for us to reject RFCs that broadly asked “is X reliable?”… we would usually respond by asking: “reliable for what?” We wanted to see the context in which the source was being used. What information was being verified by the source? How was that information phrased in the article? Back then, it seems we better understood the distinction between ‘’general reliability and specific situation reliability.

Now… we no longer ask these important questions. We jump right into !voting and adding the result to the list so we can “win” future debates. The list is being misused to shut down discussion and avoid a thoughtful examination of how a source is being used in a specific article. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For rebuttal I point to the RFC directly above this one, and there have been many others that have ended in similar ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No doubt RSN is currently running hotter than it should, and RSP is widely misinterpreted, but I think the proposal here throws the baby out with the bathwater. The principles we are trying to work to are sound: discuss reliability of a source in context, find consensus (with an RfC if necessary), and summarise that consensus for quick reference. This can be made to work - and it normally does!

What we need are fewer attempts to use RSN as a cudgel to shut out unpopular POVs, a better appreciation of the difference between bias and unreliability, and recognition that the context and purpose and specific nature of a citation is more important than the general guidance offered at RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that articles should not make claims in unattributed wikivoice about overall reliability of a source in the world based solely or primarily on RSP or on news articles about our discussions here. But that’s not really what’s going on with CNET’s article. There is a decently long section about criticism, of which only two sentences are about the Wikipedia process. And those two sentences make clear it was a Wikipedia decision about what happens on Wikipedia, and are both reliably sourced (at the end) with a CNET response.

Of note here, Wikipedia has many articles/sections that cover our decisions. Being in the top 10 websites and being the highest ranking “general knowledge” website that’s not a search engine, it makes perfect sense that reliable sources will, for controversial or large discussions, cover our activities. And we aren’t supposed to just avoid things because they’re about us - we follow the sources, and if there are multiple reliable sources discussing one of our actions as it relates to an otherwise notable topic, then it would be due weight to cover what those reliable sources are saying about our actions. This case is even more nuanced though because it isn’t being covered by reliable sources as just a case of “Wikipedia editors call a source unreliable” - but that a source previously considered fine to use began creating massive amounts of AI generated content that resulted in Wikipedia taking action. The ultimate guidance on this comes from WP:SELFSOURCE. While often times there is a due weight question regarding covering our own actions, if the information is due weight, citing Wikipedia itself for further information (such as an exact date rather than a “month” as may be reported in media) would technically be permissible.

On a similar vein, that’s why we have things like List of Wikipedia controversies. Oftentimes those controversies are so well covered that, when the underlying real world subject of the issue has its own page, it is covered on that page: such as CNET, or Scots Wikipedia § Controversies. But in some cases such as this hoax and these edits by US Congress IPs, the coverage of Wikipedia is so in depth and wide in reliable sources that the topic of the Wikipedia action(s) or lack thereof become notable on their own.

There’s also the point brought up that these sources are “citogenesis”, which I’m going to assume is intended to mean “the source in question has taken its information from Wikipedia and thus the source isn’t reliable”. This is generally true - but with a caveat - sources that take information from article space in Wikipedia as their sole source of information should not then be used to cite for that information. However, to make the claim that “sources that reference Wikipedia internal discussions can’t be used as sources about those internal discussions” would basically mean we could never have any content on Wikipedia about Wikipedia at all - which is absurd. This is where WP:ABOUTSELF also comes into play - while Wikipedia articles aren’t reliable sources about their topics, internal discussions and actions on Wikipedia are basically the only “primary” source of information about those discussions/actions. So if we don’t allow reliable sources’ reporting on our discussion to be treated as reliable… how do we ever cover what they say about them? We wouldn’t be able to. But as I showed above, in many cases not only are our internal discussions covered in such depth that they are due weight to include, but in some cases the issue even becomes notable enough on its own for its own article.

Ultimately the discussion over whether the coverage of Wikipedia’s actions regarding reliability are due weight for any one article should occur on the talk page. In many cases, our RSP discussions don’t result in meaningful media coverage, or the coverage thereof isn’t analytical in nature but just reporting on what “we” did. In those cases, it may be determined not to be due weight. But none of this is grounds for stopping us from maintaining discussions on sourcing for our internal use. An end note - I have some time so I’m going to hop on my laptop and look through other “big controversy regarding WP deciding a source is unreliable” to compare coverage and post results here hopefully in half an hour or so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berchanhimez (talk • contribs) 16:06, June 23, 2024 (UTC)

