Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 335←Archive 339Archive 340Archive 341Archive 342Archive 343→Archive 345

Google knowledge Panel - https://g.co/kgs/KZJcmG

  • I want to know - can information on the knowledge panel be used as an reliable source of article for a wiki page creation? I really need to know this please help.


UAE news outlets: Gulf News and thenationalnews.com

I've noticed that most UAE-related articles source content to these news outlets. I strongly suspect that these outlets are not independent of the authoritarian regime in the UAE. For example, this is how Gulf News describes Sulaiman Al-Fahim, a convicted grifter who pretends to have a PhD[1] and has close ties with the authoritarian regime in Dubai:

  • At 31, Dr Sulaiman Abul Kareem Mohammad Al Fahim's achievements rival those of seasoned professionals twice his age. Today, his seemingly boundless energy is directed at building new ventures. What drives this former child prodigy, chess champion, entrepreneur, philanthropist and academic to generate ideas, pursue opportunities and turn them into successful enterprises?

Basic fact-checking would have shown that he does not have a PhD (as the NY Times confirmed with a phone call[2]) and the article completely omits any relationship with the authoritarian regime (which should matter for success in business). I'm raising flags about these outlets in cases anyone checks them in the future here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

UAE has censorship, and the media are not considered free in the country.
As for Gulf News Apparently the managing director of Gulf News's parent company is the minister of finance of UAE and is chairman of UAE state telecom company, so I would absolutely not expect impartiality from that resource.
It even seems the source has not checked the webpage of the grifter, which says he doesn't have a PhD, only an MBA.
The National seems to be even worse, as it was created in 2008 by the UAE government and is now owned by a company controlled by deputy prime minister of UAE, who is a royal family member.
I therefore confirm your suspicions. The problem is - what is the alternative? I can't think of a good enough resource to cover UAE. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: There is Pakistani media, which I flagged above with regards to geo.tv. That covers the UAE quite frequently, although questions have been raised about the reliability of Pakistani media also. I'd appreciate more opinions. IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess one of the easiest steps would be to remove content sourced to these outlets that is used for self-serving puffery. For example, content that emphasizes that various UAE government figures promote human rights, how they are responsible for economic prosperity, all the awards they have won, and all the bodies that they've headed. I've been trying to remove some absurd sentence in the lead of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum which says "He created the Maktoum Award for World Peace in 2011", as if it were some notable prize. It's sourced to "www.emirates247.com". No luck with that because editors insist that it's sourced to a RS and thus belongs on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed to what you say. emirates247 is owned by Dubai Media Inc., which is wholly owned by the Government of Dubai. It is very strange they insist on it being reliable when it patently isn't, particularly when talking of the UAE royal family. Basically every government-owned (either federal govt or emirate-owned) media resource in UAE seems to be more or less the same quality as the Chinese/Russian government-owned media (i.e. OK when citing government positions, or some, dunno, sports and other uncontroversial subjects; unusable otherwise), but I can't make a distinction between various media outlets and between Arabic-language and English-language coverage, as I don't know Arabic (meaning which resources may be admissible for most circumstances and which are to be deprecated).
I can't contribute much to the topic (it's not my area of interest), but from what I see you wrote on the talk page, yes, I wholeheartedly support it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gulf News and The National aren't RS? Where did this come from? They're national daily newspapers in a UN member state. What about Khaleej Times, Gulf Today, Ittihad, Bayan and Emarat Al Youm? Why exclude them? It would take some experience, I would have thought, in the Emirates' media sector to produce reliable commentary and assessment of the various media outlets here. There's a lot of POV going on here from Snooganssnoogans and its showing in the edits being made - "an authoritarian regime in the UAE where human rights violations are severe and systematic, and Emiratis and residents are forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and tortured for criticizing the regime" is typical fare - added to a BLP, might I add. So if we assume that the Evil Emirates makes North Korea look like a liberal regime (and that is the sort of level of assumption that appears to underpin the selective use of sources and attribution of weight to them), then we can assume that its media is cowed, controlled entirely by the government and therefore not admissible for WP sourcing. Except that's pretty mad, isn't it? The world's 30th largest economy should be excluded from Wikipedia because one editor is getting a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hardly an argument that would seem to me to be terribly bright. By arguing here, with no participation from editors FROM the Emirates, that its media aren't RS, you are effectively giving POV-pushing editors carte blanche to demonise and otherwise denigrate and downgrade the UAE on Wikipedia - and that is most certainly the aim of attempting to get UAE media declared non-RS. Or am I wrong? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did this come from? See above explanation (UAE is not a democracy, has censorship, and both of the outlets are directly or indirectly controlled by UAE or emirate government, which significantly influences the independence, hence reliability, of reporting).
They're national daily newspapers in a UN member state. First, there is basically no country in the world which is not part of UN (well, Western Sahara isn't, but it's mostly occupied by Morocco). North Korea and Cuba are also UN member states, which doesn't mean their newspapers are fine; Chinese media mostly aren't reliable, either. You set too low a bar.
What about Khaleej Times, Gulf Today, Ittihad, Bayan and Emarat Al Youm? Why exclude them? Well, these outlets have not been under discussion here. To be brief in my answer: Khaleej Times - no opinion; Gulf Today - should be evaluated together with Khaleej Times, but otherwise no opinion (the owners are the same); Ittihad - same opinion as The National (i.e. since, according to the Arabic Wikipedia (Google-translated) it is owned by the Abu Dhabi Media company, a government-controlled company, it is almost certainly not reliable for political coverage, but might be better for other uses); Emarat Al Youm - published by Dubai Media Inc., a Dubai emirate government company, therefore same opinion as Emirates 24/7.
There's a lot of POV going on here from Snooganssnoogans and its showing in the edits being made Nope. The opinion you quote is the opinion of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders etc. See this article for details. Since there is ample evidence to the claim, it's not illegal POV-pushing.
So if we assume that the Evil Emirates makes North Korea look like a liberal regime No one is claiming UAE is worse than North Korea - in fact, it's not as abysmal, but it's not good, either. And yes, a lot of media outlets are government-controlled by ownership, while private media are subject to restrictive laws on news reporting, which are not conducive to reliable reporting.
The world's 30th largest economy should be excluded from Wikipedia because one editor is getting a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hardly an argument that would seem to me to be terribly bright. Well, we on Wikipedia even deprecate a lot of outlets from the world's second-largest economy. Just how big the country's economy is is irrelevant.
By arguing here, [...] media declared non-RS. Or am I wrong? We on Wikipedia don't care to create a positive image for UAE, but an objective one. Unfortunately, it is often not possible to do so using domestic media. You are free to share your opinions, but do expect them to be confronted with analyses from other editors, which will often include objective criteria, such as ownership, country of operation, tone of coverage of politically delicate matters etc. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
We do, indeed, aim to create an objective picture. That includes using media sources on the ground. Yes, they are uncritical of the leadership. But I don't think your picture of a censored media governed by restrictive laws is fair these days, either. Balance is clearly always good, but we also need to make sure we don't swing the other way in our eagerness to balance things, giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain aspects of life in the Emirates. Blanket deprecating the national media is really not the way to go, IMHO. An afterthought - the media here is not used as a tool for international influence or political point-scoring like, for instance, RT or CCTV. It's domestic media covering domestic affairs for a domestic audience. And in many, many cases for WP, it's the only source editors here can use - and reliable in the vast majority of cases. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Which is exactly my concern. As I said, until we have evaluated them all on WP:RSP, I'd propose not to use them at least when describing a) whatever pertains to the royal family and their government, as their reporting will not be objective; b) whatever is written about countries on the Arabian peninsula, because, as we know, they are not particularly friendly of each other (one of the reasons I would not cite Al Jazeera in this case, even the English one); c) I'd be still cautious with the Israel coverage even when the relations have normalised; reporting on other Arab countries and Iran should also be given particular attention while citing; if possible, we should use other resources, otherwise, evaluate the plausibility and cite with attribution if the info is plausible enough. Additional considerations or exemptions may apply for other media resources, particularly if not controlled by UAE government, except for point a) from the list, because AFAIK Arab media do not have a tradition to criticise the rulers of the country in which they are in.
Also, all of the reporting has to be evaluated for neutrality and being due. What sounds like blatant promotion of the monarch, or, in the case cited, an interview/essay that was almost certainly paid for should not be included, which is of course not only the problem of UAE (it also happens in Ukraine pretty often).
I propose to use them for non-controversial news relating to domestic affairs (e.g. opening of a highway) and while reporting the stance of the government of UAE (federal or emirate), with attribution in the latter case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
None of the UAE newspapers offer paid-for editorial outside 'special advertising supplements', which are clearly flagged as such. FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. This article reads like as if someone has paid a bunch of dirhams to have a short biography published and then make an ad for The Hydra Executives Show. It apparently is written by Sara Sayed (at least she was the responsible editor), but just after a few paragraphs the narrator suddenly starts to speak in first person and obviously about Al Fahim, not her. He boasts about having been "fifth in the world when he was 9", which is WP:EXTRAORDINARY (and we don't know which tournament allowed people from around the world at such a young age - it's simply non-verifiable). He does mention having received a PhD, but oddly enough his personal webpage is silent on that (why?). Nothing about fraud. And a lot about his show. For instance, it is indicated twice that the winners gonna get a million bucks, with the second mention appearing to be taken from a draft version (really, it looks awful). Ms Sayed should have known better, even if she's freelance.
In short, that's what we in music call payola (in this case, for The Hydra Executives Show). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The comments by Alexandermcnabb seem confused as to what reliability entails. Reliability is not determined on the basis of where a source is located. Breitbart News isn't a RS for US politics just because it's located in the US. In fact, there are many non-US news outlets that are far more reliable for US politics than Breitbart. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No confusion here. Brietbart has an extreme agenda - you yourself used the phrase, "Arab media do not have a tradition to criticise the rulers of the country in which they are in" and that's very true. Beyond that, UAE media are generally (GENERALLY) not politicised or regional in their focus. And they don't have extreme or fringe motivations, they're not puppet media of the regime, they're generally let well alone to do their job: reporting news. Gulf News can get a bit purple sometimes. But that's hardly the stuff of broad deprecation. My point regarding location is that these newspapers are the only sources generally available to WP editors based in the Emirates. And they are generally sound, if perhaps also generally uncritical. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I think their coverage is almost always highly politicized... What it is not is polarized because that requires the toleration of at least one opposing political group. If you want an example of why we can’t use Gulf News see their coverage related to Latifa Al Maktoum... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, these are obviously reliable. I suggest everyone here tread carefully, so others don't assume that this is thinly veiled racism and/or Islamophobia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact but I would not use them in any area where there is a conflict of interest based on their ownership, for all intents and purposes neither of these organizations has real editorial independence. Unreliable areas would include human rights, civil rights, Emirati royal families, international relations, national security, and all BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Um, no one said a thing about racism or Islamophobia until you tried to play that card, Mister Emir of Wikipedia. The media in question are not being singled out because of the ethnicity of who controls them, they are being called out for their failure of reliable sourcing policy. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    I am not playing any card. Editors are deeming sources as unreliable based on a single article from The New York Times. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A good example of the kinds of problems that have been highlighted in this discussion is the Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives article, which was created and primarily written by Alexandermcnabb. The sourcing in the article is near-exclusively to non-independent sources and is incredibly laudatory towards a philanthropy organization run by Dubai's authoritarian leader. Readers can learn things such as the organization "benefitting 69 million" people and that there are "90,000 volunteers" in the organization. The source for the latter is literally the dictator of Dubai himself (the source for the former claim is a dead link). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the article reads like advertising. Given that even Alexandermcnabb admits the Arab world media are normally uncritical towards their rulers and monarchs, we cannot consider coverage from the Gulf News or the National and like news outlets to be impartial in their coverage. It badly needs rewriting, but let a person with good knowledge of Arabic and media do it. (Note. A template was inserted) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: were you planning to mention that both of those outlets have published full length features on you? Because thats the sort of COI that needs disclosing... [3][4]. Especially given how, ahem, strident your arguments have been. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, lookie! I'm notable!!! A newspaper interviews me and I have a lifelong COI barring me - someone who has spent the last 35 years in the Middle East media industry - from discussing Emirati media as a result? That's reaching pretty hard, there. You'll also find Dubai TV, Dubai Radio, the BBC and ITV have interviewed me. So I can't discuss them objectively either? As for the MBRGI article, sourced "near-exclusively to non-independent sources", you're calling Gulf Business, Gulf News, What's On, The National, Forbes Middle East, Saudi Gazette and Khaleej Times, all cited as backing non-controversial statistics, all non-independent? That leaves UAE based editors unable to source any article about pretty much anything - and it's a nonsense. BTW, if the organisation had benefitted 69 million people, please educate me and tell me what's wrong with saying 'the organisation benefitted 69 million people'??? Or are we in the old territory of that well-worn trope: 'nothing the Arab world can do could possibly be good'? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No one was saying you’re barred from anything, but you should have mentioned it in your first post here. Something along the lines of “BTW both have written fawning feature length pieces about me but my opinion is not influenced by that.” would have been appropriate. Why did you feel that it was appropriate to invoke your long experience in the area and not mention your explicit connection to these two papers? If you’re going to trade of the credibility gained by using your real identity and repeatedly referring that experience in conversation then yeah, you should disclose pretty obvious potential COIs in those same conversations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a stab at removing the most brazen kind of puffery from the article [Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives] but it was immediately restored by Alexandermcnabb[5]. I thought there was an agreement that at the very least we shouldn't source brazen puffery sourced non-independent news outlets. For example, claims that the dictator's philanthropy "benefitted 69 million" people and had "90,000 volunteers" are extraordinary, and require high-quality sourcing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is all getting very personal, is it not? Fawning feature length pieces? That's terribly subjective - but then so much of the strongly expressed opinion flying around here is. I'm not trading on the credibility of using my real identity, I just use my real identity. I'm not ashamed of me. As for repeatedly referring to my experience, I don't believe I have. It was other editors who decided to Google me and bring these interviews to the table. I'm not sure how far down that ad hominem road you go before you're WP:HOUNDING an editor who disagrees with you, but it would be patently ridiculous (as well as obnoxious) for me to preface every conversation I have about the region with lists of media I have worked with, been interviewed by or have had reviews - fawning or otherwise - of my books or other work published by. I've worked in the region's media industry since 1986 - you can assume I have had some sort of personal connection with each and every medium in the region and beyond. So where is that a COI? It's like complaining that a horse trainer can't comment on horses because they've worked at stables. The 'brazen puffery' in the MBRGI article, incidentally, is plain fact sourced from the annual report of a philanthropic organisation. Beneficiaries and volunteers sourced to a charity's own annual report would strike me as perfectly everyday. Unless you're on a crusade and lack sufficient balance to be a safe pair of hands when editing an encyclopaedia, for instance. Repeatedly referring to Maktoum as a 'dictator' would seem to be, to me, an indicator that such balance is lacking. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
If you keep this up you’re looking at a topic ban or worse. Of course you’re trading on the credibility of using your real identity... You do it every time you mention your work experience, years in the region, etc which you do pretty much every day. What else do you call “define systematic and severe. I've worked in the region for 35 years and lived here in the Emirates for over 28 years, working mostly in media here. I've never seen these 'systematic and severe' violations. I've never even seen one. I must be wholly blind or perhaps there's another narrative not quite as fund-raisingly eye-catching as that presented - based on a tiny number of alleged cases - by Amnesty, HRW and Freedom House. Huge improvements have been made here - particularly under Mohammed - but you're so keen to wield the bludgeon, you're not even looking at that more nuanced picture. And that's, honestly, a shame.”[6]. That really looks like you’re trying to use your personal credibility backed by your real identity to cast doubt on the reporting of a whole host of WP:RS, you realize that right? BTW I didn’t google you, I found those articles because you feature them prominently on your blog which you feature prominently on your wikipedia account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

" Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise."