This is why I hate mobile editing and reply feature sometimes. It didn't sign my big comment above and I just noticed it. Templated myself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I'm reminded though of the 2019 RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs, where the closer ToThAc declared that the opponents presented "arguments that all basically boil down to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• No, it's obviously useful and the proposer has failed to show any of the claimed ills of the page. His one example was a personal misunderstanding of the word "citogenesis", which means circular referencing and not what he thought it meant - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  David, the article in Futurism quotes you and mentions you by name. Are you are reliable source for CNET? If so, the claims in the CNET article should be attributed to you personally, and not to "Wikipedia editors". James500 (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree: There is no rule on Wikipedia that states that a source has to be entirely vetted by WP:RSP. And folks clearly will still put in their own source from whereever regardless of the list here. We also should not let false media coverage from folks who misunderstand our policies from being afraid to write wikipedia articles in good standing. I doubt the ADL "ban" will stop folks from including it as a source on WP:ARBPIA content in the future. And we should still include it, along with attribution for outstanding claims that other MSM doesn't corroborate, same as Al Jazeera, the other perennial source on this noticeboard. Removing this forum for whether a source is good or not simply will move the discussion elsewhere. And some news site will still find some clickbaity thing about Wikipedia to make outrage headlines about.

User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is a profoundly unserious suggestion (and suggesting that RSP list itself as unreliable is unserious to the point of being WP:POINT-y.) RSP merely documents consensuses reached on this page; it is not itself a policy page and cannot be marked as historical without marking RSN itself as historical. What you want, I assume, is to halt RFCs on the reliability of individual sources and to blanket-overturn the consensus reached on every one that has occurred to date, but that is also unserious - plainly such RFCs have support given the consensuses they continue to reach, nor are you going to reverse eg. the massive RFCs on the Daily Mail or Fox News without an RFC that has similar attendance. But more to the point, RSN and RSP are working; they've largely been successful at maintaining and improving the quality of sourcing we use in articles. See eg. [248][249][250]. As a practical matter a lot of improving sources involves telling people why they generally can't use WND or the Daily Wire or the Daily Caller or Occupy Democrats or whatever as a source; and RSP has been extremely successful at providing an easier way to do this, especially when people try to argue that they're not unreliable. There are recurring sources where we actually need a quick and easy way to point to an established consensus on their general reliability. The "citogenesis" concern also misunderstands what citogenesis is. When a secondary source reports on Wikipedia - when they use Wikipedia as a source to describe events or discussions that occurred on Wikipedia - we can and should use them to cover that (assuming it's WP:DUE.) That's how secondary sources work; they report on things that happened in sources we couldn't cite ourselves for WP:OR reasons. A news source saying "Wikipedia judged source X to be unreliable" isn't citogenesis, it's just normal reporting. --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  This proposal has already been withdrawn, and I would be grateful if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth, and twisting my words, because I did not say any of things that you are claiming that I said. James500 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation of WP articles that discuss RSP determinations

I'm going down the list in alphabetical order and just going to the WP articles for some pages that have had, in my recollection, significant coverage in reliable sources:

• Anti-Defamation League § Wikipedia determination of unreliability - has sources to multiple (half a dozen) news articles that reported on the Wikipedia discussion beyond just "they said it's unreliable". Also has reactions from both the ADL itself as well as at least one prominent academic who discussed the determination and what it's impact may/should be on other entities (news organizations themselves, governments, the public, etc) who look to ADL information for various purposes. My first glance is that it appears to be about the "perfect" amount of coverage for due weight purposes in that article.
• Daily Mail § Reliability - contains a two paragraph summary of reactions to Wikipedia's RfC on the issue, with at least half a dozen news articles specifically about the discussion cited. Also contains one example of criticism of the RfC outcome, as well as commentary by Mr. Wales himself about the discussion.
• The Epoch Times § Assessments - one sentence regarding the discussion/outcome, cited to a reliable secondary source (Haaretz), and presumably due weight to even add more given the comparisons made in that news article between Wikipedia's response to the issues versus other social media/news/etc.
• Fox News § Ratings and Reception - one sentence about the first discussion, cited to Slate. Followed by a later paragraph about the 2020 discussion that led to the topic-area restrictions, with two citations, and a third paragraph even later cited to Slate about the exact wording and deliberations of "how reliable are they". Ultimately this section could likely be split out, as I count at least 4 citations present already, and I suspect there's likely to be many more discussing their reliability on Wikipedia specifically that could make a "timeline of everything" section as it is now unweildy.
• HuffPost - though I'd have expected there to be quite a significant amount of coverage in other news regarding the decisions made on HuffPost, there isn't any I could find with a quick search - and the article doesn't mention them at all for that reason (lack of citations available) thus meaning it wouldn't be due weight and certainly shouldn't be shoehorned in by self-citing the RfCs on Wikipedia.
• National Enquirer - same thing as HuffPost - no coverage I can find in secondary sources, presumably because it's a tabloid and those are well known to be "less than reliable" at absolute best. Pretty much every tabloid listed on RSP is the same.
• New York Post § Content, coverage and criticism - one sentence in this section cited to, oddly enough, a news article about the ADL discussion. They occurred relatively close temporally, so it makes sense, but I question if it is due weight to include in the NYP article if the only discussion/significant coverage is in articles about our other discussions. Something to raise on the NYP talk page if anyone wants - perhaps more citations can be found to justify its inclusion or even expansion, or it should likely be removed for due weight.
• Newsmax § Reception - one sentence, similar to NYP above, but it has two citations to separate articles, again both are primarily about the ADL discussion however from first glance.
• One America News Network § Reception - one sentence cited to an article regarding Wikipedia being "more effective" than social media at combatting disinformation. Probably due weight as it is now, but I wonder if more sources could be found - and the article has a tag right now about POV/due issues in the criticism covered in it.
• RT (TV network) § Propaganda and related issues - one sentence cited to Slate - due weight in my opinion due to it being used as an example of the source's reliability being called into question and is balanced by other examples.