From Did Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Say COVID-19 Was Made in a Wuhan Lab? on Snopes:

"...the suggestion is false, misleading, and based on a non-peer-reviewed report that was published in two separate studies on Sept. 14 and Oct. 8 in the preprint server Zenodo, which means that the research had not gone through rigorous editorial critically evaluated by scientific experts with an extra degree of scrutiny. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise. A reviewed study, on the other hand, is on par with a well-vetted, expertly researched textbook."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Like, is this not common knowledge? Nobody should be citing unreviewed preprints for statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: uses of Zenodo in our articles.[7] Doug Weller talk 10:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller, good luck purging those. The Zenodo fanbois are loud. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, @JzG:, @Guy Macon:, you all mind if I assist in their removal too? Question: Does Zenodo clearly label and show when a pre-print has been properly published in a journal like bioRxiv does? Since I presume papers that have been properly published are fine to stay (though the reference should really be swapped over to point at that version), but i'd like to focus for now on the not yet published stuff. If Zenodo doesn't have that accessibility function, that makes this more annoying and I guess i'd be more inclined to just remove all such references wholesale. SilverserenC 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren, they generally do not identify subsequent publication, is my experience. But this may have changed over time. And it's possible they may have removed all the copyright violations as well. But I'd want evidence. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You weren't kidding, Guy, my god. Look at Pyu language (Sino-Tibetan). It's all Zenodo, it's all RS violations front to back and there's article after article like this. I can see why it's aggravating to deal with, since you're basically having to trash entire articles on clearly notable topics and i'm sure there's a ton of resistance. Welp...*rolls up sleeves* I'm going in anyways. SilverserenC 23:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I would say that is a google search for "exact name on preprint" (with the quotes) doesn't show it being later published we can assume that it wasn't. If the published paper is paywalled, I say leave both citations in the article with a (preprint) label on one of them.
I think in a few select cases you might be able to keep the content and replace the preprint citation with a Citation Needed, but mostly the claim would have to go.
So should we ask the edit notice gnomes for an edit notice for whenever someone tries to add or re-add a preprint citation? Are there sites other than Zenodo that contain only preprints? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
List of ant genera is an example of Zenodo being used with actual published studies. Not sure why the Zenodo preprint is the one being linked to through when there should be actual journal published page links one can use. Still not entirely defensible of a decision, but not one where the reference itself should be removed, since it is done properly outside of the URL itself. SilverserenC 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A good time to pimp WP:UPSD, which will highlight Zenodo, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, etc... in yellow and make it easier to review source provenance and reliability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: While you continue to purge all Zenodo sources from WP, I would like to point out that a few of them are from established subject-matter experts, e.g. Ulrike Mosel [8] who spent her lifetime studying the languages of western Oceania. If I find that a source is fine considering all necessary caveats per WP:SELFPUB (also if it's not just indiscriminate refspamming—most of the stuff you have weeded clearly is plain refspamming), I will reinstate it with a comment line why I believe it passes as RS. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Did that subject matter expert never publish their work? Considering we have an article on Ulrike Mosel, I would presume they actually have published studies and books that can be cited, rather than a pre-print archive? Not sure why their non-peer reviewed stuff should be included. SilverserenC 18:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Mosel has published several peer-reviewed articles on Teop, which makes her the subject matter expert. The case of dictionaries has become a bit different from typical scholarly works, as many of them are work-in-progress databases that won't ever see a peer-reviewed print version or at least a final static peer-reviewed online version. This includes epochal and oft-cited works such as Sergei Starostin's Towel of Babel or Robert Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Actually, the Zenodo link of Mosel's Teop dictionary is not self-published, but part of a project by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI EVA). It has a more respectable URL under [9], but note that the DOI used by the MPI EVA goes to Zenodo which here serves as more than just a pre-print archive. That said, the article content currently does not depend on this source. The URL was added as an "External link", which makes sense since we often have dictionaries under "Further reading" or "External links". –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Police department press releases

From The Guardian:

"A review of police killings in California showed that law enforcement spokespeople frequently publish highly misleading or sometimes false information about the people they have killed. Over the last five years, the Guardian found at least a dozen examples in the state of initial police statements misrepresenting events, with major omissions about the officers’ actions, inaccurate narratives about the victims’ behaviors, or blatant falsehoods about decisive factors.
In some cases, police cited vague “medical emergencies” without disclosing that officers had caused the emergencies through their use of force. In others, departments falsely claimed that the civilians had been armed or had overdosed. In most instances, media outlets repeated the police version of events with little skepticism."

From Wikipedia's standpoint the way to handle this is the way we always have: when reporting a press release from any organization, including cities and police departments, use attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, direct attribution seems required, since there's been far too many incidents of police reports being found to contain fabrications after the fact. Especially since many of those reports are just the information from the officers' reports, whom themselves are an involved party in such incidents. So there would obviously be a bias from the get go. SilverserenC 21:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

New Economic Perspectives

Is neweconomicperspectives.org a reliable source for a BLP? Currently, it's the only source in the criticism section for Tyler Cowen. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a wordpress blog, which would generally be unreliable as it is self-published. It self-describes as a blog, and while it might be an expert blog in some areas, WP:BLP is pretty clear that we should not use self-published sources in a BLP unless it is a source published by the article subject that describes non-controversial information. Seeing as the website a blog that explicitly exists to push Modern Monetary Theory, it's a bit odd to me that it would be included in a BLP given the current BLP policies. There doesn't appear to be strong editorial oversight on the blog, either, so I don't think it's one of those websites that calls itself a "blog" but actually qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG for having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight (think SCOTUSblog). (MMT itself may well be WP:FRINGE, as well, so it's event odder for the source to be WP:DUE in a BLP, even if it weren't a group blog.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
MMT is for now an out-of-mainstream doctrine (and is generally considered to be so), but a) economics do allow heterodox doctrines to be discussed, b) seems COVID forced MMT closer to the center of the economic debate. I don't think we should discredit an economist based on his/her being an MMT supporter. If we allow Austrian School for discussion, so we should MMT. It is certainly an advocacy group (something that, in a more professional setting, would be called a think tank), and I oppose dismissing think tanks just for being think tanks.
The criticism section gave too much space for a single person, agreed; however, it was salvageable and, in my view, acceptable, as the guy in question is a subject-matter expert with relevant expertise and papers published, therefore I don't agree with Mikehawk's revert. There are some folks on the forum who are not subject matter experts (J.D. Alt is an architect who became interested in MMT), but others have the necessary credentials, and the stories they publish seem to be just fine for an WP:OPINION piece. In particular, the pieces that were deleted were actually editor-in-chief's posts. While WP:SELFPUB says no self-published source should be used for whichever BLP claim, the post does not relate strictly to BLP but rather to the scholarship the person writes, which is not, from my reading, covered by WP:BLP - this has more to do with normal debate rather than making claims about a person's life.
I'd directly attribute to Blake's opinions, noting he's an MMT supporter, but not exclude it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Black's posts [10][11][12] have a distinctly unrestrained "blog" tone which, frankly, sometimes borders on personal attack. This is clearly not scholarly material and not appropriate for BLPs. JBchrch talk 10:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that as a blog, they could allow much laxer tone restrictions - not necessarily a bad thing for me. Style is not something that make the resource not to be trusted. I don't find it a typically self-published resource, as they seem to hint, at least a little, that they do have some editorial oversight, though it is certainly not as rigorous as in typical scientific publications. The question for me is not whether the oversight exists (it does) but is oversight present there enough to make the source usable for BLP statements. The problem is, some treat the scientific research/advocacy for policy as part of BLP, which I doubt very much, given that WP:BLP addresses primarily stuff connected with private life, privacy and not the products of making the job - a similar blog could criticise the economic policy of Margaret Thatcher or Paul Krugman in the same terms and we would only then consider the WP:UNDUE part of opinion, because it is obvious the economic policy of Thatcher/Krugman has little to do with BLP, so if there is criticism of the policies policies, we need to publish it from subject-matter experts, wherever they publish it, if only it's due. The WP:UNDUE questions, however, should rather not be discussed here, but on the talk page.
Can I trust it to be the opinion of the folks representing MMT community? Pretty much so, from what I see, because MMT pretty much is about government regulation (mostly, of taxes, which they claim to be the most important). Is the opinion piece grounded in fact and MMT view on economics? Yes. Is it just ad hominem attacks? Not from what I read from the cited passages, although admittedly the person uses strong words of opinion, but at least it is made clear it is opinion and I don't believe the author crossed red lines. Is the person an economist with expertise in the domain? Certainly.
Tl;dr: The passage should have been reformulated and not deleted, and Mikehawk10, in my view, misapplied WP:BLP to criticism of scholarship, which would better but need not be published in a scientific paper (so long as it is a subject matter expert and they don't make some obvious lies or misrepresentations), and therefore we are not answering the right question in this particular case (see that in WP:GRAPEVINE they suggest us to look at WP:LIBEL for additional guidance, and it's certainly not libellous). Questions of WP:UNDUE do not belong here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It is really this complex? WP:SPS is pretty clear: 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. JBchrch talk 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not complex, because my belief is it isn't. Fortunately I am able to read, thank you, but since it is my belief that it is not self-published, I saw this particular sentence as inapplicable in the context. See I don't find it a typically self-published resource, as they seem to hint, at least a little, that they do have some editorial oversight, though it is certainly not as rigorous as in typical scientific publications. With the word "typically" I mean that I can't definitely rule it out, but for me, odds are it is not self-published. A resource can't be both self-published and have at least some degree of editorial oversight at the same time - these statements are mutually exclusive. Does it mean it's reliable? Not necessarily (though I believe it is reliable for opinions of the subject-matter experts who publish there). Is it automatically usable for BLP because it's not self-published? Nope. But I believe the arguments for reverting the edit counterweigh the arguments for leaving the article in the current state. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. I did not understand that you didn't consider it to be 100% self-pub and I certainly did not mean my comment as a personal attack. I still think it's inappropriate for a BLP but now I understand your argument. JBchrch talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess my point is more that if there isn't evidence of significant oversight, we have a tendency to treat it as a WP:SPS. I have seen reliable sources refer to it as a blog, and I admittedly cannot find the blog's editorial standards and/or its retraction policy, if such policies exist. I have seen that the editor-in-chief has changed since 2013, but I don't know that giving someone the title of Editor-in-Chief is a reason to move it from an SPS to a source with editorial controls; Forbes Contributors have titular editors assigned to them, for example, but there isn’t editorial oversight prior to a piece being published. If an editor could find their editorial policies, it would be helpful in establishing the extent of oversight over each new post. Absent published editorial policies, I find it a bit difficult to assume that it has editorial oversight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you in that I neither can find their policy, and I'm afraid I won't even get an answer if I ask for one, because the last post was written in early April last year and the contact form is broken. That said, a group of experts which The New Yorker recognizes the blog as being the most influential one of the MMT group. Moreover, I found a link from University of Mo. - Kansas City that the blog is the blog of the UMKC Economics Department (or so it was in 2012). For a prominent group of MMT theoretics who have an endorsement from a university, there are more chances for them to have the oversight than not. We can't say that for a blog considered influential, especially with the majority of those writing there being scholars, the chance of it not having any review whatsoever is small.
Their works have also been cited by Penn Political Review (1), praised by these researchers in a peer-reviewed paper and used as a source in another. They are also acknowledged here, and there is evidence they are cited in research; not very much but still. All of these signs indicate to me that they are recognised as a group of scholars whose papers can be trusted to be passing through some form of editorial review; otherwise they wouldn't be cited (you know, citing self-published sources for a peer-reviewed paper is not necessarily a good idea). That's how I see it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not impressed by the sources you are bringing up.
  • The Penn Political Review says We are not an academic journal, but rather a “soapbox” for members of the Penn community to share their opinions and learn from one another about the diverse viewpoints found on Penn’s campus [13].
  • The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics contests the mainstream orthodoxy with Keynes’s vision of open-ended economic study [14]. The article describes them as a blog.
  • People at Renewal believe that a radical and emancipatory vision of social democracy can be realised in the twenty-first century and demand the expansion of real freedom and equality for all, and an end to the commodification of nature and daily life [15].
  • Epstein describes the website as a blog and calls them bloggers and advocates.
  • I am not clear on what the Google Scholar link shows?
All in all, this only confirms that this is blog pushing heterodox (if not fringe) views in the field of economics. Should stay out of BLPs. JBchrch talk 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I dug through Google Scholar, so thanks for pointing out faultiness of some resources. I'll discuss them below based on the info.
You seem to conflate "blog" and "self-published, therefore unreliable for BLP". A recent discussion on ACRLog concluded that it was a blog, but it was reliable because it had endorsement from librarians' academic associations and those who posted info were academics, and the info was reviewed. So even there blog≠self-published, though I agree it is often the case. Even an advocacy blog may have editorial review, and I stated explicitly that while it is an advocacy resource, the opinions can be attributed.
As for the resources - Penn Political Review - yep, my bad. Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics is a peer-reviewed journal, and while it is niche, we shouldn't be excluding journals only based on their worldview (well, there is strong indication a lot of folks do, but that doesn't mean we should, too). Bias does not influence reliability. Ditto for Renewal. Remember that MMT will attract people from the left - it is by no means disqualifying. Epstein is right to say that it is a blog, because, as you have probably read from The New Yorker/WSJ, it was intended to be one.
The Google Scholar link I provided was to show that the articles from New Economic Perspectives are cited, two or three times, but they still are. Is it therefore fringe (because of little citation)? Well, MMT is described as heterodox, but that is not a disqualifying trait for RS, either. The only problem might be that it is not due, but again, MMT is now pretty much talked about in the media and slowly comes out from a niche and towards the centre of debate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Personal or group blogs are considered self-published per WP:SPS: Nothing controversial here. The discussion on ACRLog was not about a BLP. Regarding the heterodoxy of MMT, I was simply responding to your WP:USEBYOTHERS argument: this heterodox blog was cited in heterodox outlets, not the Journal of Political Economy. So that says very little about its general reliability. JBchrch talk 22:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable or WP:UNDUE? It isn't currently being cited for any facts other than the facts that the blog does indeed contain the quotes and paraphrases that express the opinions we are citing. As with 75% of the things we deal with here, this isn't a reliability issue, which is about "Can we trust the information this source is presenting about events that happened") it is instead "is this opinion well promulgated enough for us to include the opinion and attribute it to this person". That's not WP:RS, that WP:UNDUE. --Jayron32 12:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mikwehawk's removal. Whether or not we're talking about Cowen himself or his work, this still falls under BLP. WP:BLPSPS makes it pretty clear that we can't use blogs or other self-published sources in BLPs. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Silk Road

I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment (see WP:RFC).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


I'm looking for opinions about the reliability of the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org


This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which is definitely a reliable publication, and which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.


The Silk Road "Journal" that is the subject of this discussion is based primarily around Central Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by individual researchers, who are disproportionately from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So basically, the Silk Road Foundation is a mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication". A lot of researchers don't want to write for it, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide useful quirks like DOI. So it's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your comments. Hunan201p (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for here? You've answered your own question. It's not peer-reviewed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, Headbomb: this source is widely cited on Wikipedia and especially on ethnographical and historical articles. What I'm looking at here is whether or not this is a matter for deprecation or classification as generally unreliable, because a lot of people are apparently unaware that the publisher doesn't peer review, and will continue citing it in the future if it doesn't get blackballed. Hunan201p (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hunan201p: It seems you wanted to trigger the RfC on the topic of reliability of the Silk Road Foundation (diff). If so, a few things:
1. "Wikipedia proposals" is a non-article RfC (project-wide), so it's not very suitable for evaluation for reliability of articles published on a source in question. "Wikipedia proposals" have more to do with changing the rules Wikipedia governs itself, and seems to be a general venue for other non-article RfCs, too. You might want to ask for the opinion of folks in "History and geography" for evaluation of the source, though, as this is the closest topic to archaeology available.
2. Please place the RfC header at the top of the whole discussion, and formulate a short question. Guidance of how to write them is described in WP:RfC. It then should appear on the RfC webpage - if it doesn't, you'll probably have to make it shorter.
3. It would be desirable to have an ongoing dispute about the resource in the first place to trigger an RfC. While the usage is indeed quite wide on Wikipedia, I would like to see the underlying arguments and possibly then vote for something. Could you please link to some discussions (not necessarily ongoing) that feature the resource?
PS. I have removed spare lines from the quotes because they looked awful in the source text. And unfortunately, I've got nothing to say on the merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Szmenderowiecki. Thank you for fixing the source and for your helpful advice. The purpose of opening this discussion here is to get an RfC on whether The Silk Road Foundation should be deprecated, or classified as unreliable, as happened at the Daily Mail RfC. I'm not aware of any discussions that were ever made about Silk Road Foundation, and I don't believe anyone has noticed on Wikipedia up until now that this is not a peer reviewed source.
As I understand from the banner at the top of this page, and the aforementioned Daily Mail RfC, this is the place to "seek requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles". I don't have any articles on Wikipedia to complain about, or any Silk Road Foundation articles to complain about, this topic is strictly about the reliability of Silk Road Foundation. The Silk Road PDF I quoted is provided here only as evidence that the publication itself is not peer reviewed, and the complaint here is that a borderline predatory publisher is being prolifically cited on controversial subjects like linguistics and ethnic origins. Take care. Hunan201p (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
1. If there are no disputes you are aware of and no discussions have been held, I'd suggest you remove the RfC tag, because it's not yet something that was significant enough to be disputed, and it will anyway not really appear in WP:RSP, as the criteria of inclusion include at least 2-3 discussions on the topic. You may also ask folks in WP:ARCHAEO for their opinion on the resource. I also agree with Headbomb that you have essentially answered your question, so if you want an RfC held, rewrite it so that it is not a polemic with yourself.
2. If you decide to stay with the RfC, Legobot (the bot that moves the question to the feedback request service list) does not see the content of the question. You should make the question shorter and put it at the top, too, for example: Is Silk Road Foundation's publication a predatory journal? or Should Silk Road Foundation's publication be used for Far East archaeology articles? etc. You then have to sign the question so that the bot copies the question. Also, I'd also suggest you mark the place for discussion and voting. See previous RfCs for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I greatly appreciate your efforts to help me through this process. I intend to re-post my question in the way that you suggest. I have a question for you. I recently found a comment from the WP:RS archive about the Silk Road Foundation that essentially mirrors my concerns. It was authored by Fifelfoo on 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) and can be seen at Archive 82. Do you believe that that discussion, along with my RfC, could meet the criteria for inclusion in WP:RSP? I intend to start a discussion at ARCHAEO. Hunan201p (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hunan201p: The comment is indeed confirming your suspicions, so you could use it as support for your position. I doubt, however, that it will be included in WP:RSP, because per WP:RSPCRITERIA, a discussion should normally have 3+ editors who weigh in their opinions on authenticity/reliability (as the title is different from the source in question), and there is only one editor who analysed it. Also, the topic itself doesn't really merit an RfC on WP:ARCHAEO, these are usually reserved for questions governing WikiProject and not specific enquiries as this one; and one more thing, it's a niche topic. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Deprecation/blacklisting is not necessary since this journal is already formally disqualified per default by the general rules of WP:SCHOLARSHIP (last bullet point). The case of the Daily Mail is different, because it belongs to a group of sources (news media) that per se are neither reliable nor unreliable, but are evaluated as unreliable based on their track record of spreading misinformation. I can understand Hunan201p's intention to have a strong tool that discourages editors to insert information solely based on Silk Road Foundation-articles, and which also justifies the removal of such information if it cannot be verified otherwise. But we already have this tool with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. –Austronesier (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hunan201p: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua

Discussed perenially here, there is currently contention on using a Xinhua piece on the article for Id Kah Mosque to describe a claim about a plaque in the mosque. The article itself reports on a twitter video from the US Chinese Embassy on the statements of the imam of the mosque and specifically on the point of contention of the removal of a plaque in the mosque. While some are stating that Xinhua cannot be used due to potential bias (this is a situation where the Chinese government is a stakeholder), considering that it's being used to report on the opinions of the Chinese embassy and a blatantly real video of the mosque and imam, I don't see how the usage of the source ought to be contentious, especially with in-line attribution. As it currently stands, the plaque section is heavily biased towards a western narrative by only including testimony given by radio free asia that directly contradicts the chinese embassy video and the Xinhua reporting. I feel as if both statements should be included with in-line attribution or none of them ought to be, but I'd like to know what others have to say about the reliability of Xinhua in this situation (directly reporting on a video posted by the Chinese Embassy). Deku link (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Unreliable and Undue. Per WP:RSP, For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. Simply put, this is one of those situations; the Chinese government is clearly a stakeholder in this dispute in its relation to the suppression of Muslims in Xinjiang. There is a source listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP that report differently from Xinhua, namely Radio Free Asia (RSP entry). None of the sources contest that the plaque was moved (and it's more than just RFA that frame this in the context of the suppression of Uyghurs). The question on if a video produced by and for the Chinese government's use in public relations is unreliable for facts doesn't seem to be a question, but this is exactly the sort of video that Xinhua is reporting on. CGTN's (RSP entry) forced confessions are also "blatantly real" videos (inasmuch as they are verifiably videos that were taken), but that doesn't make them reliable for facts or due for inclusion in articles. We have a real and present motivation here for Xinhua to be used as a form of propaganda and, owing to the RSP entry, I don't see any reason for this to be considered reliable in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
We also have a real and present motivation here for Radio Free Asia to be used as a form of propaganda. There is no reason in my mind that Xinhua cannot be used to report on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy considering that this is a self-reflective usage of the source, and the video clearly shows the plaque is still intact, so given that no western source has reported on the video in any capacity, I don't see how Xinhua's reporting in this specific situation is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This isn’t reporting on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy, its reporting on a statement from a BLP who is not a part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it not a statement of fact that the Chinese Embassy has claimed that the plaque was relocated during renovation with a video of testimony from the Imam of the Mosque? That should be absolutely self-evident, and the overemphasis placed on sources such as Radio Free Asia over the clear existence of this video shows a heavy bias towards Western sources. Continual biblethumping over the general reliability does not change the individual reliability of this article's reporting on what has been put forth by the embassy. Deku link (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The game of telephone you’re talking about ends with a living person. All of the statements that have been added to the page so far fall under BLP, if you think that you can craft a statement which does not fall under those restrictions you are more than welcome to try. I’ve always been saying that this specific article's reporting is unreliable in this specific context, if you’re just realizing that now I don’t know how to help you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
If you read the Radio Free Asia statement at WP:RSP, you will find that it says that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. I do not see a reason why it is different in this case. Community consensus exists on this; Xinhua is fundamentally controlled by the Chinese government, while Radio Free Asia does not experience government co-option that interferes with its reliability. Arguing that they should be treated as equals in terms of credibility does not align with community consensus established through recent RfCs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Putting aside my personal opinions that the RS discussion on RFA came to a woefully inaccurate conclusion (ignoring, among other things, RFA's tendency to grossly inflate covid statistics and fake testimonies for geopolitical reasons), this is a case by case analysis of the sourcing. RFA's claim is clearly inaccurate and inflammatory in nature, and yet we include it with in-line attribution based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Meanwhile, Xinhua's reporting on the Chinese Embassy and the Imam is evidently accurate (the plaque itself is shown on video), yet is rejected based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Deku link (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The RfC on Radio Free Asia acknowledged that for geopolitically sensitive subjects, in-text attribution of RFA's claims is appropriate. There is an acknowledgment that in some sensitive subject areas, RFA is a biased source with a somewhat checkered record. As I pointed out in the RfC, RFA has pushed disinformation over the last year about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting completely wild figures that are orders of magnitude higher than scientific estimates. RFA recently suggested that 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province. That's over 30 times the scientific estimates, which are typically around 4500. An excess mortality study finds about 4600 excess pneumonia deaths in Hubei province during the outbreak. A study in Nature estimates a CoVID-19 death rate of 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in Wuhan, which translates to approximately 4000 deaths in total in the city. These studies (and a host of others on seroprevalence: [16] [17] [18]) all paint a consistent picture of the overall level of mortality in Wuhan and Hubei province, in the range of 4500 deaths. The figures that RFA has been pushing, as high as 150,000, are just wild conspiracy theorizing. This is the sort of reporting that led to the RfC result that in-text attribution is appropriate for RFA in geopolitically sensitive subject areas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS which also calls it "wild conspiracy theorizing" or is that your personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You don’t need an RS that directly calls a source unreliable to come to that conclusion in consensus. Cross referencing data from reliable sources clearly shows RFA inflating COVID deaths. Deku link (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. It's kind of ridiculous to ask for a source that confirms that 150,000 is way higher than 4,500. RFA's "reporting" on the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China is so out of whack with the scientific consensus that there's no way to describe it other than as "disinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
As I noted on Talk:Uyghur genocide, Bloomberg/Time, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. In fact, WaPo gave a pretty damn similar estimate to that of RFA. Unless you believe that the The Washington Post is engaging in disinformation here, I don't think that there's much of a leg to stand on in terms of arguing against RFA's general reliability. And, as you might note, the RfC found consensus in favor RFA's general reliability; it did not note any sort of difference in quality of reporting or systemic inaccuracy that would support the conclusions that you are attempting to draw. In fact, it said quite the opposite, noting that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. If you're looking to the RfC's closure for a reason to call RFA unreliable, the reasoning ain't there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Last spring, a number of Western media sources did indeed repeat Radio Free Asia's original, wild speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. That was not a shining moment in journalism history. Just recently, Radio Free Asia has pushed an even crazier estimate - 150,000 deaths. To my knowledge, none of those outlets have repeated this new claim that RFA is pushing. And this time around, there are multiple high-quality scientific studies of CoVID-19 mortality and serorprevalence available, which make it clear that 150,000 deaths is orders of magnitude too high. RFA is engaged in outright CoVID-19 disinformation here, and I don't know why you'd defend it. Finally, you left out a very important part of the RfC on Radio Free Asia - that in geopolitically sensitive areas, in-text attribution may be appropriate. That's an admission that there are problems in these areas, and RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation is a good illustration of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you point to WP:RS or a community consensus which say that RFA publishes disinformation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you stop badgering genuine concerns on reliability based on simple comparison of reported statistics with your insistent misunderstanding of when RS applies? Deku link (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Asking for a source or community consensus which supports an extraordinary claim is not badgering, however repeatedly responding to questions which where not posed to you in an aggressive manner could be interpreted as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The only extraordinary claim here is RFA's suggestion that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. What I've laid out is the fact that multiple scientific studies have found death tolls around 4,500. It's a fact that RFA is pushing a vastly inflated number. If a Chinese government media outlet were to push a death CoVID-19 death toll for the US that was inflated by a factor of 30 relative to scientific studies, I have no doubt that you would consider that disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Please AGF. As in this case I would require a WP:RS to have made a clear statement about that source publishing disinformation (remember that unlike misinformation disinformation requires intent). I take it you don’t have either a community consensus or reliable source to point to which makes such a statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you really need a reliable source to tell you that an outlet created under congressional mandate funded by the USFG whose expressed intent is clearly propaganda oriented in nature grossly inflated Covid deaths not just as a harmless mistake? Dogmatically interpreting wiki policy doesn’t change any of this. Deku link (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
RFA's crazy claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan/Hubei province are either:
  1. Deliberate disinformation
  2. Gross negligence and failure to do any basic fact-checking
  3. Willful disregard for the truth
Take your pick. None of the options bode well for RFA's reliability though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Its not up to me or you to “pick," we only use whats been published by WP:RS. What do reliable sources say about this issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
We do NOT need an RS to blatantly say a source is unreliable for the sake of reliability discussions. This is an insanely dogmatic interpretation of WP:RS and is becoming absolutely ridiculous. We have sttistics from RS that directly contradict those of RFA and Thucydides411 has demonstrated this to you several times, yet you continue to deny it. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
We already have a consensus on reliability for RFA, the consensus is that they’re reliable. The extraordinary claim against consensus that they publish disinformation does actually require a source. If it "directly contradict” then a WP:RS will have noted that, if not then its not an issue for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "extraordinary claim against consensus" and even in the reliability discussion their inflation of COVID deaths was discussed. This is not in contention, and the fact they were considered reliable despite this being acknowledged is (in my opinion) in great error. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Multiple scientific studies in reputable journals (including Nature), which I've cited above, all paint a consistent picture - that approximately 4,500 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. In contrast, Radio Free Asia is pushing the claim that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. I don't think I need a reliable source to tell me that 150,000 is more than 30 times higher than 4,500. It's obvious that RFA is engaged in disinformation here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: Your insinuation that the imam Memet Jume's interviews may be some sort of "forced confession" is belied by some basic background information on the subject. For those that are unaware of the background, Memet Jume's father, Juma Tahir, the previous imam of the Id Kah mosque, was viewed as being generally pro-government and was vocally opposed to what he saw as separatism and religious extremism. He was assassinated in 2014, very likely because he was viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist. His son, Memet Jume, is the current imam of the Id Kah mosque, and is the person whose interviews we are discussing here. There is nothing at all to suggest that Memet Jume is being forced to "confess" anything here, and his statements in the interviews are, in fact, generally in line with the views he and his father have expressed for decades.
Fundamentally, I don't think we should present this story in a one-sided manner. Radio Free Asia claimed that a plaque with religious text had been removed from the mosque. The imam of the mosque gave at least two video interviews in which he showed, on video, that the plaque had been moved to a different part of the mosque. We should not present RFA's claims (which now appear to have been perhaps exaggerated) in isolation, but leave out opposing claims by a high-profile individual involved in the story. It is fine to give in-text attribution to every statement: we can write, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state media organization, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ...". Readers can make of that what they will, but we shouldn't hide it from them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable and Undue as per Mikehawk and Horse's Eye above. Worth notinng that the imam is also a state official (imams are state-appointed and this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government), which might mean that state media is a reliable source, but only if we express clearly that he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What is unreliable here? The imam clearly gave the interview (it's on video). The claims he's making are not in any way extraordinary. In fact, the claim by Radio Free Asia that he replies to appears to be wrong or exaggerated (as the video shows, the plaque is still on display at the mosque).
this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government. I'd be careful with statements like that about a living person. I'd also point out that just because the imam is generally viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist, that's no reason to censor his statements. If we're going to start systematically censoring opinions of people in China who are viewed as generally supportive of the government, we're going to have quite a task on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Re: he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. This is a rather simplistic view of the Muslim community in Xinjiang. Leaving aside the fact that there are also non-Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the Uyghur Muslim community itself is divided. As a Reuters article about the assassination of Juma Tahir (the father of the imam interviewed by Xinhua) points out, there is significant conflict between supporters and opponents of the East Turkestan separatist movement, and among followers of what are seen as more extremist and more moderate religious movements. The imam interviewed by Xinhua, and his late father Juma Tahir, have opposed the separatist movement and what they see as extremist religious movements. To simplify this all down and say that the imam doesn't speak for anyone in the Muslim community, and then to say that we should therefore exclude his views from an article about the mosque he runs, just strikes me as incredibly simplistic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I simply mean that as an appointee of the government and government official he is by definition a spokesperson of the government. This means that on the face of it, as Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, Xinhua can be used - but our readers will not necessarily understand that the imam is an official of the government without us making that clear, so it's not clear-cut. If we don't consider him a government official, then he counts as BLP: Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of... biographies of living people. But I think both these considerations are overshadowed by the fact that the Chinese government is a stakeholder in a dispute: For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you raise BLP concerns in one breath, but in another breath refer to the imam as a mouthpiece of the government, an extremely insulting characterization. Whether you think he's being taken advantage of by state media, or whether you think he's some sort of government mouthpiece, the imam is a central figure in this story, and we shouldn't censor what he says about it.
When it comes to geopolitically-charged issues like China, Radio Free Asia has a checkered record and should only be used with caution and in-text attribution (see RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I documented above). Yet we include their claim about the Id Kah mosque. We can't then simply omit a central figure's response to those claims. If we follow this sort of systematic policy of including US government media claims about geopolitically-charged issues in China, but censoring Chinese responses to those claims, we will end up with extremely biased articles. I think our readers are smart enough to see a statement such as, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state broadcaster, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ..." and form their own intelligent opinions. But systematically concealing one set of views from them is not the way Wikipedia should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be inherently self contradictory. The imam is a state official and Xinhua is state media and therefore it is reliable for reporting the opinions of the state and its officials, yet it is undue for the purpose of reporting the state’s opinion in this article? Deku link (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, let me try again if this is difficult to understand. EITHER the imam is a government mouthpiece (for which Xinhua could potentially be a reliable source, but we'd need to be clear in the article that the imam is a government official) OR it's a BLP issue (so we should steer clear of Xinhua) - either way it's a bad source. If you are arguing he's central to the story and his words as reliably quoted by Xinhua are due, then the article needs to give a clear explanation of his government links. If you're arguing he's not a government mouthpiece, then we have to avoid the source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time believing you have BLP concerns here when you repeatedly refer to the living person in question by the insulting epithet, government mouthpiece. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Mikehawk and others. PRC has a general media freedom issue and Xinhua can be considered a noticeable example of that. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not about the reliability of Xinhua as a perennial source, this is about the reliability of Xinhua in the case of reporting on the PRC’s own opinions as given through an embassy. Deku link (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Right now [19] we cite a US government-funded newsource [20] and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" [21] to reproduce the allegation that the Mosque has been transformed into just a tourist attraction.
However, the imam of the actual mosque itself, Memet Jume, disputes this in multiple Chinese media sources [22][23][24]. Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination [25].
The fact that Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back are actively trying to push this information from a US-government funded news source into China-related Wikipedia topics, while simultaneously removing all Chinese news sources and Chinese responses from these articles, shows that they don't have the objectivity to edit these articles and are engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing: "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole." -Darouet (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Please don’t make this personal, this may come as a shock to you but CGTN and China Daily are both deprecated. If WP:RS cover the Imam’s statement of course we can include it, but if no WP:RS cover the statement then there is simply no way to use it on wikipedia. I would also note that per WP:BLP you cant use those sources to make claims about living people, even on a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: China Daily is not deprecated; you may be thinking of The Global Times.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You’re right, I misremembered the consensus (admittedly its an odd one which is extremely close to deprecation) "In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s hard not to “make things personal” when both users mentioned have actively participated in several China related articles for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective (this entire reliability conflict started when @Mikehawk10 decided to remove the cited Xinhua content from the article simply because it was mentioned on another talk page as being in conflict with an article he created, and proceeded to also add extraordinary claims to it mentioned in few sources, not to mention when RFA was also mentioned on the talk page of the same article he immediately went and altered the lede of its article contrary to the ongoing talk page consensus). Furthermore, you continue to make fallacious use of wiki policy (such as calling into question the competence of and borderline hounding other users over the American usage of “lede” and repeatedly insisting that you somehow need an RS for every claim made in talk page discussions) and generally berate other users with a thick degree of sarcasm. When someone enters the conversation and rightly observes that there may be a significant bias given your preference towards western sources and quick removal of Chinese sources (even those not deprecated), they're not the ones "making it personal." Many people involved in conversations with you across multiple talk pages have stressed how hard you make it to assume good faith. Deku link (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The notion that I go around and edit for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective throughout my editing on China-related articles is simply false; my goal in editing these articles is to improve them by adding appropriate sources and by removing content that is dubiously sourced and/or WP:UNDUE. I am more than happy to incorporate the Chinese perspective into my editing, when the perspective can be reliably sourced and would constitute due weight. In the case for this particular article, the question is regarding whether to include information from a Tweet that has been covered by Xinhua. WP:RSPTWITTER states that Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Xinhua is not a reliable source with regards to topics in which the Chinese government is a stakeholder, and thus the tweet isn't covered by a reliable source simply because Xinhua has covered it, so I think I am reasonable in arguing that the tweet constitutes undue weight.
If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, feel free to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI), but please do not cast aspersions on this page or attack my motives by claiming that there is a malicious "sole purpose" behind my edits (and don't attack another editor by attacking their motives here either; that isn't what this board is for). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: Please do not cast aspersions here. Do you believe that my addition of information from WP:GREL sources on relevant topics is "skewed" in light of previous reliability discussions on this board? If you believe that there are behavioral issues, the place to discuss them would be the appropriate noticeboard (either WP:AN or WP:ANI)—not here on the reliable sources noticeboard. If not, I would ask you to take back the part of your statement that is a direct attack against my character as an editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable/propaganda for any claims related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, such as the claim under discussion. This is according to consensus in previous discussion linked at the top [26]. Is it reliable in general? Of course not, although it probably might be used for noncontroversial non-political info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Could you please explain how it is unreliable for reporting on a video that as clear as day was posted by the Chinese embassy and clearly shows the imam giving testimony? Deku link (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by "unreliable"? There's a video of the interview. There's not even a shadow of a doubt that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what specific factual claim are you saying is unreliable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Was the video of the interview published by a reliable source? If not its literally useless for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You have a very dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy if you believe that this is true. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
If you can point me to something that says we can use videos from unreliable sources I’m more than willing to expand my "dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Taking a perennial source consensus (which is a general guideline) as the end all be all gospel for including information is already dogmatic. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back, you are WP:BLUDGEONING. Besides being against Wikipedia policy seeing you repeat the same points over and over is tedious and boring. I am asking you nicely to drop the WP:STICK. If you continue this behavior I will seek a topic ban. Note that I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are right. I am saying that you made your point. Give someone else a chance.

User:Deku link, you are getting close to bludgeoning. You don't have to respond to everything Horse Eye's Back posts. Give someone else a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my behavior. I've gotten quite heated on this topic and similar ones and might need to take a break. Deku link (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think I am but I will respect your opinion. I will however note that per policy we are instructed to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the twitter video with attribution as a primary source as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. A mosque would be most analogous to the business example on the page, which states primary sources are acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions." Whether a plaque is in place or not is both simple and objective (and controversial, but that is unmentioned). WP:ABOUTSELF similarly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." We should be careful when using primary sources, especially a clearly biased one like this, but in this situation they are allowed with attribution. In such a controversial example, the best thing to do would be to report what the primary source has to say on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Include. Xinhua is a reliable source for this type of information; it is one of the main news agencies in the country, and other reliable sources regularly rely on its reporting. In-text attribution is probably a good choice in this context, given the controversy. To include the Radio Free Asia claim but omit Xinhua's reporting on the issue would make a mockery of WP:NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Xinhua is under the control of the People's Republic of China, which routinely disappears people who hold the wrong opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include. Xinhua obviously carries water for the Chinese government, but RFA—constrained by extremely restrictive conditions on reporting in the region imposed by the Chinese government—made a straightforward, factual claim about a feature of a landmark, and Xinhua provided video evidence against that claim. Unlike interviews with factory workers and whatnot, it is much entirely plausible that someone chosen as the head of a major mosque (who undoubtedly underwent serious political vetting) is making that counterclaim absent coercion. We can never know for certain, but to leave out such a glaringly obvious counterexample to RFA's reporting cannot but appear non-neutral. If we reject Xinhua's inclusion here, there seems to be absolutely no reason that we could ever include anything stated by Chinese sources, even in cases where western reporting is factually incorrect, and there are no doubt examples where that is the case, even if the thrust of western reporting is overall more accurate than PRC propaganda. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include in this case. Sate-controlled media is reliable for both the opinions of the controlling state and uncontroversial matters of fact. This seems to be a case where the opinion of western sources and the opinion of Chinese sources differ about a matter of fact (the location of a plaque), presenting only one of those opinions would lead to a biased article. There is also no credible reason to believe that the opinion of a generally pro-Government religious leader that paints the government in a favourable light has been misreported by a pro-government outlet, but even if they have that this is the pro-government opinion is directly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would like to note that since the opening of this discussion the moving of the plaque inside has been reliably sourced (to The Art Newspaper). RFA says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building but does not specify what happened to it, Xinhua says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building and moved inside for conservation/preservation, The Art Newspaper says it was moved inside. At least on the plaque I’m not actually seeing significant daylight between RFA, Xinhua, and The Art Newspaper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The significant daylight would be that RFA is claiming the plaque was removed for the purposes of nefarious repression, while The Art Newspaper claims it was just moved inside (but not why), and Xinhua claims it was moved inside due to preservation and erosion from weathering (which, for the record, is supported by photographs of the mosque pre-move and the video footage of the plaque outside the prayer hall now restored after the restoration). Paragon Deku (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, but for reasons more nuanced than those presented by Horse Eye's Back and Mikehawk10. Many of the users opposing inclusion have made arguments based on the general reliability of Xinhua as evaluated by past community consensus. While past community consensus is important, there is always room for flexibility, local consensuses, and editorial discretion to override the community consensus for a particular usage of a source. Those in favour of inclusion have made arguments based on the additional verifiability provided by the inclusion of video evidence of the plaque and the imam's testimony, arguments that were not sufficiently refuted by appeals to consensus on general reliability. To really justify excluding Xinhua, we need to also look at ways in which its general lack of reliability might compromise this specific usage of the source. It is true that there is a video interview with the imam, but it could be that the imam was coerced (which is possible, even for pro-government religious leaders, given the recent sentencing of Uyghur education officials over trumped up charges relating to textbooks), or that the imam shown in the video was in fact an actor. Similarly, it is true that we have video evidence of the plaque being in the mosque, but it could have been temporarily moved back there for the video. Since it is above Wikipedia's pay grade to evaluate the reliability of a primary source video, to say that the video is reliable would therefore be WP:OR. This is how Xinhua's lack of general reliability affects its specific reliability in relation to this article.--DaysonZhang (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This is starting to veer into conspiracy-theory territory. The imam in the video is not an actor. Memet Jume is reasonably famous, has given interviews to various media, and the person in the Xinhua video is indeed him. We can state that he gave the interview in Xinhua, a state news outlet. That would be fully appropriate, so that readers can judge for themselves how to view the imam's statement. However, there is no doubt that this is an interview with the real Memet Jume. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. I have seen way in my life too many staged videos in Communist government-run media. That said, the plaque incident seems way too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Do we normally document when plaques are removed from buildings across the world? — kashmīrī TALK 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    In most cases no, but when the movement of a plaque generates significant comment in multiple sources from multiple countries it's clear that this is not most cases. Other examples of our covering the moving and/or removal of plaques include Silent Sam, Jonas Noreika#Legacy and controversy and Statue of Jefferson Davis (Frankfort, Kentucky). Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable and should be deprecated together with China Daily. Reasons have been given in this previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Xinhua News Agency. Normchou 💬 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    • As has been noted multiple times above, this is not a discussion about the general reliability of the source, it is a question about the reliability for a very specific instance. China Daily is completely irrelevant here, as are calls for deprecation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The mere fact that Xinhua is mentioned above is a sufficient condition for the "unreliable" categorization, as well as for a renewed call for deprecation, regardless of any very specific instance. What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? Independent news reporting? Normchou 💬 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
        • What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for, accurate reporting of facts that support and/or are neutral regarding the viewpoint espoused by the propaganda, and similar. The publication has not been judged "unreliable" or even "generally unreliable" it has been judged to publish accurate reporting in some areas, biased reporting in other areas and unreliable reporting in yet others - There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.. All this means that there are occasions, like this one, where we need to examine how reliable it is for a specific claim, trying to re-litigate the reliability of the whole publication (which there is no evidence has changed since the recent discussion) is at best pointless and at worst a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
          • In addition to not WP:AGF (cf. "a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus"), the above user seems to indicate that they are totally fine with a propaganda outlet and its overarching goal as long as they deem something from it to be "accurate" (cf. "accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for"), a view on its own that appears to be diametrically opposed to WP:SOAP. Normchou 💬 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
            Perhaps you should stop thinking this is some sort of conflict between you and them and maybe objectively think about what Thryduulf said? You say he does not assume good faith, yet in the same sentence you accuse him of peddling for a "propaganda outlet and its overarching goal", all the while ignoring the good point he made. As I see it, you have not presented any issues you have with the article presented, your only problem is that it comes from a propaganda outlet. If Xinhua made an article calling the world round would you start believing otherwise? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
            @Normchou: Firstly you will note that my comment about faith was one end of a range of possibilities, but if you feel attacked by that then perhaps you should examine what your motives are? As for the source, if what they are reporting is accurate why would we not include it? By definition any propaganda outlet must be a reliable source for the views those who are espousing the propaganda want promoted (because to be otherwise requires either editorial independence from those setting the propaganda message or such gross incompetence that even a student newspaper editor would be sacked). Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Despite my insistence several times that this is about a SPECIFIC usage of the source, a large swathe of editors seem to have seen the word Xinhua, dropped an "unreliable" without a second thought, and left the discussion based only on perennial discussions that have taken place before. Overall this and the globe discussion below have greatly diminished my faith in the process as it stands. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I support inclusion, I feel that people who respond to queries like this should take more time to evaluate the actual proposition and not immediately jump to conclusions. I have noticed some people also claim that the person was coerced and that it is a staged video without any proof and somehow believe that they have made a constructive argument. You could make this baseless accusation against anything that contradicts your views. I do not see a reason to not include this article, especially if the reported situation is verifiable by anyone. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I support for inclusion, per previous discussion. I am poor in English, so I will quote opinions of someone else to prove my opinion. In my opinion, for official facts and most news in China and abroad, Xinhua is generally reliable. Xinhua News Agency, covering a wider range of news, is cited and quoted in a wide variety of other reliable sources. Xinhua's job is to tell facts, not to propoganda. Even among news organizations sponsored by the government, there has been strong competition for years due to China's market economy. If you make mistakes in your reports, you will be ridiculed by readers.
  • --悔晚斋 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include on an WP:ABOUTSELF basis, even if Xinhua was deprecated (which it is not), they are still allowed to be used when citing the Chinese government's response to something, which this is a clear case of. We should leave it up to the reader to decide if they want to believe RFA or the Chinese government. Not allowing someone to defend themselves when they are being accused of something is WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 20:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include - there has been extensive discussion about the innate (and understandably) anti-China bias that english-language sources have, and previous RfCs have established that we need to be particularily careful not to allow that bias to distort our own writing on article space, in particular, the need to include the attributed views of the Chinese state. Including the Xinhua rebuttal, with a clear attribution that it is from Xinhua would accomplish that goal. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, but that doesn't matter here This dispute appears to have originated with blatantly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users questioning an easily verifiable fact because said fact didn't agree with their POV. They used the Chinese government's stake in one of the cited sources as a pretext to make a stink about it. This is barely even a content dispute, and certainly is not one that should be allowed to forever influence how we cite this or that particular source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Do you really believe that Normchou, Kashmiri, DaysonZhang, Horse Eye's Back, Adoring nanny, My very best wishes, Solavirum, Bobfrombrockley, and I are anti-Chinese users and that we are supposedly all editing towards a goal of violating WP:NPOV? If not, I'd ask you to please strike the relevant parts of your statement. As I've said before, it isn't appropriate to cast aspersions against other editors on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, it would be best to take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The real question is this: do you really believe it's appropriate to misquote me (replacing anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users with anti-Chinese users) and ping more than a half-dozen users I did not name? I'm generally an RSN minimalist (as, I believe, are virtually all long-term users of this noticeboard): I look at the specific nature of the dispute that prompted the thread, and if I see nothing there (as was the case here -- Xinhua was apparently being used as a source for a claim that is still in a "non-disputed" section of the article attributed to The Art Newspaper) I point this out, and only if I see a systemic problem with a particular, highly problematic, source, will I point this out and request that said source be "deprecated" or the like: here, Xinhua was cited for an uncontroversial, objectively true statement, and some users appear to be making a huff over it because they apparently do not like the fact that this statement is true and is supported by multiple independent media outlets. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would read my comment as I wrote it rather than deliberately misquoting it, pinging in a bunch of unrelated editors to read your misquoting of it, and bringing up a bunch of unrelated drama boards: this feels very much like you are seeking any excuse to deliver a "gatcha" to me rather than actually improve the encyclopedia. Also, when multiple editors are accusing you of bludgeoning the discussion,[27] maybe try not doing what you have done here, essentially pinging back in several people who haven't commented here in weeks in the hope of pummelling users who disagree with you into submission. And if you must repeatedly respond to multiple people, please focus on content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Won't you agree that it's a bit lame to blame Wikipedia editors for how Chinese state agencies function, and that their "facts" are often not what we call facts here? — kashmīrī TALK 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that matters in this context. I wouldn't "trust" Xinhua in my real life, but I also wouldn't trust Kotaku: Wikipedia has lower standards than I do. In this context, it seems like the fact(s?) cited by Xinhua was also easily verified in other sources, perhaps even before this noticeboard discussion was opened (Do I need to the legwork to verify that? I didn't actually make such a claim until after multiple users had started to needlessly dog me on the matter.). I suspect many people commenting in this discussion do not speak Chinese (I don't; I can read a certain amount because of my studies of modern Japanese and classical Chinese) or even know a whole lot about Islam: from my perspective, it makes sense that the crescent moon and star would be controversial within Islam and that a mosque in China and Central Asia dating to the 15th (or 10th?) century might not want to put up a standard that originated with the Christian Byzantine Empire and was later appropriated by some Muslims within the former Byzantine territories (including, notably, the Ottoman Empire) for reasons completely unrelated to government pressure or force, but this content is attributed to the aforementioned Art Newspaper and not to Xinhua. But why are we talking about this? Why am I defending my own general sourcing standards and view that Wikipedia should maintain not just a minimal standard of "verifiability" based on semi-reliable sources but also a high degree factual accuracy and balance? I just wanted to answer the question posed, and I am now being harangued by multiple editors, seemingly for no reason other than that four months ago I pointed out that our article on The Holocaust doesn't contain images of "random Hungarian Jews". that have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the fact that Kashmiri hadn't commented on this discussion beyond leaving a !vote two weeks ago, and that he/she obviously was not one of the people I was referring to in my original comment (never having edited Talk:Id Kah Mosque) is proof enough of the disruptiveness of the above mass-pinging. How many of the other seven editors never edited the mosque talk page before this discussion and therefore clearly had nothing to do with my original comment? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Xinhua is a controversial source and it's not used on Wikipedia for controversial topics involving the Chinese government. Radio Free Asia is a separate discussion but its use in the article is similarly not ideal. Spudlace (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    In at least most controversial topics involving the Chinese government NPOV requires us to at least note what the Chinese government's position on the matter is. Xinhua is a reliable source for the attributed opinions of the Chinese government. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include as an attributed statement of the Chinese government's position - This is what Xinhua is there for. Looking above I see a lot of people responding as though this were a general reliability RFC, because at this point that has become what this page is about to a lot of people here. This isn't a general reliability RFC, you've got to look at the context, and the context here is that Xinhua is not being used to support a statement of fact in the voice of Wiki. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter

I've had this source removed, with the comment that it isn't a reliable source. Could I have some opinions please? [1] - Thanks very much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

So you started this discussion before you raised the issue on the talk-page? Why don't you wait more than −2 minutes for a response from Crossroads? P.S. For everyone else, here's the relevant diff, at Consequence culture. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Normally I would have, but because Crossroads was the one that removed it because he believed it wasn't RS, so I already know where he stands and I wanted a second opinion? Isn't this page for determining if something is RS or not? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brian Stelter "stelter-consequence-culture-comes-for-lou-dobb" CNN Business 7/7/2021 https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/07/stelter-consequence-culture-comes-for-lou-dobbs.cnn
Even if it wasn't an opinion piece, you'll never get it accepted for anything related to "consequence culture". In terms of the belief systems of the right, "cancel culture is the greatest existential threat to America" ranks below only "Trump won in 2020" and "abortion is murder". As long as we allow right-wing editors (which we do and should), consensus for a CNN opinion in support of consequences vs. cancellation is never going to happen. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
It's punditry, akin to an opinion piece, not factual reporting. The whole article of "consequence culture" is a non-notable WP:POVFORK of Cancel culture; see Talk:Cancel culture#Proposed merge of Consequence culture into Cancel culture. I should have nominated it for deletion. Guy/JzG, you comment smacks of WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm not right-wing, although they do exaggerate the concept, and keeping out all opinion pieces is the best way to go on controversial topics. Crossroads -talk- 01:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
But does the fact its his opinion, and its from a noted authority/person, exclude it as an RS? Where in WP:RS does it say its not allowed? Doesn't the fact its from CNN mean it is RS? (not a rehotrical question, I'm just not sure). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Being aired on CNN does not automatically mean it is reliable, particularly if it is aired on a show that focuses on commentary, as opposed to straight news reporting. Brian Stelter's show on CNN (and other opinion shows on cable news networks) should be viewed similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper, meaning that they're not reliable sources for statements of fact, but can be used to give the opinion of the person who is talking. Still, I'd strongly prefer a written source, as opposed to an on-air segment, because interpreting an on-air segment comes close to WP:OR. Even a written source summarizing what Stelter said would be preferable to the video itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Guy JBL- politics aside (which I'm not to interested in) and protocl aside, do you regard this CNN reference as RS? So far I only have stated opinion from the original editor who removed it. Cheers, would appreciate the input. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, Nope. Primary, opinion. See WP:ARSEHOLES. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the input GuyI really just wanted a second opinion, and that will do cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thucydides411 explains it well. Next time, you might try WP:3O as a good venue to get another opinion on something. --JBL (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks JBL For a general opinion, yes WP:3O, but in this case, I needed a decision on whether a reference was RS or not. This is the RS noticeboard, so IMHO its appropriate to post it here, as per WP:RSN. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Stelter, a pundit who promotes fringe views or figures, is not a reliable source. Stelter's show is not known for fact-checking, accuracy, and corrections.
A perfect example would be this video segment. A guest made totally false statement "[Trump] may be responsible for many more million deaths than [Hitler, Stalin, and Mao]". Politifact gave that a "Pants on Fire!" rating. Stelter did not challenge the guest's statement on air, later claiming "technical difficulties ... had distracted him". The video is still up without a correction. Another guest on the video was ousted from Yale for making public comments about mental fitness, in violation of Goldwater rule.
And who could forget Stelter's promotion of Michael Avenatti. To quote Erik Wemple Blog:

"A highlight of [the Washington Free Beacon] video comes when CNN media boss Brian Stelter tells Avenatti in a September 2018 interview, 'And looking ahead to 2020, one reason I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news." That moment is a favorite among CNN critics."
— Erik Wemple Blog in The Washington Post

Politrukki (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Banaphar by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Author:- Kumar Suresh Singh

Publisher:- Anthropological Survey of India

Page.no:- page 1876[28]

The article Banaphar currently includes the text

Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan of mixed Ahir and Rajput origin in India.

And I want to change it to

"Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan Rajputs origin in India.

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

According to your link, "Your search - banaphar clan of rajputs - did not match any documents". I searched for "Udal of Mahoba" and got the same result. Why should the source used in the article be ignored, it seems like a good one? It is also clearly about the topic of the article, Udal of Mahoba, that matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
See also previous reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Uttar_Pradesh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have to  ask for Banaphar page, not for Udal of Mahoba.

I had already tried to put the matter in before, that Alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars (alha, udal, malkhan, sulakhan) not about whole clan and he also mentioned once here[29] and that's why I want to change it. It may be a good source for Alha and Udal of Mahoba but not for Banaphar

And talking about the link i have given is correct for the article please check again. Because the book is a government published book and the author Kumar Suresh Singh is an Indian administrative service officer and PhD scholar. And the book is based on clans and caste and follows all the rules of WP:RS.Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REDACT, don't change your comments after someone has replied like you did here [30], that is quite annoying. IMO, you are still beating the same WP:DEADHORSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do this by purpose it happen mistakingly, because I had made every request for Udal of Mahoba every time, but this time I have to ask for Banaphar only and sorry for bothering you but it's important for me,please try understand. I'm just trying to find the reliable source for the changes, that's itSumit banaphar (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Page 1876 of Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles does not say that Banaphar is a Rajput clan, though. Have you actually read the source, or did you just find it in a Google Books search? Both words occur on the page, but not together; you could use the same source to "prove" that Banaphar is an Ahir clan, since on page 1710, the words "Banaphar" and "Ahir" are found – but not together. The current source, the book by Hiltebeitel, discusses the Banaphar and their ancestry in some detail. --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea:Ok I write for you,If you see properly on page no.1876:-

YADUBANSI RAJPUT Subgroups:Yadubansi ( W. Crooke )

Exogamous units / clans : Banaphar , Vanaphala ( W. Crooke )

Gotra : Kashyap [W.Crooke]

and talking about page no 1710 in which you search for Banaphar ahir, right? So it is "ahir paik" not ahir,and ahir paik which is the sub-tribe of rajputs like baghel,bais which is also given in the page. And yes talking about Alf Hiltebeitel book so, alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars (alha, udal, malkhan, sulakhan) not about whole clan and he also mentioned once here[31] and for ancestry their many books which is reliable to prove what I'm saying is correct.

I literally just said that the book can't be used to "prove" that the Banaphar are Ahir, and by the same token it (of course) cannot be used to "prove" that they are Rajput. It certainly cannot be used to "disprove" the existing source. It is just a list of clans and sub-groups, without any kind of discussion; meanwhile, Hiltebeitel devotes several pages in his scholarly publication to the Banaphar. User:Sitush/CasteSources discusses People of India (the multi-volume work that Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles is part of), and there is a long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 108#Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India which shows why it is a source to be avoided or used with extreme caution; that you now say that Singh's information about this particular claim is attributed to W. Cooke confirms that it is not a reliable source in this context.
Note to other RSN participants: I have given Sumit Banaphar a final warning for their tendentious editing on this topic. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Nothing useful is gonna come out of this unstructured ranting. The IP user is either deliberately trolling or not familiar with the concept of prior fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TucanHolmes (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Note: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Myself and another editor had advised TheeFactChecker to bring this to RSN, so I think that's what they meant to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source
Here are just a few examples
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6248938060001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFactChecker (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that CNN issues retractions when they make a mistake is actually a sign that they are reliable. Perfection is not a realistic expectation. As for the Sky News piece, it's another video released by Project Veritas, who doctor their videos to create the narratives they want to create. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)TheeFactChecker, shouldn't this be at WP:RSN as User:Jorm pointed out to you at Talk:Gab (social network) § Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism? Before stating your case, it would be wise to familiarise yourself with past debates around this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § CNN, before restating past arguments that went nowhere and wasting everyone's time in the process. 15 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting that Project Veritas' allegations against CNN were specifically brought up twice quite recently and consensus both times was to retain the generally reliable status: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#RfC: CNN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not wasting time, I'm doing exactly as I was instructed to do so by Gorillawarfare TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I find nothing to indicate in this evidence provided by TheeFactChecker that CNN either a) willfully publishes false stories or b) fails to correct good-faith mistakes when they are aware that they made mistakes. In fact, the posts above indicate that CNN has all of the hallmarks of a reliable source, especially because they retract stories where their initial descriptions of events turned out to be incorrect. That's what reliable sources are supposed to do. If nothing else, TheeFactChecker has only provided evidence that CNN is more reliable that previously thought. --Jayron32 11:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/

CNN lied about inauguration ratings https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-fox-news-inauguration-ratings-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

CNN bought into Russia conspiracy theories even without a shred of evidence of Russian collusion.

CNN had plenty of tabloid style articles such as “Trump uses knife fork to eat fried chicken on a plane”. The same sort of article you would get in the Sun, an unreliable news source. This article along with many others were purposely made to “joke and mock[quoting from CNN article itself]”, which clearly shows their bias gets in the way of their reporting. A lot of their articles during the Trump era were inflammatory and peddled false and misleading claims.

CNN claimed that only the media could legally download content from Wikileaks. Another false statement.

June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not.

CNN’s own fact check about immigrants in cages proves they are lying by the skin of their teeth as the say “Conclusion: Trump is wrong that his administration inherited a policy that would lead to the separation” while their “supporting evidence” goes on to assert that “separations did occur under Obama...the chain-link enclosures at a processing facility along the border that have been labeled as cages were built by the Obama administration. Some individuals — including children — were held in those cells during processing. ” With conclusions that don’t match their own evidence, they are not a reliable source. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics This is false, as your own source shows. The "major court victory" mentioned in the headline is the judge allowing the case to move forward. It appears Carbone and CNN settled the case confidentially ([32], [33]), which unfortunately doesn't give us much to go on, though as far as I can see CNN has not published retractions.
CNN lied about inauguration ratings The article you linked reports that CNN's PR team conflated two statistics in a tweet, which is certainly misleading, I agree. But when we're discussing the reliability of a source we refer to their published articles, which are subject to editorial oversight, not statements on Twitter by a PR team.
You seemed to realize in your first two comments that you are expected to provide sources for claims you make here, so I'm not sure why you stopped doing that. Please add sources for the rest of your claims so they can be properly evaluated by editors here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
So...we're left with the question as to whether tweets by CNN's PR team should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice...I'd say no. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that TheeFactChecker's concerns about CNN are based not on someone trying to use a CNN PR team tweet as a RS, but the usage of a standard journalistic article published on CNN's website. See Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism for background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In that article, CNN hyperlinks archives of the tweets in question. I have an additional one not included in the article here. I think the article was reliable for that claim; it's really not a stretch especially with surrounding context about the site. --Chillabit (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Unhelpful discussion at this time. There is the § CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter discussion about CNN also taking place right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It is relevant to note that the phrasing at WP:RSP is "generally reliable". It is not "absolute reliability", and thus single issues (esp when retracted/corrected) cannot be said to make a generally reliable source anything but. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a little bit confusing. Project Veritas has been upheld twice recently. Project Veritas has a CNN technical director admitting the network was pushing propaganda with fake stories https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-technical-director-admits-the-network-was-pushing-propaganda-with-fake-stories but we see no evidence CNN purposely fakes news? 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DC42:DBDE:9306:BD1B (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work, which I suppose makes it much like Project Veritas: fake news. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Veritas is not a reliable source, and has not been "upheld" by anyone in any meaningful manner. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I believe the link was supposed to be this one. MSN of course is just aggregating other publications (as it usually does; I'm not actually sure if they publish their own reporting), and this one is originally from something called "The Annie Frey Show". I am not sure who Annie Frey is, but based on the article she appears to just be uncritically repeating Project Veritas' claims. I'm not sure what 2601* means when they say "Project Veritas has been upheld twice recently", but at least on Wikipedia, the unreliability of Project Veritas and the lack of credence our editing community generally puts in its allegations against its various targets has certainly been upheld a few times recently (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#RfC: CNN for example). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I meant upheld by the US court system. CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing. Town halls composed of supposedly random citizens asking questions that were not random citizens, They claimed the Trump campaign met Assange in person in Europe, conclusively proven false. They claimed Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed. They carried water on everything from fake Kavanaugh gang rape lies to promoting criminals such as Avenatti while peddling Steele as truth. They were all in the laptop being Giuliani Ukrainian disinformation. The virus coming from nature(lab leak is no longer fake news apparently). Sandman, Duke lacrosse Hands Up Don't Shoot, peaceful protests with burning buildings in the background. Going back to Iraq has WMD. This and days more are easily found in any cursory use of search engine. I didn't realize CNN garnered respect from hardly anyone these days. You have my apologies(I hope this is signed properly.)2601:46:C801:B1F0:DC42:DBDE:9306:BD1B (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This and days more are easily found in any cursory use of search engine. Well, I wonder how you used the search engine, because I came to very different conclusions.
CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing. And no such thing you claim actually happened.
Town halls composed of supposedly random citizens asking questions that were not random citizens. I seem to understand where such statements come from, but I'm afraid the factual accuracy of the sources who claim it will be lacking for them to be cited on WP. But maybe I'm wrong, post the sources please here for evaluation.
They claimed the Trump campaign met Assange in person in Europe, conclusively proven false. Except that it wasn't. Yes, some have questioned whether the scoop was actually true, or it was faked, planted (although integrity of this assertion was questioned and Glennwald's authority has been questioned by Wikipedians, too), both parties denied participation, but no one conclusively proved it false - there are only many unknowns in it, and the story was not retracted. Btw, actually the story was from The Guardian, so it should be discussed when talking of that newspaper.
They claimed Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed. Well, you're out of luck here, too.
They carried water on everything from fake Kavanaugh gang rape lies Pundits on CNN, maybe (but some of them were sceptical. The news coverage as presented on CNN website wasn't skewed, either. Of course, you may provide evidence to the contrary, but cite CNN and point to flaws (not just bias, reliability) to argue the case. Not that I'm particularly supportive of CNN, but I didn't find any misdeeds here.
The virus coming from nature (lab leak is no longer fake news apparently). Errm, it's never been, and I can't see CNN dismissing it as "fake news" or the like. That it has little, if any, evidence, is another thing, and they have explicitly mentioned that folks are claiming virus lab leaks without evidence. (CNN pundits are treated by WP:OPINION, which is by itself not particularly reliable for fact).
They were all in the laptop being Giuliani Ukrainian disinformation. The article on the topic is named as it is for a reason, and it's not because WP is libtard. CNN indeed said it was disinformation prior to the election. Read the article.
I mean, most (if not all, and I don't bother to check more) of the claims you made are either patently false or unsubstantiated by evidence. I know where these may come from, but they are likely to be purged from Wikipedia for good reasons. But maybe I'm wrong, and all the editors are so, too.
(You may also want to read this discussion). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Sandman, Duke lacrosse, WMD in Iraq, hands up don't shoot, peaceful protests with billions in damages and dozens dead or the slam dunk widely disseminated fake news ones, weren't checked? The only sufficiently patently false claim based on the above is the weather one.(thank you) Sorry it was so believable given the source and plenty of real faked weather scenes in any search engine. His tax returns were illegally leaked and showed zero financial ties to Russia. CNN ran with the Guardian story and every other offshoot of the Steele, corporate elitist media complex, intelligence agencies Trump/Russia left wing conspiracy theory. The Town Halls used same "random citizens" more than once. CNN was questioning the origins of the virus last week after referring to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory until last week. From two weeks to flatten the curve, two years to a vaccine, no V stock market recovery Trump is a racist for shutting off Asian travelers et plenty al fake news. They ran death totals daily, yet CDC posted last week only 6percent died from covid and not with covid. Ratcliffe explicitly said the laptop was NOT Ukrainian disinformation. Biden himself said it could be his laptop. Trump did not disparage the military while in France. There was no water leak in Fulton county. The capital police officer did not die from anything to do with the horns head guy and the insurrectionists. They can't go a day without fake news. Last week Biden was not driving the Ford P/U, the election auditors sworn testimony re recovering deleted database explicitly and specifically said "recovered deleted database". They never said anyone purposely deleted it or that it was not deleted it at all. CNN finds GOP saying no one associated with the election deleted anything-look here it is! After it was recovered and no on ever said anyone ever deleted it. (they can be deleted periodically as a computer protocol) CNN also said that it was never deleted. Fake news. The corporate elitist media complex did not ask the Biden campaign one single contentious question nor ran one single negative Biden headline during an entire presidential campaign after running nothing but negative often fake news on Trump, his associates family and friends for years.(this should be simple to disprove and once a negative headline is found fr CNN or NYTimes, WAPO, Yahoo NBC, ABC or CBS-wikipedia gets $10,000 since that is the bounty on offer since 1/1/20 for this elusive animal). They are the modern version of Stalin's Pravda Press. I thought the material here was a parody. They lie the US into wars, foment insane divisiveness and are reliable and credible if one permanently suspends disbelief. I already accepted my error and apologized for it. The above sentiment to which I replied in the first place not being being parody but real? It is intellectual destitution.2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a fine collection of ipse dixit, but with all due respect, does not do much to convince me. Have a wonderful day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I will only refer to one point from your wall of text (and for the love of God, avoid it), that is that COVID lab leak "conspiracy theory". There is a difference between saying "SARS-CoV-2 (or Wuhan virus, if you so insist) came from a lab leak" and "SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately released by the Chinese/Americans/whoever to artificially create a crisis and plunge the whole world into crisis so that the Chinese could buy oil for negative prices/thrive while all suffer". The first is a yet unproved theory, but at least it is a) plausible, b) passes the Hanlon's razor, c) it does happen sometimes. Presupposition of malicious intent of something evil to serve an evil purpose, without WP:EXTRAORDINARY proof, is a conspiracy theory (and that is what most media refer to when speaking of "lab leak" theory).
As for the rest, Dumuzid got it very well. I asked you for sources and concrete examples of CNN allegedly misinforming, you provided none (I mean linking to statements, news articles, Youtube videos featuring CNN content and dissecting it etc.), while just airing grievances from right-wing publications will convince no one if you don't provide proof. Repetition of the same arguments only harms your case, or at least it doesn't help. We have heard you.
I hereby propose to close the discussion, FWIW, and simply go on. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
So it turns out even my comment regarding the weather photo was in no way shape or form patently false and indeed true. He stood neck deep in water when a wider shot shows his camera man standing in no water and there is no neck deep water elsewhere in the photo except where he is standing. I had zero notion of any attribution. I left here assuming the photo itself was faked. It's fake news. Just like the Hirsch citation as if somehow idiot Trump moved Russian money around and team Mueller, the IRS and a big wherewithal of the US government missed it. Nothing that I posted has been proven patently false. This should be easy! Everything is a right wing conspiracy theory, conclusive proof otherwise should be abundant. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You stated pretty clearly CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing.
Reading from AP: Cooper explains to viewers that the flooding is not as deep on a nearby highway being used by emergency crews. The camera crew then pans to the roadway, where the water is only a few inches deep. Cooper then adds that he’s standing on the side of the road to show the varying depth of the floodwaters.
Reading from Snopes: However, the various available clips of the program document that the waters in the immediately surrounding area were both fairly deep and quite variable. As Anderson noted during that broadcast, his taking two steps backwards from where he was standing would have caused him to sink in neck-deep water: Cooper also noted that the floodwaters had actually receded significantly before he began his report, and that although he could have stood in a higher-level adjacent roadway where he might have remained drier, he would have risked interfering with emergency vehicles and others attempting to traverse flooded roads.
Therefore, the implication that he somehow misstated the true scale of flood is false. And in this respect it is patently false.
As for Hirsh, the claim "Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed" can be contradicted by proof that "he has at some time had investments from Russians", which the article exactly reports on.
Nothing that I posted has been proven patently false. This should be easy! Everything is a right wing conspiracy theory, conclusive proof otherwise should be abundant. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And I mean it, stop. Don't waste other users' time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
If they were biblical floods we would see neck deep water all over the wider shot. Non fake news stands on high ground and points to where he stood(like where his camera man stood blocking nothing) and goes on about biblical floods. This is solve by inspection. He is becoming part of the news instead of reporting it. Fake news. Russia is a dead end. Any business he ever had with Russia would've been leaked from an official source by now if it ever existed. The banks are de facto police with reporting requirements and that is nothing new or novel. Lack thereof is an actual criminal offense or the leftist holy grail that doesn't exist. I see now some guy at Ford said Biden was driving. That's good enough for me. The SUV probably had an ejection seat with parachute for the passenger and some emergency stop right now switch but that is good enough for me. A non fake news press may be wondering when the last time Biden actually drove a vehicle. From a cursory look at the deprecation list, right wing sites are deprecated for hangnails. I agree with Szmen that this rfc should be closed. CNN is never getting deprecated unless like a Newsweek or one of the others I am forgetting- it changes hands and becomes remotely neutral, in which case it is immediately less credible here.