Ultimately, I think this should show that when reliable sources discuss our discussions in depth, we tend to cover their response to our discussions. Any editor should feel free to add to the list here if more examples would be helpful that I missed (especially of times we don't cover it), and anyone should feel free to use this as a starting point to discuss individual cases on their articles' talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if this should be discussed on the main noticeboard here (as it's not really about citing RSP as a reliable source, but how we cover RSP in our articles) - I'm not sure if the better place is RSP's talk page or another place, but if any other editor thinks there's a need to have a longer discussion regarding "the weight to assign to our determinations of reliability when those determinations are covered in reliable secondary sources" I'm happy for my analysis to be moved as a starting point for such a discussion (whether by copying it or moving it completely) if it helps. I think such a discussion would be good to have just to ensure that there's a consensus on when these "one sentence blips" are permissible or not, when significant coverage (over one sentence) should be given, how to treat analysis of our decision in the coverage, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation_League#Wikipedia_determination_of_unreliability is in my opinion currently way out of WP:PROPORTION, but this is not unexpected per current media coverage and probably many Wikipedians find the subject (WP on ADL) interesting and worthy of attention. I do, but consider it not that much of a ADL WP-article issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the size of that section (three large paragraphs constituting a whole section of the article) seems out of proportion, as you say. I'd like to think that it's only due to RECENTISM and like with "international reaction" sections that balloon up in the immediate aftermath of various events, will be possible to revise to a more DUE size some time later when the news cycle has moved on and things have cooled down. -sche (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAVELGAZING is an essay, but I think we have some of that there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Re New York Post § Content, coverage and criticism - That sentence is In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics. which is false -- in 2024 RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was against a ban, was archived without formal close or effect on WP:RSP's "summary". But as I commented on the New York Post talk page, the falsehood is sourced (to Haaretz), so it stays. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I know I've seen an older discussion on something similar, it was a news-article that reported that arbcom had decided something, though the case was still ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

JTA. not Haaretz, I think. Author may have misread the year, meaning Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, Jewish Telegraphic Agency. But we don't know what the author misread. I only know what happened in the year that the author refers to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2024 (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.

Is "science publishing corporation" aka sciencepubco.com a reliablesource for Khasa dam?

And is Wikimapia? Unrelated to us but seems too usergenerated. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The first publisher was included on Beall's List. In the absence of any reason to think a particular publication of theirs is reliable, I would default to not. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a terrible predatory publisher. So no. Wikimapia is like any other wiki, also not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

the "science publishing cooperation" includes many good details about the dam like its capacity and length, I don't see the problem since I only used the overall information about the dam and ignored unnecessary ones. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because some of their publishes are regarded as terrible doesn't mean this one is terrible too as its only Info about the dam which other sites other than the paper use too. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a higher standard. A publisher that consistently publishes poor content should not be used. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to the non-RS journal, the particular article is an unreadable mess. The abstract begins:

Aiming in this research was to have a clear view about the behavior of Khasa-Chai Dam during the draw down action taking into consideration the newly built of this dam which was filling during the time of this article, the upstream slope was investigated by taking draw down of the water from the reservoir.

Possibly machine generated or translated (using 2018 tech). Unusable. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimapia is WP:UGC and so generally unacceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Both unreliable. Pay-to-publish predatory publisher and user-generated, respectively. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  for curiousity's sake (not aiming to start an arg), but what is our policy on predatory journals? all articles should not be cited under circumstance, or we can cite them, but we should look for better articles? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:QUESTIONABLE (part of the reliable sources guideline). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:SCHOLARSHIP (entry about predatory journals) and WP:PREDWHEN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Parramatta Advertiser

The Parramatta Advertiser is a local newspaper in New South Wales, Australia. There is an ongoing debate at Talk:Greystanes, New South Wales about its reliability. It has been bought out by The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), which has been previously deemed unreliable,[251] and recently criticized for a headline containing a slur.(https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/07/16/australian-newspaper-under-fire-for-scarlett-johansson-trny-headline/) The Parramatta Advertiser's web presence is now all through thedailytelegraph.com. Their domain http://parramattaadvertiser.com.au/ has redirected to https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta since 2012,[252] and so is flagged red by User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js. It was a separate paper until 2020.[253] In 2020, the parent company ceased printing many local papers including this one.[254][255] Those local papers are now a part of NewsLocal.

So this is kind of 3 questions:

1. Was The Parramatta Advertiser a reliable source pre-2012?
2. Was it a relaible source from 2012 to 2020?
3. Are the recent Parramatta "NewsLocal" stories treated the same as other Daily Telegraph stories?

Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The article you have linked (The Pink News) seems irrelevant to this discussion as it does not mention the Parramatta Advertiser. It also does not really impact upon the publication's reliability. Bigots can reliably report fact. I do not disagree that Australian Daily Telegraph is unreliable, I just don't think it sits well conflating a publication's world-view with their reliability. Their printing patently false claims should be what makes them unreliable. I am queer myself, but I don't believe we should tar every bigoted publication with the same brush. Also, as I noted at Talk:Greystanes, New South Wales, two !votes for "generally unreliable" do not make a consensus. I have not had time to thoroughly research the Parramatta Advertiser yet but I think it's important to focus the discussion on that publication's reliability and not their parent organisation's transphobic comments. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

One important question is if the Parramatta Advertiser has editorial independence still. I currently see no evidence of unreliability of the Parramatta Advertiser. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Instagram and Facebook

Are Instagram and Facebook on the 150th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) page a reliable source? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the accounts authentic and what is the content? WP:SOCIALMEDIA otherwise covers this. CNC (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Mgfdhsrhe, Not at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

So would it be right to remove them? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But via WP:SOCIALMEDIA it is a statement about themself, so you can use it, right? Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends what the claim is, and whether the accounts are authentic. CNC (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

CommunityNotesContributor, I don't recall if we're permitted to use social media platforms as references, even when the accounts are verified. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally we are not. I don't see the reason for this continual quest for the lowest common denominator sources. Its primary. Look for something better. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Because as always, context matters. Primary sources can sometimes be the best possible source for certain content. Don't know where you got the idea of "lowest common denominator" from. CNC (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Context does matter but there is no good reason to use social media references, unless its the product itself that the article is detailing. For all sorts of reasons , they cause knock on effects that wastes 10's of thousands of editing hours every single week in article review, countless millions of hours have been wasted already because there is so much ambiguity. Mainly because folk can't tell the difference, If you add social media reference, then your reducing the quality of your article and the long term viability of your article in particular. They are canker on the face of wikipedia and no good to man nor beast. The simple solution is to find something better. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that although the Russians and Ukrainians are fighting a physical war, they also fighting an information war, both on and off social media. So can't trust anything they say on social media. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Imore

Is it reliable? (Specifically relating to games) AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean this website? https://www.imore.com/ What do you want to cite it for? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

True North

Is this a reliable source for 2021 Canadian church burnings, the proposition the arsons were committed in retaliation for residential schools?

No, True North is a far right propaganda outlet. I would never use them as a reliable source for anything, probably not even about themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Referenced story provides a list of fires, and states "far-left radicals have used this opportunity as an excuse to terrorize Catholic and other Christian communities" with no supporting evidence, quotes, or explanation. The organization can't seem to decide if it is an advocacy outlet, media, or charity. They don't look reliable to me. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely no. True North is a far-right publication that is very unreliable and inaccurate. It frequently spreads far-right conspiracies, including anti-vaxx/Covid conspiracies, and anti-Indigenous residential school denialism. Extremely unreliable for most topics, but especially anything to do with Indigenous peoples. Not reliable for info around church burning, particularly because they use that to push implications of Indigenous people deliberately burning churches, or more generally 'Christianity under attack!' conspiracy theories. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

so if an article is based on a list compiled by True North? Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would personally deem True North unreliable, and would look to find (and cite, of course) other reputable sources that either also feature the items on the list, or trim the list to include only those items backed up by reliable sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Replying to myself here, to give some more evidence/background on why True North (a far-right, extreme conspiracy-spreading disinformation publication) is a deeply unreliable source.

"The site is known for focusing on far-right culture war themes and has regularly featured anti-immigration and anti-2SLGBTQIA+ views, as well as playing a role in promoting the 2022 Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa." [1].

They also feature straight-up lies to try to 'prove' their conspiracies. For instance, that quote above is from an article discussing how True North was spreading a conspiracy theory that all of the 2023 Canadian wildfires were all started by arsonists; to do so, they repeatedly claim that certain events happened in 2023 that actually happened in 2021 and 2022. They lie, to promote their conspiracies.[1

True North are also extreme Residential School denialists.

"Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) is a controversial collection of essays published last year by right-wing news outlet True North. The book makes the incorrect claim that survivors’ stories about residential schools — federal institutions Indigenous children were forced to attend, where they were separated from their families and culture, were frequently abused and died at high rates as a result of overcrowding, malnutrition and disease — are “either totally false or grossly exaggerated.”" [2]

(Also, yes, that's the same book that was co-written by the guy who runs The Dorchester Review)[3]

There's much, much more, but I need to go to bed, hah.

Also, True North, the terrible far-right conspiracy outlet, should not be confused with True North Research, who appear to be a reliable media watchdog group.

Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ProPakistani.pk, again

Back in March, we had a brief discussion whether this blog ProPakistani.pk qualifies as a RS but due to limited participation, no conclusive outcome was reached. But since then, I've noticed this source being cited in multiple WP: AFDs where IPs and UPE sock farms argue to keep articles based on ProPakistani's coverage of the subject. So @CNMall41: suggested here that I bring this up again at WP:RSN so that we can decide once and for all whether to green light this as an acceptable source or not. One can review my previous arguments against using ProPakistani but additionally, I'd like to highlight that a in an interview, a PR agency owner indicated that ProPakistani accepts press releases as part of their content strategy so this raises concerns especially when someone argues to keep a WP article based on coverage from ProPakistani. And when it comes to the reliability of content, ProPakistani fails in that regard as well. For example, a credible Pakistan-based fact-checking portal has refuted several news stories published by ProPakistani. @S0091: Appreciate your views! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fake news debunked
[256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265]

• Unreliable, per OP. Appears to be a tabloid with no known editorial policy — essentially, a site for content laundering. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Credibility of The Baltimore Sun post-2024 could be compromised

...according to this June 21 story by Techdirt's Karl Bode.

"Sinclair executive Chairman David Smith recently purchased what’s left of the Baltimore Sun (much to the chagrin of ex-staffer David Simon), and it’s going just about as you’d expect. It’s only been a few months, but staffers there are already becoming angry about the fact that the paper is now publishing anti-immigrant and anti-trans right wing propaganda dressed up as serious news and analysis.

"A statement by the Baltimore Sun Guild says the paper’s 'ethical standards have been tossed aside under new ownership,' and points to a May editorial by new Sun co-owner Armstrong Williams that called the transgender movement a 'cancer'."

Perhaps we should make a note of this development at WP:RSP soon? (I strongly feel this mostly applies to the opinion/editorial pieces from this once-long-revered institution.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION would already cover opinion/editorial pieces, and WP:RSBIAS doesn't immediately make a source unreliable. Saying immigration is bad is bias, saying that immigrants are flying in on wings made by satanists would make them unreliable. These do look like concerning developments, but actual instances of unreliable reporting are needed.

What's the relationship between 'FOX 45' and Fox News? If they are simply reposting the Fox News reports then WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS would seem appropriate for those articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the "International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research" good for any use?

It's listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 and used quite a bit. [266] Doug Weller talk 06:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No; it is not indexed by Scopus or by others. Presumably, one of the many paper-mills out of India. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it needs to be removed from articles. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• A cut-rate pay and get published enterprise. I can imagine scenarios in which an article published by IJSER is citable on wikipedia a la WP:SELFPUB (eg, work that has been lauded, and not just cited, in genuine scholarly publications) but I doubt that such cases exist in practice. IMO mass removal is justified with editors asked to make explicit arguments if they believe that citations to any particular IJSER article should be retained. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Sun, a broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969

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

---

The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.

Accordingly this Request for Comment asks:

What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

James500 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey (The Sun, a broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969)

• Option 1: Generally reliable. To begin with WP:NEWSORG says "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)". That is the case here. This broadsheet newspaper was indeed a "well-established news outlet" having existed as a reputable broadsheet with a high circulation, under a different name, since 1912. As a broadsheet newspaper similar to the Daily Herald, and owned and run by the same people, this appears, on the face of it, to be a very reliable newspaper, similar in reliability to The Guardian or The Independent. There is, at this point, no evidence whatsoever that so much as a single error ever appeared in the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969. It has been repeatedly described by writers as "worthy" and "boring" (see articles by Patrick Brogan, Stephen Daisley, and the BBC). A newspaper that is "worthy" and "boring" is likely to be very reliable. The BBC says that it had "high aspirations and ideals" and was published to "stop [the] sort of populist, right-wing" tabloid newspaper that replaced it: [267]. Such a newspaper is likely to be very reliable. Bill Grundy said that the writers were "good" and "fine", including John Akass, Nancy Banks-Smith, Geoffrey Goodman, Harold Hutchinson and Allan Hall: [268]. Grundy said they did good work at the old broadsheet Sun. As far as I can tell, they all left The Sun when Murdoch arrived in 1969. A newspaper with writers like that is likely to be very reliable. The editor Dick Dinsdale also left in 1969, so we can say there is a lack of continuity in staff between the broadsheet and the tabloid. The political stance of the newspaper was moderate and centrist (on the left wing), and it aimed to be independent of all political parties. It was not far left or far right. Such a newspaper is likely to be reliable. I have analysed the front page of the first edition (15 September 1964): It looks like a respectable broadsheet newspaper, written for educated people. It promises to "set itself the highest journalistic standards", that it will have no "preconceived bias" and that if any errors are published inadvertantly in good faith, they will be "corrected with frankness and without delay". I have found no errors in it. It looks like something that one would expect to be obviously very reliable. The old broadsheet newspaper should not be tainted by perceived association with a very different later tabloid newspaper that happens to have the same name. The old broadsheet newspaper was simply not "trashy" in any way at all. All the factual inaccuracies Wikipedians have detected in the tabloid newspaper date from after 1969 and primarily from the 1980s onwards, as far as I can tell. The old broadsheet (1964 to 1969) was not discussed at all during the previous RfC for the Sun, and it appears obvious that the participants in that discussion had no idea the old broadsheet newspaper even existed. Further information: [269] [270]. James500 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't doubt that a pre-Murdoch broadsheet with wide distribution was generally reliable, especially one unaffiliated to political parties unlike other broadsheets during that period. I would however like to know more about this "radical" agenda they described as; as far as I understand this was slang for "good" or "cool" in the 60s, but might be worth clarifying for editors under the age of 60. CNC (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  They said that they were "radical" in the sense of being "ready to praise or criticise without preconceived bias". It is on the front page of the first issue. Apparently not having "preconceived bias" (which would include not having a party political bias) was considered "radical" in 1964. James500 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC per the noticeboard header and the edit notice. Prior discussions should be had before starting a RFC, which has not happened. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think this may be a valid exception due to the need to differentiate it from the later, thoroughly discussed WP:THESUN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Rather than have a whole discussion here where most of the participants will never have seen an issue of the elder Sun, I think we can just edit WP:THESUN to specify that it only applies to the newspaper after 1969. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:THESUN presently links to the article The Sun (United Kingdom). That article includes both the old broadsheet newspaper and the new tabloid newspaper. WP:THESUN does not specify which of those newspapers it is about. I was under the impression that the previous discussions that led to WP:THESUN satisfy the requirement for previous discussions. I was under the impression that it would not be possible to edit WP:THESUN without an RfC, because WP:THESUN is meant to restate the outcome of a previous RfC in 2019. If WP:THESUN can be edited to say that it does not include the old broadsheet newspaper without an RfC, I have no problem with that. I assumed that it was procedurally impossible to change the summary of an RfC without another RfC. If you want me to edit WP:THESUN myself, I would prefer to have clear authorisation from the community. James500 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe this could have been resolved without an RfC, and only a discussion on this board, but given the The Sun is currently GUNREL then it doesn't do any harm to have one. For all we know there are editors who believe it is MREL or still GUNREL for other reasons. Furthermore editors are not obliged to comment, even if requested, and it's certainly not a "bad RfC". The board clearly states that an RfC shouldn't be opened "unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed"; with 15 prior discussions, that's certainly enough. Non-policy arguments such as WP:BEFORERFC aren't relevant either, as what you "should do" and required to do are two separate concepts. As long as editors criticise the RfC itself and not the proposal, there's a good chance the proposed changes can be made sooner rather than later. CNC (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Adding a note to WP:THESUN does not require a RFC, and discussions on The Sun (the tabloid) are not discusions on a prior publications of the same name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. I'm not convinced this is so contentious that it needs a Request for Comment to resolve it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC, very premature. Show that there is any live issue here at all first. Are there previous discussions where this is a point of contention? The purpose of RFCs on RSN is for discussion of live issues, not to categorise sources in the absence of an actual live issue - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  David, there have been 15 prior discussions of The Sun, and its use has been in extreme contention for a long time. You were a participant in those discussions, and you were strongly opposed to any use of The Sun whatsoever. You have been systematically ripping all references to The Sun out of articles citing WP:THESUN in your edit summaries. You do that more or less every day at such high speed and on such a scale that it would be impossible for anyone to monitor exactly what was being ripped out. How do I know that references to the old broadsheet newspaper are not being ripped out with the rest of the references to The Sun? The present text of WP:THESUN, so far as it links to The Sun (United Kingdom) without further explanation, is likely to produce that result even if you were to promise not to do it yourself and even if you were to confirm you have not done it yourself. The point is that the text of WP:THESUN is so unclear that it is not remotely adequate. In any event, if you cannot positively prove that no-one is removing references to the old broadsheet newspaper, I think we are entitled to presume that they probably are, because anyone can see that is likely to happen because of the text of WP:THESUN, and it would be impossible to actually monitor accross all the articles of the encyclopedia (WP:FAIT). James500 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any diffs to show that this is a current issue, that refs to the prior broadsheet have been effected? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would not be reasonably practical to find diffs of references being removed without a script or tool that is capable of finding them. Do you know of a script or tool that can do that? If you do not, then you are demanding that I find diffs by manually examining every mainspace edit made since 2019 (which is probably tens of millions). That would be a completely inappropriate request and would violate WP:FAIT. James500 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  So in other words there is no current issue. If someone removes one of the current references to the earlier publication revert them and open a discussion with them, if that fails come here for a third opinion.

  Removing references to The Sun where appropriate is fine given the consensus that it is unreliable. Obviously any such removals should be done with care, and any mistakes discussed with the editor removing the reference. All of which follows the wording of WP:FAIT.

  Asking for evidence has nothing to do with WP:FAIT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Although this issue can be easily resolved by simply fixing WP:THESUN to post-1969, are we - or have we - actually used the 1964-69 Sun as a source at any point, and have such references been removed by editors quoting the RfC about the tabloid? Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  We do have references to the old broadsheet Sun in articles right now at this very moment. I am not aware of any script or tool that can detect whether references to the old broadsheet Sun have been removed in the past, let alone determine if they have been removed in the five years since the RfC in 2019. James500 (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Proposal to end this. A number of editors have suggested that the text of WP:THESUN can be amended without an RfC. I do not see anyone saying they will revert such an amendment. I propose we treat that as an emerging consensus, since that text does not accurately reflect the consensus established in 2019 anyway. I propose to WP:BOLDly amend the text of WP:THESUN by adding "The following consensus applies only to the tabloid newspaper published from 1969 onwards; it does not apply to the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969". Unless there is an immediate howl of protest, I am going to do this now, because I think that it would be better for all of us to end this as quickly as possible. If no-one reverts or objects to the amendment, I am happy to withdraw this RfC, and for it to be closed. James500 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done with this edit. The correct edit summary is in the following edit. (Unfortunately WP:RSP is far too large to load conveniently on a browser). If no one reverts that edit, I have no problem with this RfC being closed as withdrawn and resolved. James500 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (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.

Book prologue

Usually, when a book is re-published several years after first publication, there is a recent prologue by a modern author that explains the book's editorial history. If the notability of the book is already established elsewhere, can such a prologue be used as a source on an article about the book?

I mean, that prologue is in the book itself, but it's not part of the original book, and whoever wrote it writes it from and distant and uninvolved point of view. Cambalachero (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. An introduction is acceptable as a source. For example, the introduction to the novel "Dracula" (1896) in the Oxford "World's Classics" edition, which was written by A N Wilson in 1983, would be an acceptable source for the 1896 novel by Bram Stoker. James500 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of scientific dictionaries

My apology if this has already been asked and answered, I could not find it. I will try and phrase this question in a general way, keeping it short (maybe too short).

Are scientific dictionaries considered to be reliable (e.g. tertiary) sources?

• The use of OED, for instance as an entymology source is I believe considered reliable, so can and often is used for this in WP articles.
• The Elsevier ScienceDirect collections of papers is viewed as unreliable. I am not sure why, perhaps because it is uncurated.
• What about OED, Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of Physics (& similar Chemistry, Biology...) when it comes to the scientific meaning of terms? Tertiary, or closer to primary as their curation is unclear.

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean ScienceDirect Topics, there's an explanation at WP:RSP. Scientific dictionaries in general are tertiary sources and there's no real way to answer your question without knowing the context. Is there a specific situation where someone is using a scientific dictionary as a source that you're wondering about? This essay could be helpful. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. It is a messy one against the world where the "1" (not me) is using science dictionaries and high-schools texts to support his case. The essay is very useful, question answered. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor addendum: I think it would be useful to have tertiary source tags for article maintenance; there are primary/secondary but I have never seen tertiary. I can think of cases where these would be relevant, for instance in AfC & NPP. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Aleteia

Two past discussions. One said no way and the other is a very deep dive into Catholic publications.

Used at 2021 Canadian church burnings to source police-blotter stuff about three different fires three years ago. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's good for attributed information on church subjects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

it's being used to reference fires. Unattributed.Elinruby (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

attributed to fires that occurred in Churches, isn't it? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel this would be the best source for factual information such as incidences of church burnings, as it isn't always clear with its sources of information, and many articles read as opinion pieces. Overall, other sources would be preferable.

It openly describes itself as focused on Catholic evangelism, which I find concerning for using it as a main source.

The quality of articles seems to vary greatly depending on the topic, author, etc.

Some appear to be clearly opinion-based while some seem to be fairly plain descriptions of events related to the Catholic Church like a new bishop appointed.

It actually has featured some very interesting and nuanced discussion of fraught topics such as Residential Schools, (e.g. in this article where the individual being interviewed about Residential Schools admits the severe abuses and harm that occurred, acknowledging the existence of gravesites, references denialism, and overall discusses the topic with a fair amount of nuance [1])

Overall, however, I don't personally think it's reliable enough to stand on its own, particularly on a highly controversial topic such as the Canadian church burnings, which have been the subject of conspiracies. Use of other news sources to support claims would be beneficial. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Fluorescent Jellyfish

From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?

Let me put an example which I have come across few years ago.

Some giant news media which I don't recollect now, something like BBC or Guardian, reported

in detail on the survival story of a man who was stranded in sea alone, there was a local media report too in English on the same story around the same date. The only difference between the two news reporting was survivor's story relating to God/Bible/Jesus. This giant media selectively censored that part of his quote from their reporting. If say a wiki article on survivor exists and I am about to add his story how bible/Jesus made him strong when he was stranded in sea alone bh citing the local news, wouldn't then some editor remove the content saying unreliability of source, ie., the local news? In short if source to context isn't analysed, every part related to Christianity wouldn't be there in Wikipedia as these giant medias only shy when it comes about Christianity not when Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism is at discussion.

So instead of discussing reliability of source as a whole, source in relation to the context where it is used as source is the one which is needed to be analysed and discussed.

The exact context including the part of sentence which used Aleteia as source hasn't been provided here yet. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?"

Incidences of church arsons are also reported in many news sources that are known to be more reliable, such as CBC [1], The Edmonton Journal [2], and various other sources for individual incidents. Therefore it doesn't seem necessary to also include citations to a questionable source like Aleteia. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, evangelical and .org/advocacy groups should always be considered unreliable by default. They are not only biased, but biased to the point where, in my experience, few people outside the organization consider them trustworthy. (There are exceptions, but they're for well known, exceptional organizations.) Reliable sources are supposed to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the onus here should be on anyone who considers Aleteia reliable (or even "good enough") to prove it. Woodroar (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Judith Reisman

This is about [271]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think it's needed, to be honest. The fact that the ADL have condemned what was an obviously batshit theory which would be found ridiculous by anyone with more than one functioning brain cell doesn't really add anything. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I was worried this might be a case of someone removing the ADL due to misinterpreting the recent RFC (AFAICT the text in question has nothing to do with I/P), but in fact the edit summary says it was removed for being a primary source, a sentence in Wikipedia saying "the ADL said X" sourced only to the ADL, which makes me think this is a WEIGHT issue rather than a reliability issue. Have other sources covered and given weight to the ADL's statement? Then cite those sources. Has only the ADL covered the ADL's statement? Then it's probably not really necessary, as Black Kite says. -sche (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Catholic Register RS for Canadian budget?

Is the Catholic Register RS for this edit?[272] Elinruby (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Why just settle with Catholic Register, start a new section

Is Blacklock’s Reporter a reliable source? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. But more to the point why do you want this in the article twice in row? The allocation is already there, cited to a reliable source. Why do we have to argue about various sketchy sources that you want to cite a second mention of this right after the first? Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby allocation is already there, cited to a reliable source.

where in the article as of the latest revision [273] says about the allocation of $7.9 something million at Kamloops for search and excavating അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems like an unexpected source to be using to write that much about that topic (either the budget or Indian-schools-related issues). It's been around a long time, but I'm having trouble finding USEBYOTHERS; most of the few instances I've found where RS cited a "Catholic Register" were actually cases where they cited the American National Catholic Register, not Canada's The Catholic Register, but I did find this Forward article and this Xtra article citing the Canadian one for information about Roman catacomb tours and for the views of a Catholic, respectively: not particularly weighty or contentious matters or part of this topic area. That's not much of a showing, but my search was not exhaustive and perhaps someone else can find more, ideally especially anything relevant to this topic area. (And what are their editorial standards?) If the paragraph/information can be sourced to better sources, use them instead; if it can only be sourced to the Catholic Register, there are likely WEIGHT issues to consider separate from reliability. -sche (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Blacklock's Reporter (mentioned above), when I looked for USEBYOTHERS of them, all I found were apparently-unreliable sources citing them (Toronto Sun, discussed in several archived discussions and viewed as unreliable; True North, discussed above; National Post, also discussed in many archived discussions as unreliable, plagiarizing, etc); the mention in True North was a 2022 article saying Blacklock's was being evicted from the parliamentary press gallery for "serious misconduct" after their reporter insulted and threatened journalists. -sche (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

LA Weekly guest-author?

Specifically the one added here[274].

Per https://www.laweekly.com/guest-author/written_in_partnership_with_lauren_carpenter/page/1/ this is a "guest-author". Is this BLP-good or is it some sort of paid content? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)