2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site denying Uyghur Genocide

The World Socialist Web Site has apparently published several articles denying the Uyghur Genocide.[34][35][36][37][38][39] Perhaps we should reevaluate this source’s credibility? X-Editor (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors, but should not be used to present material in WP's own voice and WP:DUE must be considered. The outlet has a gatekeeping process, a consistent presence over time, and an IRL legal personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. On the other hand, it is not - itself - sourced by unambiguously reliable sources. For those reasons I don't believe we can question the authenticity of writing attributed to individuals but we can decline to present that material in WP's voice and should take care to balance attributed opinion statements within the overall ecology of commentary on a particular subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Seems like the best option for handling this particular source. X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Opinion pieces are not reliable for facts. And unless covered in secondary, reliable sources they're pretty much always UNDUE. This site's editorial stance favors alternate views, which means its opinions are even less likely to be WP:DUE. There are hardly any cases where it's a good idea to cite this source on Wikipedia. As Guy has said, "opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one" (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we would be citing a publication of the Trotskyist International Committee of the Fourth International for facts anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I certainly would not cite any socialist/communist website for impartial coverage on China (or any Communist state) for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name, and even less so when it comes to opinions. Citing any such Communist/socialist organisation for Xinjiang is a left-wing equivalent of relying on One America News Network for coverage of Jan 6 events at the US Capitol - you of course can, but it's no good. For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS, possibly with linking to the WSWS website as an aside but definitely not alone; just like we do with Trump supporters when describing their reactions to the events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name" I think that's an overly reductionist representation of the pantheon of contemporary Marxist thought, which is diverse and non-monolithic, however, I do agree with this in general terms: "For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS". Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Re Szmenderowiecki this is too blanket a position: Trotskyists take very different positions from Maoists; democratic socialists even more radically different positions. And even "socialist/communist websites" are biased, that doens't mean they're not reliable. if The question is whether this particular source is reliable or not on this particular issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I know Maoism is not Trotskyism is not democratic socialism, but I said my general impression from my experience offline, however limited and anecdotal, because I find there's too high a risk citing another CCP's apologist website when citing communists. Actually, Demsoc has The New Republic and The Nation as some rather good publications. But there is a threshold of partisanship above which a resource simply cannot be reliable because of extreme bias, and that concerns both the far left and the far right.
If you want my opinion on WSWS specifically, as I said, it's shit. They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children and I'm not aware about that 14% of people who had asymptomatic infections (given that data from Israel indicate a 94% reduction of chance of getting any COVID, so it can't be that 14% had COVID after vaccination). The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world - that should not be anything resembling RS. It's also hard to distinguish news from opinions here because the language they use is so loaded, and I shouldn't be trying to apply OR to understand if that piece is still news or already WP:OPINION. As for Uyghur coverage, while they made a disclaimer that they do not support CCP for basically betraying communist ideals, I can't be so sure about it if I read that apparently RS massively misrepresent evidence on Xinjiang, which is both WP:EXTRAORDINARY and echoing CCP, while the sentence The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism is potentially libellous -- another reason to avoid WSWS. Also, when they say: His campaign team issued a statement in August 2020, concluding that the unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs constituted “genocide” (here), you can't help but conclude they are (being) denialist. From a risk-benefit analysis, I see practically no benefits but so many associated risks that it just makes no sense to cite it whatsoever. The only possibility remains for their philosophical essays that reflect the development of Trotskyist/Marxist thought, but I would still first look for other resources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You give a laundry-list of complaints, which I think are mostly about opinions that you disagree with:
  • They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children: They're saying that children play a significant role in transmission SARS-CoV-2, and they cite a survey of epidemiologists. I'm not an expert in this subject area, but I know that this is the same point that Christian Drosten, a leading virologist in Germany who has done studies of SARS-CoV-2 in children, has been emphasizing for a long time. This point is largely moot, though, because WP:MEDRS imposes a much higher standard for any scientific claims about SARS-CoV-2 - a standard that virtually no popular media, newspapers of record included, meets.
  • The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict] is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world: It's definitely highly critical of Israel's bombardment of Gaza (as most left-wing media is), but I see nothing in that article that in any way supports Hamas. Are you referring to the line that mentions that Hamas has called for a cease-fire?
  • echoing CCP: This reminds me strongly of how supporters of the Iraq War accused opponents of the war of supporting Saddam Hussein. It's really sad to see this sort of rhetorical device being used here on Wikipedia. The article you're quoting repeatedly refers to the CCP regime and accuses China of using police state measures, but since it argues against Mike Pompeo's description of what's occurring in Xinjiang a "genocide", it somehow echoes the CCP? It looks like you're just trying to rule out any source that doesn't fall into line.
  • the sentence "The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism" is potentially libellous: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that this would never be considered libel in a US court. It's a political criticism of another outlet. The specific criticism of the Times here is that they presented testimony from someone they simply described as a Uyghur American, without noting that the person giving the testimony has worked extensively with the US government, previously worked for Radio Free Asia, and now runs an NGO with close links to the US government (its parent organizations are funded by the US government). I don't know, but it seems to me like criticizing the NY Times for not mentioning those links is reasonable.
If anything, this reminds me of the scathing critique of the NY Times' Iraqi WMD coverage written in 2004 by none other than the NY Times' own public editor (a position which no longer exists, by the way). The critique is worth reading in its entirety, but I'll just point out a few highlights. First, on the overall tone of the NY Times' coverage of Iraqi WMD:

To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable.

Then, on how the Times wrote headline articles that made questionable claims, but either buried or didn't publish corrections:

But in The Times's W.M.D. coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war -- but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. Some remain scoops to this day. This is not a compliment.

The public editor accuses the Times of basically claiming that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

'Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell,' by Patrick E. Tyler (Feb. 6, 2003) all but declared a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -- a link still to be conclusively established, more than 15 months later. Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors.

The public editor accuses the Times of giving license to anonymous sources to lie:

But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, 'We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it,' may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars.

The public editor finally accuses the Times of having been used as a tool in the cunning campaign to push the war:

No one can deny that this was a drama in which The Times played a role. On Friday, May 21, a front-page article by David E. Sanger (A Seat of Honor Lost to Open Political Warfare) elegantly characterized Chalabi as 'a man who, in lunches with politicians, secret sessions with intelligence chiefs and frequent conversations with reporters from Foggy Bottom to London's Mayfair, worked furiously to plot Mr. Hussein's fall.' The words 'from The Times, among other publications' would have fit nicely after 'reporters' in that sentence. The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign.

My point is just that the NY Times' own public editor described the Times' coverage in the run-up to the Iraq War using far harsher language than anything I'm seeing in the articles you've linked above. WSWS is definitely expressing strong opinions, but that's not at all the same thing as fabricating information, and the outlet seems pretty open about its point of view. Reason writes from a stridently Libertarian point of view. Jacobin writes from an openly socialist point of view. These sorts of opinionated sources have their place. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to start from, but it seems I will have to, so I'll move by the order of your quotes:
COVID studies: the article states in the headline that apparently NYT published a scathing survey that debunks establishment's views. The survey they refer to, however, only mentions that epidemiologists would hesitate to gather inside until children are vaccinated. This does not mean that these folks confirmed the "central role that children play in spreading COVID-19", they only said they are susceptible - not news. It is common knowledge by now that children are less contagious and the risk of getting to hospital is lower; but nobody from govt institutions said the risk of contracting COVID for children is 0, as they pretty boldly but erroneously claim in the headline. The fact they don't hyperlink to the relevant statements, or other research, at all, doesn't help them.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: if you want to be reliable, you'd want not to mix news with opinions. Hamas calling for a ceasefire is a wonderful thing, in fact; it's also OK to be highly critical of one side if they support the argument appropriately and mark it as OPINION/EDITORIAL or something. They make no such indication, however, and it seems a lot of editors have interpreted the site as reporting news where most RS would almost certainly have put an "OPINION" label. To be fair, they did write that "WSWS strongly condemns the Israeli conduct in the war" which could be clearly read as opinion, but only once. Condemnation alone is perfectly fine, but very slanted reporting, as is the case here (with basically no thorough analysis of the conflict), bound with their non-distinction between news and opinion, is what would urge me to declare the resource unreliable.
As for "echoing CCP" - they are echoing CCP in that they state that Uyghurs are not to be trusted at all (pretty repeatedly in coverage) - which itself requires extraordinary proof. Also, they repeatedly say that while they are preoccupied with Xinjiang, they seem to suggest it's more because of what they perceive is an exploitation of the working class rather than because of loss of the already limited civil liberties The repression of the Uyghurs is completely bound up with the far broader oppression of the working class by the Chinese capitalist elites and the Chinese Communist Party regime that defends their interests.. To add insult to injury, they seem to make a presumption of guilt when discussing US government, claiming justification in, for instance, Iraq as a precedent, and dismissing any US claims as advocacy for US imperialism. I find it unacceptable for a prospective RS to do so.
As for libel: US does afford broad free-speech protections for news media, but Wikipedia is not an American-only source. In Europe, it could be easily prosecuted. Even in the US, the cause could be probable; the only obstacle might be for PR of the newspaper, but I also see it as pretty prosecutable if NYT insisted to do so. I also cannot agree with the analysis you claim shows NYT used far more aggressive language. First of all, the public editor writes on NYT about NYT coverage; it would be cowardly of NYT to sue the author for libel after publication (which it didn't), even more so for a post of a watchdog (sadly gone). The story also makes it quite clear it is the opinion of the public editor. On the other hand, the story as published by WSWS does not show itself as opinion, asserts something for a fact that NYT is grossly violating journalistic principles by being unduly influenced by CIA and State Dept. and that essentially it is a govt mouthpiece. The proof they provide is insufficient to prove the allegation - what it might be sufficient for is COI of two activists.
Advocacy - maybe. Reliable reporting - sorry, not this time.
EDIT: Darouet is right that WSWS covers labour relations quite extensively, so that might be something for which they could be cited; of course we will have to sieve through the bias WSWS has, but the coverage is indeed valuable, and, even if opinionated, is unique so pretty important. Other than that, no, thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • They're a stridently biased source who exists to advance a particular position, and therefore should not be cited except as opinion at most. Even as an opinion site they're likely to be undue in most contexts; the example you gave underlines that their opinions are fringe-y, but we knew that already. And I would be skeptical about citing them directly for any shocking / exceptional "socialists / Trotksyists think X" stuff anyway without a secondary source, which doesn't really leave much use for them. Looking back at past discussions, it seems like they've generally been assessed this way in the past, but somehow we're still citing them over a thousand times. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What Buidhe and Aquillion said. I'd be surprised if there are any cases where the opinions expressed are going to be WP:DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors when due. Agree with Buidhe and Aquillion summary. Although it's been online for longer than lots of Trotskyist websites and so has accrued more links and search engine juice, it is highly unreliable and prone to conspiracy theories, making it resemble something like GlobalResearch more than a typical Trotskyist website. Reliable only for opinons, and only when they're due, which would be not often and certainly not on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs is extremely controversial, and heavily disputed by a great many commentators and experts, including the US State Department's own legal advisors, meaning that the official position of the US government on this issue actually contradicts the position of its own experts. One of the reasons that the accusation is so controversial is that there's no evidence of any mass killing (which is commonly considered the central element of genocide) or of any genocidal intent (another central element of the crime of genocide). I'd be very wary of ruling out sources simply for the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo about China. Otherwise, we might also start having to rule out sources like The Economist, which has flatly denied the claim of a Uyghur genocide and accused the US government of diminishing the unique stigma of the term by applying it where it clearly does not apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Equally, we should be wary of using sources just because they disagree with Mike Pompeo. We should be using reliable sources, such as the Economist, if we want to discuss these controversies.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The original comment in this section asks us to reevaluate this source’s credibility because it supposedly denyi[es] the Uyghur Genocide. That's what I referred to as the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo. The accusation that the US government has leveled - that China is carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang - is extremely contentious, and as I show above, has been dismissed outright by The Economist as a trivialization of the meaning of the word "genocide". Nobody is saying that we should use every source that disagrees with Mike Pompeo, but we're being asked to reevaluate sources specifically because they disagree with one of his more controversial claims - a claim that even the US State Department's own legal advisors disagree with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
WSWS also denies that there is any internment of Uyghurs in at least one of those articles. X-Editor (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Where? What is the exact quote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
...unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs.... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Saying that there are unsubstantiated claims of mass internment is very different from den[ying] that there is any internment. The very same article states, Undoubtedly, the CCP regime in Beijing uses police state measures to suppress opposition in Xinjiang, so it clearly is not denying the use of any police-state measures in Xinjiang (such as internment). However, the claims of 1 million or even 3 million people interned are, at present, very poorly sourced. A recent article from the South China Morning Post discusses some of the disagreements over these claims, and cites one expert (Grose) who believes that there is evidence, but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts. Another expert (Sautman) emphasizes that the data underlying the various charges being made in the media about Xinjiang is poor, and says that he believes many of the charges are probably incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thats bad and entirely separate from the genocide labelling discussion. Especially for when it was published, the claims of mass internment of Uyghurs has been entirely substantiated including by the Chinese government... They no longer deny the existence of the camps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The Chinese government disputes both the characterization of the camps as internment camps and the numbers claimed by some Western sources. As the SCMP article I linked above makes clear, the evidence underlying the estimates commonly cited in the media is very poor at present, and viewed as highly uncertain by experts. "Unsubstantiated" is a reasonable way to describe those claims, in other words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Internment =/= internment camps and we aren’t talking about specific numbers. Thats not what that SCMP article makes clear, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. If I wasn’t AGF I would say you’re cherrypicking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I substantially agree with everything Horse Eye's Back has said here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thucy’s twisting of Grose’s opinion almost beggars belief... "Regardless of the media approach, Grose said he disagreed with the paper’s suggestion there was no hard evidence of mass internment... He said he had put 325 documents from official Chinese sources related to incarcerations in Xinjiang on the project’s website. Grose said the paper suggested it was more plausible that local ethnic people were graduating from vocational schools rather than political re-education camps, an argument he said was disingenuous. “I have posted and made publicly available Chinese sources that call students of these vocational schools ‘detainees’, you don’t call students ‘detainees’,” he said.” Gross is clearly saying that the claims are substantiated and heavily criticizing the anonymous paper which argues Thucy’s position on the subject “It was built up as this path-breaking piece of research, and when I read it, I was shocked at how poorly it was written, and just the lack of academic rigour that was put in the piece,” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Your twisting of my words beggars belief. I very clearly stated that Grose believes there is evidence for mass internment, but I noted that he also criticized the media for reporting uncertain estimates as fact. You left out that quote from Grose (Oftentimes, the 1 million figure is used uncritically, and especially it’s reproduced and recycled in media where it’s almost become this undisputed fact), which makes me question your honesty here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You said "but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts.” but I see only one estimate being talked about and he does not directly say the media’s behavior is improper and theres a qualifying “almost" which is completely absent in your summary. Perhaps you erred in your original summation of that point? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You've come a long way from saying that I twisted Grose's opinion to quibbling about the word "almost". Feel free to read my above statement as the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as almost facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be missing that “improperly” and "highly uncertain” are not part of his opinion, you also have a plural statement with only a single underlying case... You mean reported, estimate, and fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite used to it at this point. I mean, the claims from the Chinese government are laughable on their face; this is not what a trade school looks like, but it looks suspiciously like an internment camp with a strong propaganda focus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Which evaluation of the website's credibility do you think we should re? Where is it referenced in the encyclopaedia, and to support what statement? This is not a forum for general discussion of websites. Cambial foliage❧ 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason I refer to it as a genocide is because that is the terminology used to refer to it on Wikipedia. If you think the terminology is wrong, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the Uyghur Genocide article. Also, WSWS calling the claims of mass internment camps unsubstantiated is very clearly them denying the well documented massive scale of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. X-Editor (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're an appropriate source to cite on that specific topic unless we for some reason have to discuss what Troskyists think about it (and I'd be cautious even then; as I said above, they're not a source with very much use for a variety of reasons.) But I disagree with the idea that simply arguing over whether it's a genocide would disqualify a source; I think such opposition is a minority voice now, but looking over the sources I'm not really sure I'd call it WP:FRINGE: [40][41][42]. Even sources that plainly favor calling it a genocide often acknowledge that there is debate, eg. [43]. Personally I wouldn't really change the overall tone of the Uyghur genocide article, but I would probably add a section for debate over the use of the term "genocide", which plainly does exist. See eg. Holodomor genocide question for comparison (although I am not really impressed by that article's structure, which feels like it gets more into laundry-list nose-counting as opposed to covering the debate in-depth), and the more cautious wording on Holodomor, which states who has called it a genocide rather than simply declaring it one in the article voice. Although really that is a question for WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGEN rather than here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aquillion: we already have a section for that, see Uyghur genocide#Classification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@X-Editor: The Uyghur genocide article is not intended to state, as a fact, that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. When the name of the article was changed to "Uyghur genocide", the argument was made that this is merely a phrase that's been used commonly in the media, and not a statement of fact. However, I have argued that the name of the article and the first sentence of the lede both come across as a definite statement by Wikipedia that there is a genocide. @Horse Eye's Back: This illustrates the point that I have made previously when discussing with you, that the title and first sentence of Uyghur genocide will be interpreted by readers as a Wikivoice statement. As you can see above, it's even being interpreted by some Wikipedia editors as a Wikivoice statement. -19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (signing properly: -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC))
If there was a better or more widespread term we would use it, but as has been demonstrated time and time again while a contingent of editors dislikes Uyghur genocide they have been unable to propose a more suitable name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you at least acknowledge that at present, readers are interpreting the article as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs? If you accept that this is the case (as it is with X-Editor), then you should be in favor of changes to the article to make it clear that we are not making a Wikivoice statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I use the term genocide because that is what Wikipedia uses currently. If you want to change the name of the article, propose a change on the article’s talk page. X-Editor (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to judge a website based upon its opinion pieces, since we generally consider them separate. However, the site's publication of conspiratorial claims (and perhaps even false or fabricated information) goes beyond the publication of pieces clearly labeled as opinion, as evidenced by the content of the links provided by OP. I see no reason to treat it as any more reliable than The Federalist in this regard, and the publication of false information (and lack of apparent corrections) might well be a reason to classify it as deprecated, just like The Grayzone. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing that the source is used in approximately 1200 separate wikipedia pages. It seems to be repeatedly cited as a source for facts across these uses, in many cases without attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be considered generally unreliable, the WSWS is essentially the newsletter of the Socialist Equality Party (United States), a pinprick Trotskyist party with a history of quite esoteric action, such as declaring that racism doesn't actually exist and is just a tool to divide the working class and other such kookiness. Generally, I would say it should only be used with direct in-text attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" is a designation for sources that regularly publish fabricated information, not for sources whose views you don't like. newsletter: A few dozen articles a day in several languages is a bit more than a "newsletter". declaring that racism doesn't actually exist: Quote? Marxists view class as more important to the structure of society than race, but that's not the same as saying that racism doesn't exist. We're discussing opinions at this point, though, not reliability. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
If An Phoblacht is considered unreliable for being the mouthpiece of Sinn Fein, the same logic applies here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This appears to be less a matter of "denying the Uyghur Genocide" than a difference of opinion over the definition of "genocide": the literal (and original) meaning of the word is that given in the OED: The deliberate killing [emphasis added] of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.[44] Modern historians, etc. seem to take a broader view of the term and use it to refer a larger range of actions (or even any action) with the goal or effect of destroying or removing (i.e., to another place) an identifiable group of people, which is currently the definition given by Merriam-Webster: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group[45] (Webster also wrongly says that the word originated in 1944 with this very meaning, which is clearly wrong). The use of the word in this latter, broader definition is made clear by the US government's statements on the matter themselves.[46] (Heck, even Mike Pompeo, while emphasizing the various atrocious actions of which he is accusing Beijing, doesn't seem to actually mention mass-murder: the arbitrary imprisonmentor [sic] other severe deprivation of physical liberty of more than one million civilians, forced sterilization, torture of a large number of those arbitrarily detained, forced labor, and the imposition of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.) This article (one of those linked by the OP) makes the distinction clear, as it states there is no doubt that China’s government, which represents the interests of a corrupt capitalist oligarchy, is carrying out widespread repression against the Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. Yes, the article clearly has a bias, but said bias is made clear by the title of the publication. Whether Wikipedia uses a "narrow" or "broad" definition of the word in question in any particular context is matter for said context's article talk page (certainly, I think we can all agree that our article on The Holocaust should never include a footnote attached to the word "genocide" that clarifies that modern scholars also use the word to refer to practices like widespread forced conversions and prohibition on certain actions with the goal of making people to "voluntarily" adopt a different religious of political belief system), not RSN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I read some of this thread beyond the title and the OP "question". I'm not sure if I'm at fault for not reading the whole thread before responding to what seemed to be the ostensible core issue or if others are at fault for dragging the conversation off in all sorts of directions. I agree and disagree with a variety of statements by a variety of editors within this discussion, but not enough to try to wade through it all and find some "point" to the conversation or even to defend my own response to the OP question in light of said conversation. So I've stricken it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the World Socialist Web Site is a socialist news and opinion service that is run by an international editorial board [47] and is explicitly partisan. They have a lot of reporting on labor issues in the US and internationally that is valuable, since I've found they'll cover strikes or labor conflicts that have little coverage elsewhere. That reporting and their commentary looks like it's cited countless time in academic books and journal articles (according to google books and google scholar), meaning that citation here at Wikipedia is also reasonable. They were very involved with leading American historians in a critique of the 1619 project (e.g. [48][49][50]).
Given all this, what is the specific question being asked? I looked briefly at the articles linked by the OP: where is this material being proposed for use, and how? In general, I agree that when this source is used, it should be often be with attribution - particularly if the content in question is opinion, or contentious. It's hard to evaluate how to respond in this particular case since I have no examples. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors when due. Should not be used in controversial topic areas and even attributed options from authors are hardly WP:DUE in related pages. CutePeach (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Food Safety News

Is this a RS? It's used on, for example, Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Articles with lurid titles like Monsanto Teams Up with Congress to Shred the Constitution suggest not, but some of the content seems bland. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Their HQ are literally on the same floor as a law firm specialising in food poisoning litigation [51]. JBchrch talk 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually I did not need to go this far : This website was created by Marler Clark, L.L.P., P.S. so that you could learn more about our law firm and legal services that we offer. [52] JBchrch talk 19:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The content Food Safety News Produces (as concerns usual reporting) is neutral and doesn't seem to be advocating for much of stuff. The article you cited concerns a person that was apparently writing editorials for the Food Safety News, but you could only guess about whether it's an editorial or the opinion of Food Safety News (and anyway she was fired/stopped contributing in 2013). Most of the content they publish is simple news; editorials appear to be all from guests and are mostly (though there are some omissions; probably they introduced signing of opinion pieces after 2013) signed as opinion pieces, contributed, or as "Guest Contributed" (see list of contributors). It is sponsored by the law firm of the owner of the publication, but they are transparent about it and it doesn't look like it is actually influencing coverage, at least after having read a dozen or two of their news pieces chosen at random from 2019 to 2021.
Basically looks like a niche but generally reliable news source for food safety matters. Should only be avoided in self-promotion articles (if they have any, because I haven't found them in the news), but other than that, the coverage seems neutral and adequate.
EDIT: The Legal Statement also says that This website, and the information it contains, is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between Marler Clark attorneys and the visitors or users of the website. And indeed the news coverage they have, from what I've seen, does not advertise the company - probably only columns made by William Marler, but even there (from the few I read) I didn't notice any explicit endorsement for their legal services. JBChrch, don't make hasty conclusions based on Legal Disclaimers alone - these more often than not reflect the legal realities of the state/country they operate in rather than the true purpose of the site (see their state disclaimers - even if Oregon, Kentucky and New Mexico oblige all law-firm affiliated sites to write something to the tune that they advertise their services doesn't mean they indeed do so - it's just done to prevent any unnecessary litigation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand that we have to be careful about legal disclaimers. But the website is run by a law firm that hired a journalist. It is written in the law firm's office. So can we agree that it's a self-published source, that's (broadly speaking) not written by a subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? It might even be a great ressource for professionals. I just can't see how it fits the policy requirements. JBchrch talk 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't agree with you here. The resource admits opinions from various folks connected with food safety - lobbyists, govt officials, food technicians etc. Since only expert opinion is admitted there, there is substantial editorial oversight over the resource (I, for instance, will not be able to publish an editorial). This is one reason.
The other is that while the person who owns the site is a lawyer (actually prominent enough to has his own article on Wikipedia), he must understand the intricacies of law procedures and preferably also the scientific aspects of food safety processes, contamination, etc. No, he's not a scientist, but he has written a few papers on legal aspects of food safety. He was also recognised in food safety conferences in Florida, Alberta, Illinois (HACCP), and also he participated in Food and Drug Law Institute proceedings.
Daniel Flynn seems to be a faithful and fairly impartial reporter. I wouldn't expect him to be published in scientific/law journals, but he does his job very well (apparently for 12 years, according to his Linkedin page), as I mentioned.
Therefore, even if we assume it's SPS (and I strongly suspect it isn't, it's 100% certainty here), it is directed by a recognised professional and expert in a field and the quality of reporting is good; I'd conclude it's reliable enough to be cited on its own without much reservations in the domain the website specialises in. It's like a trade magazine, really. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I still don't understand your objection to the idea that this is self-published. The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services. It's not my opinion, it's written on the website. If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. See also self-publishing, i.e. the publication of media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher.
Accordingly, per WP:SPS subject-matter experts may be cited in their areas of expertise. So Mr. Marler himself can be cited in the area of food law. Other published experts can be cited in their domain. But the rest of the website, including the hundreds of "News Desk" article are straightforward SPS. As for Mr. Flynn, I don't know the guy. JBchrch talk 09:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services [...] it's written on the website. Errm, I haven't seen that in the coverage. Were you only to read the coverage (news) itself, you'd have no idea what was written in the legal disclaimer, on which, as we seem to agree, we shouldn't rely too much. Also, you wouldn't actually suspect that it is sponsored by a law firm.
If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. I doubt it could be possible in this case. First, he contributes to the newspaper. Secondly, an independent publication specialising in food safety owned by a food law attorney, who also happens to own a food litigation law firm (and probably funding its publication from the profits of the firm)? Funny. That's an obvious COI, so I perfectly understand him disclosing it. Fortunately, in my view, that COI does not seem to influence the quality of publication. I was suspicious, but at least from what I have read and seen, this doesn't seem to influence reliability.
I don't know Mr Flynn either, but neither do we know most of the journalists working for WaPo, LA Times, WSJ, or, dunno, Idaho Statesman, Orlando Sentinel etc. This shouldn't be a factor in deciding reliability.
Now, to the final question concerning SPS: even if it were SPS, it would actually only impact BLPs, which are not extensively covered in the resource. I can drop that opinion for the sake of ending the dispute, as being considered an SPS in this case is unlikely to severely impact its possibility to be referenced to on Wikipedia. I think we can return to that question when folks will try to use that resource for BLP claims. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Self-publication absolutely affects reliability outside of BLPs. I once again draw your attention to WP:SPS, which is a longstanding policy that has broad consensus and has even been recently upheld [53][54]. SPS sources are only acceptable when they are written by subject-matter experts, except in the context of BLPs, where they are never acceptable. On the rest, I have nothing to add to my previous comments. JBchrch talk 22:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
What I only meant is that people writing there are usually subject-matter experts, and there is no indication Mr Flynn (who makes the normal news reports) misreports the information on food news matters (not opinions), which either a) means there is editorial oversight or b) he's a journalist who can be trusted because of good record, or both, which generally means that WP:SPS stops mattering that much in this particular context. Remember that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format..
I am not here to dispute current policy; I just believe you are being too conservative while interpreting it (or else you may believe I am too liberal with the policy). That dropping of my opinion was just a proposal to stop discussion, because we are unlikely here to agree (unless there is substantial 3rd-party input). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
And on what part of WP:SPS is your generally means based? You seem to be making things up as you go, in order to defend your position. Besides, we have no idea who writes the News Desk reporting. It could be outsourced to god-knows-whom under god-knows-which editorial standards for all we know. In any case, unsigned reporting is poor editorial practice. JBchrch talk 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Unsigned reporting is poor editorial practice it can be, but equally it's something that is done by very clearly reliable sources at some times (e.g. BBC News) so that alone cannot be used to determine the reliability of a source. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
True. JBchrch talk 18:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Personalities Inked

Would this be considered a good source to reference to as its written by a Military expert himself. The source is being considered to be referenced to the article Battle of Saragarhi. Like I said before, the source is written by the military expert which makes the source credible enough to be referenced to I believe. [55] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.98 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Being an officer does not make you an expert on military history, but I think it might be OK to use this with attribution. As long as what it claims is not too fringy, so what do you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:Thank you for responding. I plan to use this in the article Battle of Saragarhi as the information for the casualties.
It appears to be a self-published source (the publisher advertises itself as a self-publisher). I also can’t find much on the author with a Google search. Do you have more info on the author (a biography article published in a reliable source or the like)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: Here is the information on the author, [56]. There are two images, front page and End Page. The End page give the description on the author. I know its a self publisher but the fact that the writer is a military expert from Indian Army with the knowledge on Indian Military is what takes the upper hand here.
If the officer has no relevant expertise other than being a member of the military, then I'm not sure his self-published work is acceptable (self-published sources are not usually acceptable unless they come from a relevant expert). It certainly doesn't have the usual trappings of the kind of academic, methodological, serious sources (there are no footnotes! not even a list of [primary or secondary] sources used! and there are even some writing mistakes which indicate poor copy-editing and lack of rigour) that are preferred, per WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:RS (see the first sub-section at WP:SOURCETYPES). If you want an example of what an acceptable source would look like, I'd say you could try looking through resources like JSTOR or the like. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Turning Point USA and Right Wing Watch (People for the American Way)

Can we agree that even though these two organizations are non-profits they lean very left and very right, respectively? They have shared content numbers times that is not accurate. They should not be sources in my opinion. I think they should both be deprecated. Both organizations claim to run news organizations. If nothing else, can we agree these are politically biased sources and should be used with great caution.

See these example failed fact checks instances for Turning Point USA: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/02/turning-point-usa/video-gives-inaccurate-reading-redistricting-overh/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/turning-point-usa/conservative-group-meme-distorts-nevadas-chloroqui/

Their website states "Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on high school and college campuses across the country."

See these example of failed fact checks instances for Right Wing Watch and People for the American Way (Parent Organization): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/14/people-american-way/did-marco-rubio-vote-deport-dreamers/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/jan/14/people-american-way/seeing-red-over-warren/

Their website says "People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization."

DoctorTexan (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there some place where you have having a disagreement with someone who is using one of these sources without appropriate caution? --JBL (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I would be wary of drawing equivalence between these two sources just because they're both biased does not put them in the same category. I'd also be cautious of reducing Right Wing Watch's reliabilty to that of its parent People for the American Way as it may have seperate editorial processes. What are they being used for here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Which usages in Wikipedia are drawing your attention? Without context, it is hard to assess whether or not the sites are being cited inappropriately. --Jayron32 15:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd be appalled if anyone cited TPUSA for anything on Wikipedia, and quite disappointed if we used Right Wing Watch other than in informal discussions on Talk to point to more reliable sources or issues that might be covered in such. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Both biased sources, but they're not equivalent. TPUSA has actively spread disinformation and I'd be surprised if anyone who even casually glanced at WP:RS claimed it to be reliable. If there were a pattern of people trying to use TPUSA as a source, it would almost certainly be deprecated. RWW is an unambiguously WP:BIASEDSOURCE operated by People for the American Way, though its reputation for accuracy isn't bad. It's mainly clips and quotes of right-wing politicians/pundits/activists saying extreme/false/whatever things, and sometimes contextualizing (with commentary) or juxtaposing them, and always critically, of course. It's more of a WP:WEIGHT and attribution issue. It generally shouldn't be used to present potentially controversial statements of fact without attribution, and odds are good that if something it covers is worth including, it's been picked up by other sources, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Both sources are quite terrible, and I can't imagine a scenario where you'll actually need to use them except for the most basic WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Both are hyperpartisan advocacy groups that have no reputation for fact-checking. Right Wing Watch/People For the American Way has been running false ads for years ([57], [58], [59]). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • PFAW is a partisan political advocacy group, which means I generally trust them about as far as I can throw them. They have absolutely no motivations to be honest, only to "win the fight" as it were. Right Wing Watch might be an exception to the treatment their parent org gets, as they're widely cited by RSes and don't do anything but documenting right-wing figures. It would really depend on how they're used.
Turning Point USA is a laughing stock. They're basically the poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect in political thought. I don't think I've ever seen one of TPUsa's ads and not laughed at how moronic it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
MPants at work, I have, but only because it was so stupid that I had to go and check if it was real. They are the living embodiment of Poe's Law. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Guy, that's actually a good point. Interpreted as deliberate satire, their ads are far too stupid to maintain any trace of humor. They're only funny when you know they're serious, and even then, only if you don't pause to consider what their popularity says about us as a species. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question about use of one of these sources for a specific claim in a specific article? I'm starting to get a little tired of these open-ended discussions about sources with no context. Can you give more specifics? -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you would want to use these sources, but absent an example of use discussion here is difficult.Nyx86 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has already covered most of what I wanted to say about this. I don't see why you would want to use these sources and it's difficult to offer constructive input on biased sources absent context. Spudlace (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Forbes

Much like Newsweek being downgraded from a green to a yellow source on WP:RSP following its 2013 sale, I suggest Forbes should likewise be downgraded for its content since it was sold in 2014. Prior to 2014, and particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, Forbes was an excellent magazine, but since at least 2014, it has been full of dubious articles written by partisan "contributors," many of whom are not notable, that borders on clickbait with seemingly little editorial oversight. I may provide examples later, but I'd like to open this discussion to solicit input from others. soibangla (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Already makes the distinction between Forbes staff reporting and Forbes Contributors pretty clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I now see that. Maybe I should have scrolled down, eh? soibangla (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This year’s All Sides blind bias survey

https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-readers-rated-media-bias-ap-bbc-and-epoch-times-and-more This is an annual survey, carried out independently, I understand.

The majority of those tested, not told of the source of what they were reading, rated the NYT either left biased or lean left, ditto Bloomberg, whilst the Epoch Times was overwhelmingly rated centre, even lean right. RS’s need to be reconsidered accordingly. Boscaswell talk 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Times is straight garbage. Political leaning =/= reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Bias and reliability are separate issues. Bias is an issue related to our WP:NPOV policy. Reliability is an issue related to our WP:Verifiability policy. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Echoing Blueboar and Hemiauchenia. Bias and reliability are separate issues.
Epoch Times is listed in Wikipedia as a far-right source (and this is a statement made in Wikivoice), though apparently, the bias was not strong before 2016 (though it was still a strongly anti-Chinese publication), and the coverage was arguably pretty OK before 2015-2016 (except for Falun Gong matters), when they changed their business model substantially. Epoch Times is rubbish, or at least has become rubbish.
As for why the results appear as they are - probably because of readers' overton window. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Allsides is very clear that they do not want the data to be used like this... "While our Blind Bias Surveys are a uniquely powerful and fair way to rate the bias of news sources without giving more weight to one group over another, they alone do not always capture the full picture. They are essentially snap shots of the top stories on one day. That misses the bias that may show itself in other stories, in pictures, and on other days.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree completely with Szmenderowiecki, this is merely a reflection of the overton window and nothing else. Not even sure what specifically about RS should be "reconsidered" (Their reliability? Our description of their political leanings?) but we certainly shouldn't be basing any such reconsideration on a survey of random people's perception of bias, when there are actual RS that consistently weigh in on this. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a new guideline?

Thinking about this further, I am beginning to think that we may need to hive WP:BIASED off from WP:RS, and use it as the start of a new (expanded) guideline that better explains WHEN biased sources should and should not be used (perhaps with examples, so editors better understand what we mean by “context matters”). More importantly, an expanded guideline could also explain HOW to use them (such as including in-text attribution). Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

My first thought is that this sounds like a good idea. We certainly need something short and clear that explains how biased and unreliable are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar: 2000 people aren't representative. And political doesn't necessarily imply accuracy/reliability. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Don’t disagree at all... but ... political does not necessarily imply inaccurate/unreliable, either. The two issues (bias and reliability) can certainly overlap, but they are NOT the same issue. And we should deal with each slightly differently. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar: This may only imply that in some cases political leaning should be taken into account and nothing more. Unless more reliable research is brought to light. 2k people is a joke. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, don’t disagree. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that if anything is to change, it's the WP:NPOVS essay, where we can reformulate some sentences and add a few so that it defines the boundary when bias starts to significantly influence reliability. I wouldn't make any changes to policy though, because those who aren't sure could be easily referred to the essay. Policy is only to contain rules - essays are more of a commentary to policies, and from what I understand, you are proposing to insert more commentaries. It's good, but I don't think it's enough to warrant a separate essay, let alone additional policy clauses.
As a matter of principle, yes, go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would definitely support expanding on WP:BIASED and spinning it off, although I suspect it will be a tricky thing to get right. Right now I feel like too many people read BIASED as meaning "bias doesn't matter at all", which isn't precisely right. Part of the underlying issue is that editors can reasonably claim that any source is biased in some fashion (and how biased a source is often a matter of perspective, ie. people are more likely to see a source that describes the way they think it is as neutral), so it might be to talk about things like eg. to what extent the source's bias affects their core editorial mandate. The New York Times has all sorts of biases related to it being an American paper based (somewhat) out of New York, but we can reasonably say that it strives hard to avoid letting that bias affect its reporting; whereas eg. an agenda-driven think tank is making no such effort. I would probably make a distinction between "sources that strive to be unbiased, and have a reputation backing this up as generally successful", "sources that say they strive to be unbiased but whose reputation calls that claim into question to one degree or another", and "sources that are stridently biased and make no effort to conceal it" - they should all be handled in different ways. (The middle category is the most tricky and subjective, of course, and is likely to be where editors will encounter the most arguments.) Another thing perhaps worth discussing is the intersection of bias with WP:FRINGE; a source cannot usually be described as "biased" simply as a result of strongly supporting something that is universally-accepted among high-quality sources (often a tactic of people trying to push fringe viewpoints is to try and eg. dismiss every source that accepts evolutionary biology as biased), and, conversely, fringe biases are much more alarming and usually ought to be enough to get a source generally disregarded on anything that remotely touches on their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    Although it's also important to note that even heavy bias in one area does not necessarily mean it's unreliable in other areas (although it does perhaps make it more likely). Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: agreed, and I would like to add that the impact of bias is a double edged sword. For example if a paper with a strong right wing bias says a right wing politician did X, Y and Z despicable things I’d actually be more inclined to think that reliable than if a paper with strong left wing bias said that a right wing politician did X, Y and Z despicable things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar and Thryduulf that this is something that would be of great benefit to the project. — Ched (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Better guidance on what constitutes bias and what should be done about it would help with article content, and hopefully improve RSN RfCs. Biased sources are a WP:NPOV issue not a WP:V issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't completely disagree that bias is unrelated to RS. While bias alone can't render a source unreliable, when it is coupled with other signs of unreliability it is useful to consider when determining whether incidents are isolated mistakes or part of a systematic pattern; if coverage consistently describes a source's bias as introducing actual unreliability (ie. they are willing to overtly distort facts or outright lie in the service of their bias), then that becomes a RS issue, and is particularly noteworthy because it implies a systematic reliability issue, ie. any fact-checking or editorials they control are clearly secondary to their ideological goals (or whatever), rendering them moot. A source that sometimes makes errors is not as concerning as a source who is broadly described as biased and who consistently makes "errors" in the direction of their bias. (Another, somewhat related issue, which seems like it shouldn't need to be said but somehow does, is that bias alone obviously doesn't make a source usable. If a source is well-known for being biased and nothing else - that is, it has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - then it's not a WP:RS. This matters because often discussions of stridently biased sources somehow gets derailed into a bizarre place where people are like "the source is WP:BIASED!" "Yes, but that doesn't make it unreliable, so we can use it!") --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a current AE request (unlikely to result in any action) but I think aspects of what's going on there tie to here, and I'll reiterate a facet I think is important relevant to BIAS. As an encyclopedia and a tertiary work we should absolutely be summarizing sources but we should be doing it from both a 60,000 ft level and from a longevity view of what information will be relevant 10-20 years from now. From a bias standpoint, this means we should absolutely be aware of bias in reliable sources. As others have said, and a repeated facet of this board, bias does not immediately make a source unreliable. But if we are on topic X, and a given RS (even a source like the NYTimes) has a well-known bias related to X, we should not be taking that RSes coverage of X with blind faith, and consider where some statements that may be contentious be written with attribution. This all requires looking at the bigger picture to see that bias and how that bias would influence how we should be working, hence why I think this is a relevant point --Masem (t) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with what you wrote there, in principle. Just for the sake of argument, though, imagine that RSN had a "bias" bit to it, a number 5 choice, let's say. I can pretty much predict that the same crowd every time will come and say "5!" (super biased) and their opposite numbers will say "0!" (not biased, not even a little bit). I'm just concerned how it would be dealt with in practice is all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Is academia.edu a legitimate secondary source, or should it count as UGC?

I don't have any specific examples or context, but I'm curious to see what other editors think of Academia.edu (website), which is apparently a platform for sharing research papers. Is it categorically different from UGC? Can it be used either for the purposes of verifying information or demonstrating notability, or should it be avoided altogether?

I have very limited experience with that website, so I have no biases towards or against it. This is my first time participating in the reliable sources noticeboard, so I apologize if this thread is malformed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be considered a self-published website, in that by default, the content on it should be presumed unreviewed (as I've seen student theses and unpublished papers on it). That said, academics have published their peer-reviewed works to it. If this is such the case, verifying that the work is a peer-reviewed journal, then it is better to just source that journal, avoiding the link to academia.edu, but we're going to turn a blind eye if you happen to use the paper off academia for your own sourcing. --Masem (t) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It's an unreviewed repository of papers. Many are peer-reviewed, many aren't, many are from predatory journals. If you can trace the paper to a reliable journal, then it's fine. If you can't, then treat it as any other self-published source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
What Headbomb says. Think of it as a library containing different sorts of sources, some reliable and some not. It should be clear what type of thing each paper is, e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article by a professor or a student essay. If it appears reliable, it would be better to find and cite an actual published version, but that might be less accessible. Note of caution: sometimes uploaded versions are pre-peer review or (more often) peer-reviewed but not copy edited, and therefore sometimes differ from the published version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I would think of it like YouTube: It's a repository of sources, but it is not itself a source. The reliability is attached to the writer/publisher of the specific paper being cited, not to academia.edu, which does not itself have any editorial oversight of what is posted there, anymore than YouTube has over the videos posted to its site. --Jayron32 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
If the paper is peer-reviewed or a published book excerpt, I will cite the work, link to the academia.edu upload, and then put Academia.edu in the "via" parameter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Since the website allows anyone to post papers, each paper must be assessed separately. If the author is an expert, then SELFPUB applies and it could be reliable. Some papers may also be published in academic journals, in which case the journal articles would be reliable. If you don't have access to the journal, you could use the website if you SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, in other words cite both the website and the journal, saying that you used the website version. TFD (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. If it is just on academia.edu, then it is just an upload by someone. If that someone is a credible expert, then it may be usable. If it is a copy of in a good, non-predatory journal then it is that journal that counts.--Hippeus (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

G'day all, can I get some views on the reliability of the European Journal of Social Sciences Studies? See [60]. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's crap.[61] Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I take it we don't maintain a list of such journals? I suppose there are plenty? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There are two very good reasons why we don't maintain any lists. 1) There are far too many sources for us to make a canonical list of either all reliable sources or all unreliable sources and 2) The existence of a list implies that things not on the list are on their own list of opposite quality. For example, if we created a list of "unreliable sources", then any source not on the list must be reliable, right? And if we maintained a list of reliable sources, than any source not on the list must be unreliable, right? Even the list we do have, despite all of the giant walls of text warning people against this, are treated as such, as though WP:RSNP is some kind of endorsement of reliability and unreliability. Instead, we expect editors to use good judgement and apply the standards of reliability before they try to use a source. --Jayron32 12:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, we do have some lists. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the main one. There's also the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.
Also see User:Headbomb/unreliable, for a script that automatically highlights in red or yellow known unreliable or dubious sources. It uses a hard-coded list which seems to be taken from our main list, and is pretty regularly updated by Headbomb.
Note that the main list is of perennial sources; sources who's reliable is is regularly questioned, for good or spurious reasons, questions which get consistent answers. The point of that list is not to list out who's reliable and unreliable (though it serves that purpose), but to serve as a repository for answers to questions that are repeatedly asked.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning here: It's impeccable. We should not be relying on lists of reliable/unreliable sources to make our determinations of reliability. They're useful as a starting point, but that's about it. And their usefulness declines as the are updated less and less frequently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I linked to it. Please try to keep up. As I said, we do have a list. And it causes all of the problems that such lists create. Which I did also note. --Jayron32 14:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I'll note that your comment started with "There are two very good reasons why we don't maintain any lists.". It's easier to keep up when I don't have to watch out for a direct contradiction, a few sentences later. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It would have been better had I written "shouldn't". Still, five lines of text is not usually WP:TLDR territory, but for you, I'll keep it briefer. --Jayron32 02:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
[62]. For long-standing predatory journels, an archived version of Beall's list is online. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD are two such lists, and they are actively maintained. Neither are comprehensive however, and the big disclaimers on top of each lists are there for a reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_341&oldid=1026110656"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy