Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 17 August 2020 (→What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

RfC: YouTube

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Should YouTube be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (EDIT: Youtube is already subject to a XLinkBot filter) (Per the IMDb and Facebook discussions) to discourage misuse? YouTube is currently cited over 170,000 times on Misplaced Pages per YouTube.com  . YouTube is currently described at RS/P as:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Misplaced Pages, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (YouTube)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

• Support edit filter These filters are intended to reduce misuse by inexperienced and new users, and are not a total blanket ban on YouTube use. Obviously per the RSP entry, videos by news organisations and similar are fine, but many other uses of YouTube are problematic, and are likely added by inexperienced users unfamilar with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability guidelines. Adding these filters will discourage problematic additions of YouTube links to articles, while more experienced users can add YouTube links with discretion. EDIT: It's worth noting that any edit filter for YouTube would likely be a custom edit filter rather than the standard depreciated source filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 170,000 should have been the flag to stop this. Of course we're not going to have a warn filter for YouTube or deprecate it. We link it all the time. It's not a source, it's a platform, and it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources. See for example Killing of George Floyd which links to half a dozen videos or more. This deprecation thing at RSN is going too far. I find the growth of RSP in 2020 to be alarming. YouTube shouldn't even be listed at RSP. It's like listing "television" or "paper" at RSP. It's a medium not a publisher or author. Levivich  19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I explicitly did not mention the word "depreciation" because it was not meant as one. One could make the same argument for Facebook, which there was consensus to add a warn edit filter for. Obviously the citations to YouTube videos for George Floyd are acceptable, but they should be added with discretion, which presumably many of the over 170,000 added links were not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would make the same exact argument for Facebook and Twitter, neither of which should be listed at RSP because both are platforms. You might not have used the word "deprecation" but a warn filter is a very obvious step in that direction. These RSN evaluations of publishers outside of actual content disputes are inappropriate. It's just not right for a small group of self selected editors to assume the role of a publisher review committee. As an editor, I'm not going to start making time to vote on the general reliability of every source under the sun. Personally, I do not recognize any of these RSN "generally reliable"/"deprecate"/"filter" threads as representing anything other than local consensus (with the exception of those that were properly widely advertised, such as Fox News). This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not the Publisher Review Noticeboard. We should only be discussing specific sources--that means individual works used to cite a statement in an article--and only in the context of the specific instances in which they are used. RSP should only list true perennials--meaning publishers whose sources are often discussed at RSN. Platforms like YouTube and media like social media shouldn't be discussed here at all, and shouldn't be listed at RSP. Deprecation and edit filters should be extremely rare steps that only happen with policy-level consensus, eg Daily Mail. I just don't recognize the validity of a dozen editors saying "not reliable" and then it's red at RSP and suddenly a hundred thousand editors are barred from using it. Sorry, that's just not valid process, and I feel like it's getting out of control on this board this year. At a minimum, warn filter proposals should be advertised at CENT. Levivich  19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I added this to CENT. Levivich  16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --

tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Abuse filter and XLinkBot: Youtube is just not a reliable source to be used here.
  • It’s not a source at all, it’s a platform for thousands of sources with a range from undeniably reliable to mind boggling bad. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Even WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Youtube is used by many expert sources and blanket measures such as filters and XLkinkBot are indiscriminate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? As I stated previously, experienced editors are not affected by XlinkBot, and the edit filter is likely to be a custom one not simply the same as the depreciated sources filter. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Lindsay Ellis, Nicholas Moran, PBS Spacetime, PBS Eons CGP Grey, Baumgartner Restoration, Caitlin Doughty, Alton Brown, etc., etc., etc., Need I continue? those are just from the first page of my recommendations. "not likely to be" is not reassuring and even IP editors are allowed to link to actual experts on YouTube by policy. This just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is CGP Grey an expert in? I think his videos are interesting, but his "Americapox" video has recieved criticism for paralleling Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel which has been heavily criticised by historians. I don't see how he can be classified as an "expert" as he has no credentials in any of the topics he makes videos on. I don't see why PBS videos should be cited for facts either, they're again interesting, but they are not subject matter experts themselves and Misplaced Pages should cite the underlying source material. Nicholas Moran has no actual credentials as a historian either per this Military Times article. Lindsay Ellis is a media critic with a film school degree and therefore the question of citation is one of WP:DUE rather than of reliability. As for Alton Brown and Ask a Mortician, I think there are likely to be better sources for the information in that these would be relevant to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. PBS Spacetime is hosted by an astrophysicist, PBS Eons by the Curator of Collections for the Museum of the Rockies. Moran is a Lt. Col in the US Army and paid for his historical research which makes him a working historian despite whatever Military Times wants to say, and you implicitly recognize the credentials of Ellis, Doughty, Brown. Don't like those? How about an Oxford PhD in astrophysics or Baylor College of Medicine or the Harvard School of Public Health or a professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh or Freakin' NASA, for pete's sake. "I think there are likely better sources" is pure speculation and this speculation and over-generalizing applies to the entire RfC; rather than actually examining the sources, like we're supposed to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot. CGP Grey is an educator, "What exactly" he is an expert in is...education. What are his videos? As it so happens, education. I find it richly ironic that a Reddit thread was cited for source criticism on RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think CGP Grey videos are unusable as sources. YouTube is WP:SELFPUBLISHed; being considered an expert sufficient to pass that policy requires more than just a breezy "oh he's a professional X." The requirement is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does he meet that standard? Beyond that, his videos generally summarize part of a particular published work (which he cites at the end), so you could just cite that work directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently CGPGrey being an "educator" makes him a subject matter expert on everything? WP:SPS states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

(emphasis not mine). CGP has no relevant expertise on the vast majority of topics he covers, and therefore isn't a subject matter expert. The specific reddit thread I brought up was from r/AskHistorians, which is notable enought to have its own wikipedia article and largely staffed by subject matter experts. As for the PBS stuff, it consists of simplified explanations for laymen and the production of web television like the PBS Digital Studios involves staff who are not subject matter experts, like researchers and script writers, who may introduce errors. Per WP:SPS again:

Exercise caution when using sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources

For what it covers we should be citing higher quality sources like review papers or high quality secondary sources like Quanta Magazine, the same principle applies to other creators you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I've stricken Grey because it's clear that channel is becoming a distraction. (Although I think from context you meant "...are usable as sources.") That doesn't refute any of the other 12 creators I linked and if I were so inclined I could find hundreds or thousands of Youtube creators that incontestably comply with the SPS requirements and clearly support the claim I made earlier about "many experts". The point is that blanket lumping these in with bad sources just because they exist on the same platform as BTS fanvids and 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (or whatever) doesn't actually comply with the RS policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) EC This is nit-picking at its nittiest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? WHO NIH NASA Nature BBC Smithsonian Levivich  03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, respectively 1525, 639, 4932, 72, 11944 and 2890 videos. That is a exceedingly minor fraction of the material on YouTube (I thought I saw 1.3 billion video's on YouTube, but that was a wrong number, I now found 7 billion in 2017, of which these 6 channels would only make 0.0003% of the material, but now it is 2020). --Dirk Beetstra 09:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to analyse on a case-by-case basis, but I dare to say that 99.9% of the material on YouTube will not be suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dirk Beetstra, except that he doesn't go far enough. 99.9% of the material on the Internet is not suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. I'm sure you all agree? So we should put in an edit filter for anyone adding any Internet reference whatsoever. Not ban use of the Internet, mind, just, you know, a warning. For experts only. Keep the others on their toes. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, :-) a nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but totally missing the point. —Dirk Beetstra 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot A good way to caution editors without banning or "deprecating" YouTube. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with everything Levivich wrote. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as overreach, there are many good sources in the official channels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. YouTube is a self-published source in almost every case, and the majority of citations are of the form "X said Y on YouTube, source, X saying Y on YouTube". This is always a terrible idea and a warn filter is entirely appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is, hopefully, a well-meaning solution in search of a problem. Over time YouTube has increasingly worked to reduce all manner of fraud and corruption it faces worldwide. Meanwhile it’s used by more and more entities as an official news outlet for their views. Let’s find actual problems first then get creative in addressing those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because, as Levivich noted, YouTube is a platform not a source. ¶ Of course, if we required editors to create an account ....  Self-trout   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, my concerns are echoed by many editors above, YouTube is a platform, not a source, it is home to many official news stations and professionals whose channels are perfectly good sources and who use it to widen their appeal. Also, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, in my experience when YouTube is sourced it is either to a reliable source which just so happens to be on the platform, as a WP:PRIMARY source, or as blatant self-promotion. The last instance is the only problematic one, and putting an edit filter on YouTube will not stop them in the slightest. Even if these problems do occasionally pop up, this is a massive overreaction to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as stated by many editors above Youtube is a publishing platform like a book, radio, television, etc. Editors should not be seeing warnings if they should be allowed to use Voice of America, France 24, or the BBC. As Levivich has stated above, this board and its perennial sources list has begun to overstep its purpose in the wikipedia community. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. YouTube is a platform. It's not a source, and YouTube videos are not intrinsically unreliable as sources. Increasingly, good reliable-source information is from video (e.g., news or newscast video) rather than print these days, so an edit warning is overkill in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a slightly parallel discussion on WT:V about what actually is a "self-published source" and in alignment with "opposes" here and discussion there, YouTube is not the publisher in these videos - it is the person that prepares and uploads the video that is "publishing" it and that's where the self-publishing needs to be addressed. For example CNN and other media sources have videos uploaded, which clearly have been through news desk editors, so these are published, but not self-published, and thus 100% fair game as a reliable source. On the other hand, CoolGuy99 talking about his favorite Pokemon would be a self-made video and self-published. While the majority of videos on YouTube are probably in this latter category, a good chuck are competely valid sources and thus using an edit filter is a bad idea. --Masem (t) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot. I don't think Youtube can be RS, yes we can watch and listen to a historian's lecture there, but it's not paper. Where are reviews here? Some editorial hierarchy and control exist in the newspapers, while on YouTube it is mostly non-existent. If we consider a local TV news or CNN presented on Youtube as information source it is OR. Article, comment, interview etc, we can read and on these portals(CNN etc..) and use as a source. The whole world publishes some of its truth through Youtube and for controlling these informations we need an army of people. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How can it be that this NYTimes video at YouTube, this WaPo video at YouTube, or this NBC video at YouTube are not RSes, or are OR when we cite them (as we currently do in several articles including Killing of George Floyd)? They have been subject to editorial review and have been published by a reputable publisher (NYT, WaPo, and NBC, respectively). Levivich  18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • His last recorded(TV, etc) moments and spoken words are OR, and his last moments and spoken words in some comment from a journalist published in newspapers are RS, but even this RS can be challenged by someone on Misplaced Pages. Ultimately only after end of trial we will know the specific facts. After these facts are published in some newspaper or some book then it is a quality RS for Misplaced Pages. I see it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Each video is narrated by a journalist and was published by "some newspaper", e.g. NYT, WaPo, and NBC. So this meets the criteria you are describing. Levivich  18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • You see that journalist throughout video telling dozens of details and facts, but we don’t know if this details and facts are true. We'll know that in a couple of years when the trial is over. I'm talking about that. If the same is said in the article of that TV house (portal) it is RS although it is the same thing but in that case exist some visible editorial control, name of the journalist, responsible editor, date, additional confirming official sources in writing (police etc), etc. In the video reportage it may or may not be controlled, we do not know whether this information has passed editorial or the journalist has his personal conclusions. I look at the bigger picture(Youtube) and a million videos without any control, not only CNN and NBC. I'm from the Balkans, when we would start entering informations from YouTube there would be a mess on Misplaced Pages, and it is only for two or three countries. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both - As people have said, YouTube is a hosting site, not a source in itself. The individual videos hosted on YouTube are the sources. Some are reliable, some are not. Think of it this way: with printed texts an author and publisher (which affect reliability), and we have a bookstore or library where the text can be located (which do not affect reliability). YouTube is equivalent to the bookstore or library. It is where the video can be located, but is not the author or publisher. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You raise a good point, @Blueboar:. Legally, Youtube only receives protection against civil and criminal actions specifically because it is not an author or publisher. If it is not an author or publisher, it is not a source as our policies define one, reliable or otherwise. Any discussion of Youtube as "a source" (singular) is predicated on a gross misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of the whole debate that kicked off why the US has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because to distinguish between "distributor" like a bookstore that has no control on the content that is in the books it offers, and "publisher" which does. And I think our model that we're trying to get here is trying to get to that point as well. We want to tag things that are SPS where the person making the content is also the one that does the publishing (even if the "publisher" is a third party like Forbes.com or Amazon Book Printing services), and that we need to ignore the "distributor" like YouTube when it comes to that evaluation. (Again, tying to the ongoing WT:V discussion). There is a tiny tiny fraction of YouTube content that is made by YouTube employees (like YouTube Rewind) but that's less than 0.01% so not enough to call it an SPS. It is all on who is uploading and what relation they have to the act of publishing that content, if it has gone through what we'd usually consider appropriate for an RS w/ fact-checking. --Masem (t) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both (well, addition of the EF and retention of the XLinkBot rule). Reliable content hosted there is very much the exception rather than the rule, and other hosts should be preferred for the small portion of reliable content when available. Video citations should be avoided anyway, in my opinion, since they're hard to skim, not easily used without a fast network connection, and may not be available captioned. On the rare occasions that the only reliable source for something is only available through that Web site, and someone new needs to cite it, can make an edit request to get around the XLinkBot. (Although if something's not covered in any textual source, it probably is undue weight to be talking about it anyway.) Otherwise this should help cut down the amount of those references. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both for the same reasons as Goldenshimmer: 1) the vast majority of YouTube video are not reliable sources, and 2) even when a youtube video is published by a reputable entity, it's almost always preferable to use some other, written-down source as more verifiable and reliable. The current setup seems bitey because it reverts new users without giving them a reason. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Buidhe. I know it seems lazy to just quote the support directly above you, but it's exactly what I was going to say. I can't remember the last time I found a reference to a YouTube video that couldn't have been easily replaced with a more reliable source, a proper secondary source, or a more accessible print source. ----Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has written a featured article with such instances, not every interview or primary source is necessarily going to have a viable substitute. And as others have mentioned, reliable sources like the New York Times and Variety Magazine are on YouTube as well. While there are usually replaceable sources outside of YouTube, this is not the case 100% of the time. Definitely not enough to go nuclear and instate an edit filter, which should only be used for sites that have no business being cited under any circumstance. Darkknight2149 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. WP:RSP is not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the edit filter. YouTube is sometimes usable for interviews and primary sources, so the idea of an edit filter is kind of dumb. Darkknight2149 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• A warning is fine for new editors using YouTube channels as a source. The majority of the warning's recipients will actually learn something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Warn filter would serve as an education tool for new editors. For clarity, no appetite to depreciate as there are clear occasions when it is the correct source to use, but it clearly needs to be cited with care. Best, Darren-M talk 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose autoreverting (removing) youtube links: A bot cannot decide the context of a post. As an occasional editor, tried to post a youtube link to a TED talk on the Misplaced Pages page about the speaker. TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation, and its overall mission to research and discover “ideas worth spreading.” This youtube link was not like an official music video, for profit, or controversial hearsay, as the speaker was the subject of the Misplaced Pages page, the primary source. The XLinkBot reverted (removed) it. Then I posted the same content by a link containing ted.com, which was happily allowed to let stand. I posted another youtube link of a TED talk, because not all TED talks are on ted.com. This was also reverted (removed), even though I was logged into my user account, which is older than 7 days. The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/User:XLinkBot/RevertList says, "The bot does not revert when the account is older than 7 days (except when the rule is on override)". So I don't know why it was removed. This sort of discourages editing of Misplaced Pages pages. A more technical issue with the bot is that if you add a youtube link, and in the same edit make a minor change to another entry, say to remove some punctuation, the bot removes both entries, without showing this on the history page. Another thing is that even though ted.com is an alternative site for this content, it seemed to serve the content slower, so youtube would have been the preferred link. Lindamarcella (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • TED talks are not reliable sources in many cases. They're reliable sources for what the person says but may or may not be reliable for facts depending on the topic and whether the person is a subject matter expert. New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. What? Are you under the impression that new users don't understand the nuances of sourcing? You realize that new users aren't children or students? In many if not most cases they are scientists, researchers, professors or other professionals who already knew what a reliable source was and how to use and cite it long before they ever edited Misplaced Pages. Similarly, there are editors who've been here for 10 years and have less experience with sourcing than other people who aren't even editors at all. I doubt there is a connection between age of account and understanding the nuance of sourcing. Sourcing is a real world thing, not a Misplaced Pages only thing. Levivich  14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have editors who determine the validity of sources and of videos. New users have to fumble around as it is, learning the acronyms, policies, guidelines, and then learning that WP:IAR is a policy. All of this is inadvertently difficult. There are many youtube videos - tours of lakes, tours of businesses, interviews...this is the 21st century and people are not going to the card catalogue and using the Dewey Decimal System to find a physical book. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many individuals and companies have their own legit Youtube channels. Lugnuts 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose edit filter, Support keeping it on XLinkBot (disclaimer, I am bot operator). Yes, there are MANY good sources on YouTube, many respectable publishers, news agents, libraries, repositories use this medium. Unfortunately, ALSO many people who upload material in violation of copyright do, and there are regularly copyvio links added. ALSO a lot of other people upload videos there (which is the far, far majority of the material): your personal movie of your dog is neither a source for wagging tails, nor a suitable external link on dog (I am sorry, the majority of material on youtube is not an RS for anything, and not suitable as external link). Then there is a lot of purely promotional material there (it is not so long ago that we had loads of spambots spamming links to youtube, up to a level that we had an adminbot block them). Then there are the regular cases of people who think that we are a repository of social media links. Links to youtube are needed, but should be used with care. It is good that we remind new users of those policies and guidelines. —Dirk Beetstra 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, I totally agree with user:Levivich that youtube itself should not be on RSP. —Dirk Beetstra 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: I am just going to note here again: YouTube is not on the revertlist (neither the regular, neither the reference one) because of reasons of unreliability. It is on the revertlist because of it very often failing many other inclusion standards, including regular observations of spamming of YouTube, regular observations of linking to copyright violating material (including copyright violations of material which the original would be a reliable source) and material which is strongly discouraged in general. --Dirk Beetstra 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We should not be going out of our way to discourage the use of videos as sources. There is nothing inherent in videos that makes them less reliable than print media. Like all potential sources, it depends on the originator of the source, not the type of source. Yes, much of the videos on YouTube are self published, but that doesn't matter. I acknowledge that inexperienced editors may use self published videos as a source, but if a user doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V, than they might use anything as a source. There's nothing about YouTube per say that warrants concern. Reliable sources can use it as a place to publish videos from their verified accounts, and non-reliable sources can use it as a place to self publish. That right there just about sums up the internet in general. Inexperienced editors are just as likely to accidentally include unreliable tabloids as a source. If anything, we should be more concerned with abuse of print sources, since in the mess of Google search results, it can be hard for an inexperienced editors to tell whether something is reliable or whether it's just a blog/tabloid. --Puzzledvegetable 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE - There is another caution about using YouTube videos that may make a warning template appropriate... the issue of COPYRIGHT. If a specific COPY of a video is posted in violation of copyright laws, we can not link to that specific copy (although we might be able to link to a copy of that video on some OTHER YouTube channel.) This, however, has nothing to do with the reliability of the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Given the number of opposes for a warning, should there be a separate discussion about removing it from the Xlinkbot list? Without having given this too much thought, I think I'd oppose auto-reverting even while supporting a warning. Wouldn't many of the opposes also oppose auto-reverting? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Calliopejen1, you realize that the far majority of material on youtube is crap, spam, promotional etc. The reliable, useful material is a far minority of the material. Moreover, as I stated above, it is not too long ago that we had spambots spamming youtube (through the redirect service). People here are, imho unjustly, focussing on that little bit of good material, forgetting the spam, copyvio material and useless crap.

  I would like to see an analysis how often the bot reverts references which should not have been reverted (and how often the youtube references are actually copyvio), then I could be swayed to remove it from the revertreferences list. —Dirk Beetstra 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that auto-reverting a new users comment is somewhat WP:BITEY as it is done with no warning, which is why I wanted to add the edit filter. However, if youtube links were enough of an issue in 2008 that they were added to the filter, they would likely be even more of an issue now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, the situation with YouTube has changed since then. E.g. most people nowadays have mobile phones with reasonably fast internet at reasonable prices so that they can stream video reasonable, in 2008 many people around the world were still using slow (expensive dial-in) internet where streaming video was not really a possibility (note, also the video size has increased since 2008, but they can be automatically downsampled). In 2008 the use of youtube by 'respectable media outlets' was minor, most was user uploads. Now it is extensively being used by BBC, NYT, etc. etc. Comparable, in 2008 advertising on YouTube was minor, now it is also extensively being used by advertising media, health fanatics, organisations with an agenda and similar. Yes, NYT and Washington Post use it, but they do not appear in List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos or List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels, nor are they even a reasonably representative number of the videos on YouTube. That will be worrisome if that is a reflection of the YouTube material that people will use as a reference on Misplaced Pages. --Dirk Beetstra 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Misplaced Pages would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR _talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot I've seen YouTube links used way to much in the wrong ways myself. What minor legitimate uses there are the information can be gotten from better sources. For instance the New York Times own website if it's their video that someone is linking to. Most YouTube videos are also OR and primary sources. People seem to use them as sources indiscriminately though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Warning against using a source published on YouTube is akin to warning against citing a source published on the Internet. No one is actually citing YouTube itself. Just like when I am citing nytimes.com, I am not citing "The Internet", which came into existence a few decades ago. I am citing The New York Times, the newspaper with about 170 years of editorial history. When we cite a source on YouTube, we are citing a reliable publisher (e.g. NBC's Dateline) which just so happens to be using YouTube as its publishing medium. WP:SOURCES has good explanation on how to evaluate a published source. That is sufficient. No further red tape is required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There may be a case for placing restrictions on who can add links to YouTube (a type of general WP "semi-protected", used now for articles that are prone to vandalism). However, I've found links to YouTube very helpful, especially in the "External Links" section of articles, where they direct readers to, for example, authoritative talks by well-known experts in the field. In that sense they are not sources but more like further reading. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Youtube can be quite useful for interviews, vlogs, public domain film footage, and primary sources. I get that new editors misuse Youtube a lot, but this is too much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As has been strongly proven above, although it should have been common knowledge, Youtube is simply a media platform like any other; it can host unreliable or unuseable content, but it can and does host a great deal of useable reliable sources, which makes it an important academic tool for this project. Implementing a blanket warning against its use would serve to discourage and stigmatize its use which is unfair and inappropriate. ~Swarm~ 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are a staggering number of legitimate usages of Youtube. I don't want to comment here on the broader ideological considerations Levivich notes, but the inaccurate warn rate would be so high as make this an absurd idea. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, well, it seems to be staggering low ... XLinkBot has a rule for reverting YouTube references (not for reliability issues, but for the other issues often encountered), which it has not used for over a year. As I said earlier, some numbers from a non-acting filter would have been helpful. (Note that I totally agree that YouTube should not be filtered for reliability). —Dirk Beetstra 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Levivich, Eggishorn and many others above. YouTube is a platform used by both highly reliable sources and totally unreliable ones. No edit filter can reliable distingui9sh, and this will have a chilling effect on citations of valid sources hosted there. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the reliability depends on the person/company publishing the video (e.g. is it a news company's official channel or a reputable educator who cites his sources? or is it just a home video with <100 views?) Félix An (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, YouTube videos can be reliable sometimes. Benjamin (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose many RS videos are now being uploaded to YouTube under official accounts for CNN, ABC News, etc. If there was a script that analyzed the YouTube video at the URL and checked for a "verified" account it could help to alert the user if it wasn't, although YouTube personalities and celebrities can also get "verified" and so that may not matter as much. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, video sometimes can be very verifiable (i.e. interviews). So a filter for the entire site would eliminate verifiable remarks by those interviewees. Note that such veriable remarks may not also exist on news sites, so there may not be an alternative for such videos. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reliability of a YouTube video is on a case-by-case basis. If the video has been published by a reputable news service, it should be treated as on par with other content from that news service. If the video is self-published it should be treated as such. YouTube is a platform, not a source in itself. An edit filter is too blunt an instrument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have said, YouTube is a platform, not a source. What matters is who is posting the video, not that they used YouTube to do such. Both proposals are overly broad and based on a fundamentally flawed premise. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, it is a platform and not a source. In addition, I disagree that the number of videos that aren't reliable to not be a relevant fact. Some of them are not meant to be seen as a source at all- similar to the fiction section in bookstores. Some of them will only get seen by a few people and nobody thinks of going to Misplaced Pages and trying to use them as a source. Some of them are published by reputable organizations. Youtube videos should be looked at individually and not as a group.--Danre98 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose going with what have been said, YouTube isn't a reliable source. most videos on YouTube lacks on WP:V. Youtube channels can post bias and misleaing information and get ton of views. Putting youtube links into wikipedia articles will make wikipedia unreliable and possibly more will attract more vandalism. BGzest (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

Don't agree with how my earlier comments were hidden away, but I think you are on to something here. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Misplaced Pages: I archived it to avoid prejudicing this discussion, as I felt I worded it poorly. Would you like me to add your comments to this discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to add my comments here. I think this is a better proposal. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that YouTube has been on the XLinkBot list for a very long time (prior to February 2008) so its placement in this RfC isn't necessary, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think this is important enough to say: YouTube is not a source, it doesn't produce the content available on it, which comes from all kinds of producers, some reliable, some not. If in principle you can cite a film as a source (which you can), then it is irrelevant whether it is available on YouTube, broadcast on TV, available on DVD or wherever. The validity of a video/film source is surely down to the reliability of the producer. By analogy, you can obviously cite a book, and that book may be available on Amazon, but when you cite a book you're not citing Amazon. Despite the fact that Amazon sells reliable books (and some of them can be partially read online, and some can be downloaded free), this doesn't mean that all books on that cite are reliable since they also sell self-published books written by unqualified crackpots and conspiracy theorists. The same is true of YouTube. If you want to cite a film then surely you fill in the citation template with the producer, publisher etc, and it will be considered on its merits, as would a book. In which case surely if it happens to be available on YouTube then this is a plus, right? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

A lot of focus by the 'oppose' field above is 'it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources' (quoting the first oppose, User:Levivich, who is quoted a lot, and similar opposes are there). Note: I oppose a filter, but I think it should still be on XLinkBot due to other reasons than being 'unsuitable as a reference' (which it is not, and which is not the reason why it is on the revertlist).

But by the numbers. A number I could find (probably not reliable) is that YouTube hosts 1,300,000,000 (1.3 billion) videos. The New York Times has 9804 video's on their channel (about 0.00075%), and the Washington Post 15,870 (about 0.0012%). BBC (my guess) has about 12000 videos. Yes, I agree that there is quite some good material on YouTube, but I guess I am safe to say that good material is less than 0.1% of the material on YouTube is due to reliable sources. Except from some primary sources, the rest, containing personal videos of dogs, birthday parties, pure advertising, clickbait material, beach parties, copyvio material, etc. etc., is likely not suitable as a source, not even primary.

I do feel that above !voting is completely undue because of that. The above would have been a much fairer discussion if people would have presented an analysis of a non-acting filter for youtube references of a couple of days, and an analysis of the last 100 youtube reference reverts of XLinkBot (I found 0 in the last ~1500 reverts ..). --Dirk Beetstra 12:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: the 1.3 billion I saw was not the total number of videos. I can't find any number for 2019 or current, I did find 7 billion in 2017 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-videos-are-on-YouTube-2017-1). You can divide the number by a factor of 5, e.g. it becomes 0.00014% for the New York Times if you take a 2017 number, the number in 2020 is probably different. --Dirk Beetstra 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I think many Misplaced Pages editors have very little idea about how important maintenance of the edit filter is and how much effort goes into fighting spam and other problematic links, and I regret not providing adequate evidence based on this. Can you provide a link to the Xlinkbot feed for youtube links? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, there is no special feed, I got that from Special:Contributions/XLinkBot. If you limit to mainspace and look for 'Reverting reference addition(s) by' in the edit summary shows reverts by XLinkBot that were done because of the 'RevertReferences' list. If you then check if it is a youtube revert (further down in the edit summary) you can see what I mean. Most reference reverting is due to discogs, fandom, reddit, not youtube. If you ignore the references, you see things like diff, where the user is spamming their own YouTube channel.

That however does get convoluted because some newbies do not format references as classical references but just as inline links (see e.g. diff).

The above proposal gets even further convoluted, because people who reference to a New York Times report often link to the New York Times link that embeds the YouTube upload of the report (https://nyti.ms/2T981nS vs. youtube.com/watch?v=pdUzzXpWg8c). (In my opinion the former link should be used as it puts a context on the video ('Indian authorities say life is returning to normal in Kashmir. ...'), but then there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the latter). Dirk Beetstra 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the use cases is avoiding paywalls. The example I've cited repeatedly in this discussion is Killing of George Floyd, where NYT and WaPo analyses of videos are used extensively as sources. We link to the official pages at NYT and WaPo, which have the videos plus some introductory text. But those are both paywalled. However, both NYT and WaPo uploaded their videos to YouTube, where they are available for free. So our citations link to both: the paywalled official websites, and the free YouTube videos. Levivich  17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree to that solution as well, but I think hat many people will just link to the NYT link, Dirk Beetstra 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority of videos on YT are not reliable sources. But that's also true for the overwhelming majority of websites. And television. And radio. Hell, go into a bookstore and the majority of books won't be reliable sources (the majority will probably be fiction!), yet we do not have filters for citing books or radio programs. Even NYTimes.com is filled with unreliable op/ed. But we don't add a filter for it. I don't see what good a warn filter for YT will do; it will only be an annoyance. Focusing on the platform is just the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how YT is different from any other platform or media. Levivich  17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on Levivich basically: there should not be restrictions on the use of YouTube videos broadly, but obviously editors must be assure of the channel owner, their relationship to a reliable source, and other issues related to copyright before using a video, and with all that considered, maybe <1% of the videos on YT would even qualify as usable sources. But they do qualify. Blacklisting youtube.com thus is not right, but having an edit filter that takes one or two extra steps for editors that know what they are doing , is that reasonable, to prevent editors that don't know what they are doing from adding random YT videos all the time? It would be nice to have stats to know how bad this "problem" is - how many bad YT links are added to good ones, because I'm certain that it's far less than 99:1. If for every proper YT link addition we had to deal with 2 bad ones, that's probably not a point to add an edit filter, but 10:1 would be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and Levivich:, exactly, but that is not what is done here. It is here bluntly stated by many that because there is some good stuff, there can’t be a problem. That is what I am now arguing, we ignore the point that we may have 25 bad insertions for each good one. We may have 25 good additions for 1 bad one. Even if it is a ratio of, non negotiable, bad copyvios to good links of 1:1 we here say: we don’t care, there is good stuff. We don’t know, so the plain argument ‘but there is good material’ wins.

I have done these stats once for XLinkBot for one site, likely youtube, on the external links. I don’t recall numbers, but I remember that 20% were copyvio.

This RfC feels to me like a poison test ... it can’t be bad, we have one survivor. We need numbers. Dirk Beetstra 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, data > opinion, especially my opinion. :-D Levivich  22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, for reverting references we don't have anything to go by, XLinkBot did not revert any youtube links that were properly used as references (i.e., within ref-tags) for over a year. For the other things, it reverted a youtube spammer just yesterday (Special:Contributions/Weeble69), and one 4 days ago (Special:Contributions/Anjyog), and someone promoting himself 5 days ago (Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). I know that there it sometimes reverts youtube links which were meant to be a reference (new editor not knowing how we format references; see e.g. diff), but the number of times that happens does likely not outweigh the number of spammers that get reverted, the number of questionable linkfarms in external links, marginally related youtube links, and copyright violations. Dirk Beetstra 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wen Wei Po

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Wen Wei Po? wenweipo.com/   has been cited around 440 times on Misplaced Pages.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Wen Wei Po)

• 3–4 based on Newslinger and Adamant comments below. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 3-4 Extremely limited press freedom in China, serious questions raised about the papers credibility, appears to be a mouthpiece for Beijing. Claims have been raised about significant interference by the CCP in the past and has also been accused of publishing falsehoods. Bacondrum (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 or 4, see explanations given before the survey was created. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 or 3: RSes say that it is state-owned and advocates for the Chinese government, so there are legitimate press freedom / editorial concerns. I haven’t seen RSes say that they publish false or fabricated information though, just a single blog post. — MarkH₂₁ 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC); updated !vote to remove 2 after seeing some of the examples 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Due to lack of press freedom from being owned by the Chinese government. Along with printing false and intentionally negative stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 This article on Misplaced Pages by Ta Kung Pao (which has merged with Wen Wei Po) fails to understand that several Hong Kong opposition figures were indeed born in British Hong Kong which is why that is reflected in their infoboxes, apparently suggesting that this is a "criminal offence" which is totally bizarre. Both papers are controlled by the Hong Kong Liaison Office, an organ of the PRC government. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: At most it may be served as sources for quoting pro-Beijing voice. Many of their reports are lacking of neturality Universehk (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: Most of their articles contain obvious point of view speaking out for pro-Beijing parties which totally lack neutrality. --SUN8908──Talk 11:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4: We are talking about a firm that calls foreign reporters as "foreign commanders" of the protests. All state media from China is unreliable. OceanHok (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Propaganda publication controlled by a PRC government organ. Prefer SCMP over this for China topics. feminist (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4+. Wen Wei Po reports often deliberately misinterprets evidence to advance a pro-CCP, anti-democrat point of view. I'd put them in a category worse than UK Daily Mail. Deryck C. 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discussion moved to below)
• Option 4. Per the above. I'm surprised the nom hasn't started a survey on Ta Kung Pao. Should probably do that too. Flickotown (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Flickotown: Yes please! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Adamant. Cavalryman (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• 3 or 4. Occasionally can be used with attribution (for non REDFLAG claims). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Propaganda outlet. Jayjg 17:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Wen Wei Po)

Hello. I'd like to know the general notability of the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po since it has came up in AfDs a few times and I'd like to add it to the list of perennial sources. The Misplaced Pages article for it says it's a pro-Beijing news outlet and there was a post about it on Reliable Sources Noticeboard here back in 2011 that generally seemed to agree. The last noticeboard discussion only had a few participants though and from reading it over the consensus that it's not reliable doesn't seem conclusive. So, I'd like a more definitive answer as to what it's reliable for, if anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Call it lack of neutrality then. I don't really care because it's just splitting hairs over semantics. People here know what makes a source reliable or not. I don't feel the need to spend 50 thousands words making sure I get every single nuance of what makes a source reliable or not perfectly correct. The import thing is if Wen Wei Po can be used as a source and for what. Which every can judge, whatever term I use. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What makes an RS is accuracy, so they tell porkies?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. Which bias has something to do with. Especially in relation to Chinese sources and Hong Kong. I'm not the judge of if they toll lies or not. That's on people who comment to decide. Although, personally I don't think they are 100% accurate with topics related to Hong Kong, but my opinion doesn't matter here or I'd just be having this discussion alone, with a wall. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC. This is just a general reliability question, and doesn't need an RfC. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Should I change the title to be a regular discussion then? Tbh, I wasn't sure what the difference was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

An RfC is used for calling for a sources deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable. This is so we can get the view of people from all over the Wiki, and not just those who regular this page. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I changed the title so it's not an RfC. Since that doesn't sound like what I wanted to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Misplaced Pages is being somewhat misleading here. Emir of Misplaced Pages really doesn't like the concept of depreciation and I understand his perspective. However calling a RfC doesn't mean that the source must be unreliable, though obviously calling a RfC on an obviously reliable source like the NYTimes would be pointless. A RfC means that the discussion will get a formal close and verdict, and can be added to the reliable sources noticeboard immediately. Admittedly I don't think that your RfC was properly formatted. wenweipo.com   has been cited signficantly more than the Apple Daily has, with around 440 citations. I would recommend pinging the participants of The Apple Daily RfC, as they will probably be familiar with this source, as well as leave a link to this discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The top of this page says "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument." Even if my views on deprecation are well known they were not why I was against the RfC. In my view an RfC to call people from around the Wiki, whereas this whole page is for discussing sources. I agree that the WikiProject would be a good place to get other views on the matter though. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support an RfC if Adamant1 were interested in restoring the RfC tag. RfCs are intended to solicit participation from a broad section of the community. The 2019 header text RfC endorsed the use of RfCs on this noticeboard for questions of general reliability. RfCs do not necessarily have to propose deprecation; they can ask any question as long as the statement is brief and neutral. For regional sources such as Wen Wei Po, an RfC would attract more opinions from editors who are not normally involved in the Hong Kong topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I changed it back to an RfC. If that's what would allow it to be listed in WP:RSP then I'm for it. I don't think it would get many comments in the Hong Kong Wikiproject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

​Could you please also follow the instructions at WP:RFCST? You'll need to write a brief and neutral statement at the top of the discussion, then apply the {{rfc}} tag. Please see this RfC for a commonly used example of how the RfC can be formatted. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. I've sectioned the discussion, since none of the existing comments specify an option. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The main problem is with Wen Wei Po is a lack of editorial independence. Personally I would never use it and I’d probally seek to remove or replace it if I came across it but I think they’re a 3 not a 4 on our traditional scale and as such WP:DEPS seems a bit too far, generally unreliable is accurate as far as I understand. If anyone has clear cases of pushing false and misleading information I would be willing to reconsider. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: You said here not a 4 but your !vote includes 4? — MarkH₂₁ 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no survey at that time. The responses which followed mine did in fact include cases of pushing false and misleading information (hadn't seen the Baltic stuff before, that was atrocious). I still have some reservations about deprecation hence the 3 or 4 instead of a straight 4, but I would take that with a grain of salt because I know my personal bar for deprecation is higher (or lower depending on how you want to conceptualize it) than the vast majority of wikipedians. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily (RSP entry) is the third-most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 5.71/10) according to a 2019 Chinese University of Hong Kong survey of the public. The same survey listed Wen Wei Po as the second-least credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 3.43/10). As Apple Daily is considered a marginally reliable source, Wen Wei Po is likely either marginally reliable or generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found an article here about them mocking the conditions in Baltic states. Along with this article on how they printed a fake story about rioters burning down a building. They have also printed fake pictures. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium stores aren't exactly the most reliable sources themselves. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium is a blog host. We would need RSes about fake or fabricated reporting to deprecate. — MarkH₂₁ 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The source in question here is literally owned by the Chinese (Communist) central government and should be examined in that context. That being said, them being viewed in a poll as one of the least credible sources in Hong Kong needs to be considered in the context of the change of many people in Hong Kong towards an anti-Beijing point of view, which means they'd view pro-Beijing sources as unreliable. Heck We shouldn't be so easily dismissing a state media organization as "generally unreliable" due to bias or occasional government interference. The CBC, BBC, or whatever else "public broadcasters" have pretty intense biases of their own and have been interfered with despite nominal editorial independence. Heck NPR now has less than 50% of Americans considering it "credible" and was actually the least trusted news outlet out of 9 major ones in America. By the same logic since NPR gets their money from the US government and is generally considered unreliable by Americans we should be treating it as an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Press freedom is a factor that many editors consider when evaluating reliability. China's #177 ranking ("very serious situation") out of 180 countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index is a strong negative indicator of the reliability of Chinese media sources (the largest of which are state-owned), and makes it unsurprising that the issue of press freedom is raised in just about every discussion on Chinese sources. The phrase "occasional government interference" severely understates the extent and scope of censorship in Chinese media. It is a false equivalence to compare NPR (RSP entry) to Chinese state media in light of the United States' #45 ("satisfactory situation") ranking on the 2020 Press Freedom Index. Also, the NPR is primarily funded by non-government sources; see NPR § Funding for details. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger and Bacondrum: Press freedom is certainly a relevant factor. But China's ranking in the 2020 Press Freedom Index isn't the directly relevant ranking. The newspaper is in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, which is ranked 80th out of 180 in the 2020 Press Freedom Index (above countries like Israel, Brazil, Philippines, and India). It's controlled by the Chinese government, which is a separate factor, but for Press Freedom Index purposes it's in Hong Kong. — MarkH₂₁ 00:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how much autonomy a journalist working for the Chinese government has when they are working outside of China. My guess is not very much. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I would guess the same. But that’s due to them working for the Chinese government rather than the Press Freedom Index of the newspaper's jurisdiction. The source Lee, Chin-Chuan (1997). "Media Structure and Regime Change in Hong Kong". In Chan, Ming K. (ed.). The Challenge of Hong Kong's Reintegration with China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 113–147. ISBN 9622094414. from Wen Wei Po says that at the very least, the Chinese government reduced its control over the newspaper. — MarkH₂₁ 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That could be relevant for articles produced around 1997 (as the book was published then). It might help to find sources that describe the publication after 1997. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This paper is in Hong Kong, where better alternatives exist, so I have no issues with it being labeled unreliable. However, for mainland China topics I think we will have to accept newspapers with slightly lower standards, lest we risk massive systematic bias. All domestic sources are going to be at least somewhat pro-CCP (or they wouldn't be allowed to exist), so banning all pro-CCP sources would have the effect of requiring all mainland China topics to be covered in international media before we consider them notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI the “independent” media in mainland China isn't allowed to do original reporting, they can only do synthesis and rewrites of pieces from the major government news sources. There is no such thing as investigative journalism as we would recognize it in most of the world in China. We have almost the same problem with other single party states like North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria... We should have a single rule for the eleven or so single party states not some special exception for China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As an FYI I found that it is designated as a "questionable" source on the Chinese Misplaced Pages zh:Misplaced Pages:可靠来源/常见有争议来源列表#香港文汇报 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! I was not aware that Chinese Misplaced Pages community had their own perennial sources list. It's interesting that they have settled on a five-tier system that is similar to a proposal on the English Misplaced Pages that did not get adopted, although I don't currently see any sources in the Chinese list that are classified as "very reliable" (level 5). It looks like Hong Kong Wen Wei Po (香港文汇报) is classified as "no consensus, unclear, or other considerations apply". I'm not sure how the Chinese Misplaced Pages's reliability standards compare to ours. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wen Wei Pao and Ta Kung Pao are owned by Ta Kung Wen Wei Media Group, which is belong to Chinese Government, and they have some sort of similarity in content. Therefore I believe that both newspaper shall have same rating.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples of Wen Wei Po fabricating false reports, mainly to defame the pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)

(Moved from Deryck's vote above)

• Wen Wei Po reports often deliberately misinterprets evidence to advance a pro-CCP, anti-democrat point of view. I'd put them in a category worse than UK Daily Mail. Deryck C. 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan: And if people want examples of really biased articles that I'd point to the TKP editorial on Misplaced Pages. If you know of some other examples of misinterpreted evidence it would be great to post those. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @WhisperToMe:Wen Wei Po accuse pro-democratic having election fraud in 2019 district council election without evidence.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (July 2020) Another example: WenWeiPo accused Nathan Law of advocating Hong Kong independence despite that never having been his policy platform, and alleged that his former political party Demosisto had embezzled HK$5M of donor money without providing any evidence. I can keep going. Deryck C. 16:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Deryck Chan: Please do! Those are definitely examples showing that deprecation is a good idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (August 2019) WenWeiPo fabricated lies about the 1989 Baltic Way that are so inflammatory that the government of Latvia summoned the Chinese ambassador in protest. (Commentary by User:Yuyu, who is also a Hong Kong journalist )
    • (August 2019) Wen Wei Po fabricated a report that Hong Kong Journalists Association was selling press passes for HK$20 a piece
    • (October 2019) Fabricated report of arson of a pro-Beijing politician's office Edit: WWP's article may have been misleading but the outright lie came from a downstream reuser. Bad choice of example on my part. Deryck C. 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (April 2020) Wen Wei Po accused Sha Tin District Council of misappropriating public funds to support "riots" without evidence
    • (July 2020) Wen Wei Po fabricated stories about "Demosisto overseas support groups" and accused Joshua Wong of embezzling Demosisto funds to purchase properties for himself, of course without providing any evidence --Deryck C. 16:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! To add to the links, here are the articles from the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian newspapers discussed in the Medium post:

• https://www.postimees.ee/6772004/hiina-valitsuse-ajaleht-monitas-balti-riike-korrumpeerunud-poliitikud-naeruvaarsed-palgad-ja-rahvuste-vahelised-konfliktid (Estonian)
• https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/arzemes/kinas-laikraksts-honkonga-izsmej-baltijas-valstu-neatkaribu.a331452/ (Latvian)
• https://news.err.ee/978249/daily-china-s-state-owned-newspaper-criticizes-baltic-states
• https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in-english/19/1095753/china-newspaper-mocks-baltic-states-for-squalor-and-ridiculous-wages

Also this is the Wen Wei Po article in question that the Baltic governments took objection to: http://paper.wenweipo.com/2019/08/24/WW1908240001.htm (I compared the text with the one in Medium)

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A poor example. Under their header "「香港眾志外援小隊」WhatsApp 群組不存在", The Stand literally cites denials from Wong himself as "evidence" to refute the claims: 黃之鋒說，有人「別出心裁」地以「眾志張飛」的名義散播言論, and our own lede describes The Stand as a "pro-democracy online news website", and the outlet was itself engaged in veritable defamation of CY Leung. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I've partly misinterpreted the Stand News article. WWP might not have been the originator of the "overseas support group" lie. I've struck out the part of my comment. Deryck C. 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The October 2019 blog post on Medium is about a photo from the CNS being misleading and says that the photo was not in the Wen Wei Po article. — MarkH₂₁ 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a valid point; this is probably in the "misleading sensationalism" rather than "outright lie" category.

The August 2019 article regarding the Baltic Way was also an editorial rather than a news report. — MarkH₂₁ 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not exempt from requirements of factual accuracy when determining the reliability of a publication. Deryck C. 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I generally judge reliability only on a publication's factual reporting and treat its opinion/editorial articles separately (with opinion/editorial being subject to WP:RSOPINION).— MarkH₂₁ 03:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PressTV

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of PressTV?

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

(t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PressTV)

• 4 Iranian propaganda outlet (similar to the deprecated HispanTV — see discussion), repeatedly publishes conspiracy theories and other blatant lies. Indeed, the deprecation of all channels of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting should be considered. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If we deprecate all Iranian state channels, then isn't that basically banning all viewpoints of the Iranian government and its supporters from Misplaced Pages? The POV of the Iranian government need not be treated as fact, but should be given due consideration on Iran-related topics per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I saw your vote above to give option 1 to MEMRI. Does MEMRI not routinely publish conspiracy theories and extremist content? For example consider this article from MEMRI and this from Press TV.VR _talk 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that MEMRI is just providing a translation and does not vouch for the truth value of everything it translates. Similarly, non-conspiracy outlets sometimes report on faleshoods and conspiracy theories without stating that they are factual. PressTV on the other hand is actually promoting a conspiracy theory as fact. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe I'm talking about how they would be used here. The current PressTV guideline requires attribution, and does not consider PressTV as a source of fact. How is maintaining this statusquo worse than allowing MEMRI as a source? Both allowing MEMRI as a source and allowing PressTV as a source with attribution have the exact same consequences for wikipedia.VR _talk 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe MEMRI does produce original reporting, thats actually the vast majority of what they produce. Just go to their home page and look. MEMRI and PressTV are extremely similar in their unreliability, not so much in most other ways. They are in the same class of source, I consider them both deprecation worthy for publishing disinformation with few upsides to their use. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and holocaust denial 1 2 3 recently claiming that “Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran" 4 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments about Press TV representing the sole mouthpiece of the Iranian govt are convincing. Russia has TASS, which in the 2019 RfC was found to be usable as as source of the Russian govt's views. Iran has other news agencies including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press some of which have also recieved similar criticsm over antisemtism like Press TV, like Mehr News Agency. Ultimately, we shouldn't be citing a source that publishes stories like Two-thirds of UK adults dispute number of Holocaust victims: Study when there are less odious alternatives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Then you need to take a look at this survey by Holocaust Memorial Day (UK). Just to tell you how this appeared. --Mhhossein 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Press TV report states:

More than 65 percent of adults in Britain believe that the Holocaust, the alleged genocide of Jews during the Second World War, has not taken place in the way that historians claim, a new study shows

While the actual text of the study states:

It shows that 64% of people polled either do not know how many Jews were murdered or grossly underestimate the number

Press TV's wording is a gross distortion of what the study was actually says, some other quotes from the article:

According to some historians, around six million Europeans were killed by the Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.

Many in the UK and other European countries have constantly rejected claims that around two-thirds of European Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany during the Second World War, saying Holocaust was a historic fabrication which helped Israel occupy Palestine under the banner of protection of Jews.

Under immense pressure from Israel and other Semitist lobbies, many European governments have outlawed the denial of holocaust and continue to impose fines and prison sentences on those denying the incident.

The (implicit) suggestion of these quotes is that there is good reason to doubt the Holocaust, referring to it as an "alleged genocde" and stating that "some historians" have claimed it had happened, when the concensus among mainstream historians is unanimous, and the claim that this recognition is pushed by Zionist lobbies is an antisemitic canard. This article from 2008 states:

The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs

Press TV was banned in the UK in 2012 (and remains so) after airing forced confessions of journalist Maziar Bahari. Given that Iran has one of the world's lowest press freedoms, like China, essentially all media outlets from Iran are quasi-official government mouthpieces anyway. But like China, I would expect that that this would vary between outlets, for example Xinhua and the People's Daily closely represent the government line, but Global Times is more jingoistic than the official government position, even though it is ultimately controlled by the PRC. Can you name me something especially valuable on Press TV that isn't in other Iranian news agencies or newspapers like the Tehran Times? We should never be citing something that calls the Holocaust an "alleged genocide", end of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. Press TV is certainly not reliable on issues relating to antisemiitism. But it is a major source for the viewpoint of many in Iran, including the government. It should be used with attribution and only on articles related to Iran and the region.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 I'd rather cite the Daily Mail. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is already on WP:RS/P, I think. This is Iranian state propaganda that promotes conspiracy theories and antisemitism; I don't see any need for it. If the views of the Iranian government are necessary in an article, that can be reflected using other, independent sources. Neutrality 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 - It's state propaganda, no different than RT, KCNA, OANN, etc. Levivich  03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Can't think of legit uses. Readers of Misplaced Pages are meant to have some confidence in the quality of underlying sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn: there is a legit use: to be used, with proper attribution, to present the view of the Iranian government respecting the guidelines in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If such a view was due it would be mentioned in a good secondary sources which should then be used. By voting "4" I am voting for deprecation. There may be some theoretical edge-cases where the source can be used, but as I say, I can't think of one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Misplaced Pages fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) --Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sa.vakilian: While that conclusion may be valid at the time, in the intervening years both examples quoted - RT and the Daily Mail - have both been deprecated and should not be used for such purposes by common agreement. PressTV should be no different. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 in bold, underlined, italic and ideally in a large font. Holocaust denialism is a bit of a red flag. Guy (help!) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG No one is saying that it should be used for statements of fact. But PressTV can be used, when properly attributed, for Iran related topics to present the view of the Iranian government.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, no, I don't think so. Let's link the government press release directly, not a cesspit that repeats it possibly unmodified. Guy (help!) 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jzg I am not following you here. Are you saying that Iranian government press releases are OK sources but Iranian state TV is not an OK source? That sounds like a contradiction.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: taking many of the "4" votes to their natural conclusions, we will end up banning most viewpoints coming out of Iran (a country of 80 million people). This is because all media in Iran is state-regulated to some degree, and the degree of that interference can change quickly. In the end, current Iranian affairs will solely be presented through sources outside of Iran, some of whom are openly hostile to its people and their culture (e.g. 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy). This will have negative implications for both WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Iran has banned most viewpoints comming out of Iran, wikipedia is just acknowledging that. Adding a theoctratic regimes propaganda doesn't do anything for neutraility or systemic bias.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Once an organization starts dabbling in holocaust denial you really can't trust much of anything they say. What ever small gain there may be from using their content for direct comments from the Iranian government, doesn't make up for the damage of sending users to an antisemetic website.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The source can be used with proper attributions for Iran related topics. There's a recent consensus over its usage for expressing the Iranian voice. Moreover, deprecating this major Iranian state channels clearly goes in line with promoting Systemic bias. I still see no valid argument as to why this source should not be used with attribution for Iran related topics. --Mhhossein 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: I oppose blacklisting major newsorgs on principle, even unreputable ones like PressTV. Blacklisting newsorgs means that you lose major perspectives that wouldn't otherwise be represented. PressTV is the only English-language neworg based in Iran, so blacklisting it means you lose the whole Iranian perspective.

For example, here is an interview with international human rights law expert Alfred de Zayas. De Zayas isn't a nobody - he's like one of the top 10 experts in the world. But he is a vocal critic of US involvement in Venezuela, Bolivia, Yemen (by proxy) and other places so he is not interviewed very often on American news networks. So if you want to add his opinions about, say Yemen, to his own Misplaced Pages article you have to source it from PressTV (or Russia Today or some equally "shady" newsorg). Except, you can't! PressTV is #4 and verboten so even though you have both the video and the quotes from the interview in front of you, you are forbidden from adding it to Misplaced Pages. Same for Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza who also isn't welcome in American TV. ImTheIP (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing deprecation and blacklisting. Using an interview of de Zayas with PressTV would still be possible if there is a local consensus for that particular citation, per WP:DEPS. Imo it would be equivalent to citing de Zayas' blog, assuming he has one, according to WP:SPS. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Deprecation pretty effectively discourages the use of the source and there is also an automatic revert bot for ip users. Yes, you can argue for an exception if you have read up on all the latest WP:RULES and if you dare to argue why a link to an antisemitic conspiracy site is warranted (with the risk of being sanctioned if your argument doesn't hold up). Most people won't bother or will just add whatever they wanted to add without sourcing it which is even worse.ImTheIP (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes, it does. And given that PressTV has a history of holocaust denial, conspiracy mongering and bullshit, that is exactly how it should be handled: with a strong presumption against use, subject to exception by local consensus. That's option 4, by the way. Guy (help!) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Propaganda mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought you have something to add based on the RS policy. But wait, you're exactly asking to censor the Iranian government POV. I think ImTheIP is better than me at explaining this.--Mhhossein 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: for Holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. We should also be weary of other similar state propaganda agencies; they should not have a place in Misplaced Pages. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Unreliable for areas with demonstrated bias by the Iranian government e.g. fringe views on the Holocaust, but reliable in general non-political matters or for views of the Iranian government and their allies. Examples of their recent articles --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Press TV is a state sponsored media outlet of the Iranian government. In my opinion, it publishes false and fabricated information. It is a highly biased pro-Iranian news outlet. I would advise to avoid using it in almost every possible case; however, there might arise a situation where an editor who specializes in the field of Iranian politics and government affairs will feel that its usage is justified. An example of possible usage would be reporting that the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met in Moscow in July to discuss the ongoing Iran nuclear deal. However, it is preferred that this foreign minister meeting were reported using a generally reliable source. If Press TV is used, it should be attributed. (as an aside: I cannot support deprecation, option 4, because it is equivalent to a ban) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Holocaust denial gives an idea of the type of false propaganda outlets like Press TV spreads. I love Iranians and they have an incredible history, but if we introduce the Iranian regime's practices into Misplaced Pages (ie. using sources like Press TV), we are lending to an agenda that has no problems lying and spreading fake news. I acknowledge that our system in the West is by no means perfect, but here our governments don't openly execute journalists for their ideas. There is a MAJOR difference. Ypatch (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Though it's a state sponsored outlet but has some good coverage of the region. It can be used as reliable source other than of Iranian government stances where it should be attributed to government. USaamo 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 Blacklisting of that or other similar Iranian official media outlets does not make sense originally, because they cover Iranian domestic news which are absence in non-Iranian media outlets. Benyamin (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, allow with attribution as a source for Iranian state perspectives (status quo) PressTV is a very biased source. However, its perspective is crucial to all Iran-related articles as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and its level of detail is rarely met in non-Persian-language sources. Consider this PressTV report today. Its level of details about Khamenei's speech yesterday, with a direct video of Khamenei's address for cross-reference and checking by any Persian speaker, is simply not matched by the more generally reliable sources (see corresponding AJ English, Reuters article). For example, from AJ we only know:

Khamenei said, "But the smart Iranian has made the best use of this attack, this animosity and benefited ... by using sanctions as a means to increase national self-reliance."

From PressTV we know:

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian people are smart and have taken advantage of the enemy’s sanctions, gaining achievements against the enemy’s will.

He went on to say that the US’ secondary sanctions led the Iranian scientists and producers to indigenize what the country could not provide because of Washington’s bans.

He pointed to the production of the advanced homegrown jet fighter Kowsar, the spare parts produced inside the country, the establishment of thousands of knowledge-based companies, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery built by the IRGC, and the major energy projects in southern and Western Iran as examples of the Islamic Republic’s achievements under the sanctions.

“Had they sold us a jet aircraft, we would not have produced the jet trainer Kowsar inside the country,” he said.

“They have admitted that Iran managed to manufacture so many defensive products at the time of sanctions.”

Same for another of today's articles, "Iran's largest industrial livestock farm opens near Tehran". I see absolutely no reason that PressTV would fabricate anything about this, and as far as I have found this is the only English-language source that talks about this sheep farm at Fashafoyeh. Deprecating PressTV at large is a disservice.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Propaganda mouthpieces, such as this one, do not provide "coverage". They are not designed to provide facts, they are designed to influence. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 and 3 - this is the state press of the Iranian government. As such, sometimes the reporting will be accurate, sometimes it won't be, but it is a reliable source for the views of the Iranian establishment. Quite obviously, then, it should be used with attribution. Statements that it should be deprecated because it includes propaganda are worthless from our perspective, as all national media include propaganda. Deprecation on this principle would cause us to shut out viewpoints of major governments and peoples who are not politically aligned with the US or UK, doing a disservice to our readers and contravening Misplaced Pages's status as an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I think if an article relied entirely on Press TV or similar coverage we would need to either find better sources or think about deleting it. However the point has been made above that the Iranian government has views and positions on things that we can use Press TV to verify. If Holocaust denial is the issue that concerns people then perhaps we ought to refuse to give any space to any mention of Iranian government views, since they are the source of Holocaust denial in Iran; the editorial decisions of an individual channel are secondary. Also Press TV makes a habit of interviewing Western politicians from outside the mainstream, and these interviewees sometimes make comments in Press TV interviews that they have not made elsewhere. The verifiability of those comments depends on our being able to source them to the relevant interview. If we just source to what someone else claims the person said in a Press TV interview, we’ll go wrong again. Finally, most national news in most countries is not entirely independent and reliable. All public media in China deny or ignore large-scale punishments and incarceration in Xinjiang. Most Japanese media deny or downplay the Shanghai Massacres. I doubt you would get much from sources close to the Serbian government on the topic of Srebrenica that wasn’t bluster, deflection and conspiracy theory. Does a single Russian news outlet cover the war in the Ukraine honestly? If we start knocking off sources close to unpleasant regimes or sources that share in their country’s blind spots we will be left with ‘the sum of all human knowledge according to the New York Times’ and that’s not really viable. We have to exercise our judgement in using sources, and look for the most reliable ones we can, but we have to work with what’s out there. Even KCNA can tell us what Pyonyang claims/thinks, even if it is pretty much useless for anything else. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 as an infamous disinformation outlet. There is almost no upside to keeping them around, any reporting we could use would still be of their regular low quality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 pure state media --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Buidhe, disinformation service. Cavalryman (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

• Option 3 (or Option 4 as alternative), per Guest2625. Most people in this RFC have cited PressTV's Holocaust denial as the basis for depreciating the source; while I agree that it is a significant red flag, I think PressTV is usable for the Iranian government's viewpoints only (hence it should not be deprecated); the source should be used with in-text attribution (or attributed to the Iranian government) if it is used in any Misplaced Pages article. For everything else that PressTV reports, I would think that other (much better) sources should be available to cite instead; if PressTV is the sole available source, its probably undue. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 and 3 Generally, I presume that PressTV is an appropriate source for the users to use it particularly in the news which are related to Iran --for example, concerning Iranian government's viewpoints--. On the other hand, it seems to be useful/trustworthy in regards to the Middle-East issues, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. State media famous for disinformation. Jayjg 17:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Holocaust denial should be enough, let alone the disinformation. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• As an editor that has extensively covered the Syrian Civil War, I'd like to give my two cents. Finding non-biased sources that cover that conflict's more intricate details is nigh on impossible. Practically all publications that cover the war in any significant detail are either pro-government or pro-opposition. PressTV falls squarely in the first category, with a notable pro-Iranian twist. Though biased, publications like these are often used in the SCW community in addition to some other source with the opposite bias covering the same subject matter, in order to avoid bias and to provide additional information in terms of Iranian deals or troop deployments. For that reason, I'd suggest an Option 2/3 to allow PressTV only when used either with attribution for a claim made by Iranian or pro-Iranian groups or when used in addition to another source with an opposing editorial viewpoint. Option 4 when reffering to Jews, Israel, the Holocaust or other very contentious topics. Goodposts (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Clear as daylight state propaganda by the IRI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Misplaced Pages is not an outlet for state media produced by the IRI, a dictatorial regime. Similar propaganda agencies funded/created by states who do not acknowledge the concept of "freedom of press" should likewise be banned from Misplaced Pages. If people need to present the viewpoint of the Iranian regime more appropriate sources can be chosen. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

Comment and Question Apparently, those who have participated in this RFC, took position based on their political and ideological tendencies and at least 5 of those who have considered it as totally unreliable referred to antisemitic and holocaust denial contents. Even if this allegation is true, is there any policy or guideline which says antisemitic and holocaust denial contents will lead to total unreliability of a source?!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PressTV's reliability as a source seems to have been discussed before but seems not to have been entered on the Perennial Sources board. Should such a major state broadcaster be omitted from scrutiny? There are citations on such pages as State of Palestine, for example, where such referencing might be considered contentious. Our article on them is not shy of denouncing them in various ways, so shouldn't there be a consensus attempted? GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Press TV indeed has an entry on RSP, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Press TV Press TV has been cited roughly 2,000 times combining presstv.com   and presstv.ir  . I was thinking about calling a deprecation RfC considering their repeated promotion of Holocaust denial, but you beat me to the punch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! So there is! My ctrl+F didn't find it because I was writing "PressTV" without the space. And yes, that's the way I would like it to go; I don't see how they're better than Sputnik. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think sources should be deprecated unless in very special circumstances. Furthermore, I don't think the consensuses on this page really represent anything more than the opinions of those who like to vote a lot. It appears to me that a lot of people vote based on their opinion of the source rather than whether the source is reliable or not. I think people should use their own judgement rather than these kind of blanket bans. ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand this for some sources, but Press TV promotes and advocates for conspiracy theories, which makes it akin to something like Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't people just exercise caution? A while ago I wanted to use an article from Russia Today as a source and the stupid filter stopped me. In that case, I knew the source was correct because other news sites articles said the same thing but the RT one was more to the point. I don't see the problem of linking to Breitbart either if it is for uncontroversial stuff.ImTheIP (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides what is uncontroversial? GPinkerton (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, if other sources say the same thing, use other sources. If they don't, well, it's probably not true. Guy (help!) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think editors should have to use other sources. If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate. Blanket ban of sources are wrong because it cuts off minority perspectives. For example, if a famous Iranian general wrote an op-ed in PressTV, we wouldn't be able to cite it unless that op-ed was republished in other sources. That is not fair. ImTheIP (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate". You said it - "within reason".

If you deliberately use an unreliable source such as RT where alternative reliable sources are known to be available, all you're doing is creating work for whoever later comes along, finds the unreliable source, and has to redo the research to replace it. That puts it well outside the bounds of "within reason". Kahastok talk 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has to clean Misplaced Pages of links to RT. ImTheIP (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, but most Wikipedians do, because RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG Iranian viewpoints are often not presented in other sources, or those sources might distort Iranian viewpoints. This doesn't just apply to Iranian politics, but they could simply misrepresent what's happening inside Iran. We already have the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy and I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen Fox News openly attack the culture and religion of the Iranian people.VR _talk 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, WP is supposed to reflect the major viewpoints represented in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Iranian media being conspiratorial and fake news does reduce the number of reliable sources which reflect Iranian perspectives. Maybe they could clean up their act. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, we don't reduce our standards to include shitty sources because they are the only ones that repeat what shitty people say. Guy (help!) 22:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a reasonable assumption that the views of the Iranian government also reflect the views of a substantial portion of the people of Iran (although how many Iranians agree with their government is controversial, see this example). So saying "shitty people" is really uncalled for. Consider what implications your comment has for WP:Systemic bias.VR _talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship; there is absolutely no reason to assume any such thing. Just the opposite, in fact. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, so there is a Canadian National Post article/op-ed that is filled with bunk and within days other sources like the AP, Reuters, AFP, and an Israeli at the National Post show it too be bunk. If anything your example shows we don't need PressTV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the legitimacy of this approach: Apparently, the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which runs or supports by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states. First, Russia Today, now Press TV and later many Chinese as well as Arab media. So this trend will undermine the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV and it needs a broader consensus. I mean the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED so why should there be any reliance placed on sources that are not only censored, but openly embrace chanting out the party line? If we need to take a government's word for something, or represent their views, we can quote their own websites and press releases. There's no need to apply the distorting lens of that state's pet media organizations. GPinkerton (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you have not got the point and your argumentation is absurd. From the beginning, Misplaced Pages has declared that it does not believe in an orthodox or main stream narration, thus it has chosen to narrate all of the viewpoints, even the viewpoints of Fascists. Thus if we want to write a neutral article about Benito Mussolini, we should cover his own viewpoint as well, no matter how Fascist he would be. In addition, your argumentation is based on self-contradiction. If wikipedia policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, then it should not censor anything.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with GPinkerton here. If we need to quote the Iranian regime for their POV, we can go directly to their websites rather than having to weed out all the rubbish that these state-sponsored publicity outlets publish. I've come across so much of this recently and it's been very time consuming going through endless RfCs and talk page discussions trying to show what we already know about these outlets. The problem is that the Iranian regime's disinformation has spread beyond Iranian media:

• How Iran spreads disinformation around the world Reuters
• Iran’s threats to BBC Persian staff must be confronted The Guardian
• Facebook dismantles disinformation network tied to Iranian media Al jazeera
• Iran's propaganda implies Soleimani is being widely mourned — and the U.S. press is buying it NBC
• Iran has online disinformation operations, too CNN
• Iranian Propaganda Abroad

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A good strategy, so take this:

• BBC to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 after false child abuse allegations
• WATCH: BBC forced to apologise on air for 'fake news' GERS figure
• BP denies BBC accusations over Senegal gas deal
• BBC admits ‘anti-Semitism’ claim against Jackie Walker was false. Where’s LABOUR’S apology?
• Corbyn claims BBC report on anti-Semitism in Labour full of ‘inaccuracies’

Hahaha...--Mhhossein 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Funny, using Scottish Nationalist paper to attack the BBC (!) and then using a Labour Party blog to ... try to deflect criticism of the Labour Party and harp on their eternal victimhood and then using an oil company's denials to ... prove the unreliability of the BBC ...? What's next, using PressTV to attack the legitimacy of Israel? Using RT to say how wonderful Putin is? Please ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Be serious please. I tried to show how absurd the editor's argument is. You can discredit The Guardian, France 24, Times of Israel and etc using your own labels. Who cares? --Mhhossein 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The first link involves a mistaken report for which there was a settlement and an acknowledgment. It is the conduct that makes a source reliable since all sources are wrong from time to time. The second was an acknowledgment that a host said "Scottish spending" when he should have said "Scottish and UK spending in Scotland," which they corrected promptly. Third, petroleum extractor claims reporting on their extracting is wrong, with no evidence it is wrong.???? Fourth, personal blog, who cares. Fifth, politician claims errors, with no evidence there are errors. So???. You compare this to holocaust denial and aggressive antisemetism?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

...and who asked to use PressTV for holocaust denial? Most of the users are puzzled here and even don't care what the discussion is. --Mhhossein 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millenial

I would like to propose the deprecation of The Post Millenial as a source of information used on Misplaced Pages. There have been enough incidents now to show that the source is not reliable:

• The site was posting United Arab Emirates propaganda from fake journalists.
• Multiple instances of presenting hoaxes as facts. For instance, most recently, the website claimed a murdered protester shot a car five times , a hoax and fabrication which later had to be corrected by them
• Site received criticism from Bellingcat
• Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information, according to outlets like OregonLive (added BeŻet (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

The site should not be treated as a reliable source of information, the same way The Daily Caller isn't. BeŻet (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd think that's a good idea. Past discussions seem along these lines, e.g. archive 278 (their ethics policy was plagiarised), archive 289 (unreliable and undue), archive 296 (rating it "generally unreliable"), this CBC article on it as a source. If others concur, do you want to do this as a properly-formed deprecation RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent example ... MOST of the media covered this incident the exact same way. This is why we put huge warning tags on articles about recent events (and especially breaking news like in this example)... the press frequently gets it wrong for a few days.

The important question is: Does an outlet issue corrections once the facts become clearer? Reliable media sources do, unreliable sources do not. So, does Post Millennial issue corrections? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of past discussion is pretty clearly that it's a terrible source that shouldn't be used - the question is only if it should be more actively barred from being used. You're asking the question about corrections, do you have evidence to present that the answer is yes? Do you have, more generally speaking, fresh evidence that it isn't a terrible source, one given to fabrications and conspiracy theories, as documented in the previous discussions? - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• They do not issue corrections. In fact, per , after they were contacted about posting articles from fake personas, they were one of the ones whose reaction was: deleted their articles without any statement. That's almost a textbook way to be classified as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. They'd probably love it if we did it. Oh! The poor oppressed centrists who just want to speak the hard truth, cancelled by the left fascist cabal that runs Misplaced Pages. We'd be doing them a favour! Has thepostmillennial.com been used to support false claims? Not as far as I can tell. It's been used in 2018_Ontario_general_election to support the claim that they endorsed the PC, which they did. In Garnett Genuis it supports a claim that Genuis wrote something in the post millennial (he did). Its use in List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is unproblematic, but probably could have been sourced to something else. in Belinda Karahalios it support the claim that Tanya Granic Allen made an accusation (she did, in an opinion piece in the PM. In Marc_Kielburger it's one of three sources, and could probably be omitted. The writer makes the hilarious observation that "Canadaland has an obvious bias and activist bent to its publishing". Pot, meet kettle. In Barbara Kay it's pretty just linking to what Kay had to say about herself, and again, she did say those things. Same with Barbara Kay controversy she's used again, as a source in Edward Kruk for "national and international media have interviewed Kruk and quoted his research", and Kay does indeed say '"We ignore the problem of father absence to our peril," wrote Associate Professor Edward Kruk, from the University of British Columbia, in 2006.' That's a completely unnecessary quote used to inflate his importance, but the PM's use is is hardly controversial. I'm not a fan of the Post Millennial, nor of Andy Ngo, I just don't see how your proposal would do any good. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

10 uses in article space strikes me as 9 too many, frankly. What the deprecated source would think of being deprecated is in no way a consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite an evident conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual. There is a problem of consistency in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. The examples listed by the OP for why it is not reliable don't strike me as particularly compelling: one of them amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, another was an error that they corrected (errors happen all the time in news reporting — corrections are a positive sign for establishing reliability). I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The check you linked was last updated over 6 months ago, before bigger controversies emerged. BeŻet (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And "Media Bias Fact Check" is, itself, not authoritative or even all that respected. Per WP:RSP, There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bellingcat says they publish disinformation, thats the line we use and they’re over it. I also see no good reason to keep them around, at best they’re a fringe low quality biased source and past consensus has clearly been to hold them as unreliable. Deprecate away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat cites one incident they published fake information, not that they constantly publish it. It also notes that "their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars" and "did not botch the basic facts". According to the CBC, The Post Millenial has links to the Conservative Party of Canada. You think that's fringe, Horse Eye Jack? Jeesh, from how far the other side of the political spectrum are you looking at this to see that as fringe? --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the text of that article (entitled "Canadian news site The Post Millennial blurs line between journalism and conservative ‘pamphleteering’") supports the argument for deprecation. Unofficial links to a political party doesn't make a source non-fringe. BTW I’m an American conservative (center-right on a global spectrum) so thats a swing and a miss when it comes to guessing my political affiliation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Starting an RfC, which is required for deprecation. Please use the following section as a survey. Horse Eye Jack; BeŻet, David Gerard, TheBlueCanoe, Vexations, Blueboar (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Post Millennial

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should The Post Millennial be deprecated? (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed to deprecation. Deprecation should not be for borderline cases, and I think this falls into the “borderline” category. It has a reputation for bias, but also overall accuracy. Is it the most reliable of sources? No. But it is by no means the worst either. I would say we can use it, but with caution. Judge reliability on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation That's quite a non-issue with a source which is used just 9 times in the whole Misplaced Pages. Yes, they are WP:BIASED so anyone should be careful with due weight and attribution. I find many of the statements by the OP here to be exaggerations. I do recommend reading the pieces by the CBC and Bellingat. Neither article, while critical, is damning. Bellingcat says that they were more careful than other sources which were duped and that they did not "botch the basic facts", although they used the same framing as the fake articles elsewhere. The outlet was founded only in 2017 so it's possible they are improving, or then they will not. Either way this is jumping the gun and it's pointless to RfC a source that isn't even used. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you'd need to show that they were improving to be convincing - merely stating it's a philosophical possibility without providing any evidence is adding text without substance - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I would flip that... for us to deprecate, you would need to show that it has gained a significantly poor reputation. Deprecation should be reserved for the worst cases, not relatively borderline ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The RSes describing and documenting the site as fabricating information have already been presented, so this has been done, and Pudeo would indeed need to present actual countervailing RS evidence of the site's alleged improvement before it counts as a substantive claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat also calls their editor at large a "prominent individual within the disinformation ecosystem", and though it's a little more ambiguous appears to call them "disinformation". Loki (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - it's already considered generally unreliable, its main line is controversial hot takes on others' stories, it propagates conspiracy theories, it fabricates information - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per evidence above. It is quite clear that better sources will be always available, and given the history of posting hoaxes and fake news, we run into a risk of controversial content appearing in articles which would then require a case by case discussion; and it goes without saying that a strong bias is present, which seems to often get in the way of presenting facts in a neutral and understandable way. BeŻet (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - repeating my comments above, despite a conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual. There is some inconsistently in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • mediabiasfactcheck.com is literally just some guy's blog - it is not considered a relevant source for assessing the quality of a source at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation per the support !votes above, on the general philosophy of getting out in front of a problem before it can become worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• It should certainly be listed as generally unreliable , and I think nothing would be lost by outright deprecatation , though it may not be time for that quite yet. (There should probably be an RFC using the full "1-4 options" if this RFC specifically about option 4 does not reach consensus, or perhaps this RFC should be reconstituted to use the usual 1-4 options...?) They plagiarized even their "ethics" policy from other newspapers(!) and they've gone beyond merely being WP:BIASED into being inaccurate numerous times, as noted (with refs/links) a previous time the site was discussed on this noticeboard (and above). -sche (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the first time I looked at the website. The site looks horrendous. I would advise all editors to avoid using it. However, there might be some editors out there who know more than me about the site and when it would be appropriate to use. For this reason, I will not deprecate the site (aka ban it). I will have faith when an editor uses this site that they had a good reason and they will attribute the source. Also it might in this case be useful if people who care about reliable source minutiae were informed of its use, so they could look with unbiased eyes whether the sites usage made sense. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I feel like we discussed this already? Here, at least. They plagiarized their ethics policy, for heaven's sakes: In fact, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. The quote from a journalism professor at the end in particular summarizes them as They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering. More generally, pretty much all the coverage of them is sharply negative - there's just no indication that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RSN requires. Anyone can start a blog to repost the news with their personal political spin on it, but there's no evidence that they do any sort of actual reporting or fact-checking at all, so I don't see how they're usable as a source - and the plagiarized ethics policy is particularly alarming because it implies that they are trying to appear to be reliable and respectable when they aren't. That's exactly the sort of source we ought to be depreciating. Also see , specifically the fact that when contacted about a clear error they did not issue a correction but instead deleted their without any statement. This is not how an WP:RS behaves. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. We have tons of reliable sources saying that they fabricate information. I don't know how anyone could oppose depreciation for a source like that. Loki (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of this is on principle I don't think we should reflexively deprecate sources. That is something that should be reserved for only rare cases and cases where otherwise the source might be widely used. That doesn't mean this is a quality source but that doesn't mean we should out right block it. No matter what some say, deprecation ends up being a out right ban on the use of the source. There is another issue here. This is a relatively new site. What if the issues are "growing pains" and we don't see the issues repeat? Well then we are taking a biased but "reliable" site off the table based on past sins rather than current performance. Note that so far these are rather universal arguments rather than specific to The Post Millennial. The concern about a early news source that might be making newbie mistakes is legit. The site is just 3 years old so we really don't have a long history to go on. If things are improving then 5 years from now we are going to prevent people from citing a possibly legitimate site for things they did when they just started. As for the specific issues, I find BeŻet's arguments far from convincing. The guilt by association with Andy Ngo is problematic and is not sufficient to prove the site should be deprecated. It is unfortunate that the news sources was deceived by a false source but a critical question is, did they correct? That the DailyBeast makes a fuss over this isn't surprising. The DB is on the muck raking side and is one of several sources that seems to go for click bait stories that make "the other side" look bad. Consider this line from The DailyBeast article in question, "The Post Millennial, founded by conservative writer Andy Ngo,". Is there any truth to that statement? The evidence offered by the DB is a 2019 story about Ngo leaving Quillette. Since the PM was founded in 2017 how does this work out? If Ngo founded the PM why isn't that mentioned in his BLP? This same source is telling us that PM removed embarrassing stories but they are making their own gross mistakes. CBC says the source blurs the line but that is true for many sources that we don't deprecate. Certainly this site hasn't earned a RS status but I think deprecating at this point is premature. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • While it's certainly a pretty new source, it's developed enough of a reputation already that other reputable sources are calling it "disinformation". Part of the problem with your logic is that disinformation websites tend to spring up very quickly in order to get as much shit past the fan as possible before people realize they're unreliable. But we're at a point in the cycle where that's firmly happened and so I don't think we should delay deprecation out of some notion of how long it "typically" takes for a news organization to be deprecated. Loki (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree new sites do pop up frequently. But why is it imperative to deprecate this one? Why not just mark it as questionable reliability - seen as too heavily biased to be a RS and leave it at that? Conversely, note that it has been criticized but if that criticism drops off that would indicate the quality is improving. Sadly there seems to be a lot of cases of information sources sniping at each other. It very much seems like the most important thing to CNN is proving Fox is lying to viewers and the opposite for Fox with respect to CNN. Still, so far the actual merit of the claims against the PM, per the opening of this RfC, are not very impressive. This seems like a combination of "we don't like what they want to talk about/their POV" + "we found proofthey lied" sort of stuff. I think it would be better to simply treat it on a case by case basis. The deprecation process seems like it is becoming an unpopularity contest rather than a last resort process. Springee (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (I already expressed my opinion of the proposal, further up): given that this site has been discussed several times and that even the users who oppose deprecation often admit the site is generally unreliable, I would suggest that in the event there is not suport for the proposal which amounts to 'standard option 4' in other RfCs about reliability, the closer(s) of the discussion consider whether there is functionally support for option 3 (adding the site to WP:RSP as generally unreliable), or whether, in the interests of procedural formality, we need a second RfC on that question as soon as this one closes. -sche (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a "generally option 3" would make more sense here. I'm still a bit wary of that option in general since I think we are often more inclined to defer to that list rather than ask if the arguments/evidence in an article actually make sense. I'll take a very old example, Mother Jones Pinto Madness. This is an article that, to the discredit of the Pulitzer board, was a reward recipient. However, when one reviews the evidence and arguments as well as removes any ideological assumptions, the article really missed the mark. However, per our RS rules we would have to treat the outlandish claims in the article as accurate had it not been for later academic study that illustrated the errors in the work.] If the arguments are sound we shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss. If the source is really that poor then we won't have to worry about finding disagreements between the assessment of a specific article vs the RSP general assessment. BTW, I can only think of one time the PM was cited in an article. That article didn't survive AfD. Springee (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation. Unusable for facts on the basis of a history of publishing conspiracist claptrap, and unusable for opinion (its primary function) because its editorial policies do not invest the opinions with any weight of significance. We would include opinion pieces from the WSJ because there is a high bar to inclusion, even when the opinions are climate change denialist BS. With The Post Millennial there is no such bar: it's a dark money funded online "magazine", cheap to run and replete with Orwellian claims to be "Your Reaosnable Alternative". Its factual stories are not, as far as a sample I checked goes, the result of its own original reporting, and better sources will likely always exist; news articles seem to be basically spin added on to other people's reporting. Its opinion articles are not RSOPINION. It exists primarily to "flood the zone", and there is no redeeming quality that rescues it. We simply don't need obscurely-funded sources that exist solely to publish hot takes favouring one side or the other. Guy (help!) 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but list as generally unreliable. Note that I am a participant in several of the previous RSN discussions regarding this source. TPM has trash-tier reporting and is sufficiently partisan that its viewpoints often lack representation in reliable sources. However, compared with the short list of successfully deprecated sources, it lacks 1) those sources' history, and 2) the number of outside RS describing those sources as disinformation. Lacking the strength of history and sourcing that led to previous deprecations, I think deprecating TPM would considerably lower the standard required for deprecation too precipitously. This source is bad! But it's not as bad as those, and edge cases may exist where it is useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh no. This source occasionally cites (and attributes) wikipedia for really, really significant details like allegations of abuse of a minor and the definition of conservatism. Jlevi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation on process grounds Deprecating a source ought to be treated as a very serious affair. It ought to be accompanied by solid research showing widespread problems (not simply a laundry list of anecdotes). The RFC statement itself doesn't even hint at relevant evidence. I recognize that this formal RFC immediately follows a more informal request, but that request started with a very short list of anecdotes (one of which I think is seriously misrepresented). Even if every single one of those anecdotes could be verified, that shouldn't be close to the bar for deprecation of the source. Many sources we rightfully except accept as reliable sources have that many problems every year.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation Thoroughly unreliable with no redeeming features I can think of. Hoaxes and fake news. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation on process grounds: per S Philbrick, who summed it up perfectly. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. The set of circumstances in which this could appropriately cited in an encyclopedia is virtually nil. Being cited even 10 times on Misplaced Pages is about 10 times too many. Neutrality 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation for publishing blatant copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), also it's hard to think of an appropriate and beneficial use of this source. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation - The fact they plagiarized their ethics policy means really shot themselves in the foot. It's 2020! We can compare and check text! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Post Millennial hosts batshit crazy anti-science opinion articles written by political activist John Carpay who founded Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group trying to change Canada's constitution. The PM plagiarized their own ethics statement. The PM published fake news items from the "Raphael Badani" group of fake accounts and then deleted them. They used an article supposedly written by the fake author "Joseph Labba" who had a computer-generated profile photo with telltale digital flaws. The fake article said that Iraq protests were ceasing due to COVID-19, or perhaps not. On the topic, it quoted Sinan Antoon, seemingly commenting about COVID-19 and protests, but Antoon's words were from November, before the pandemic. I don't think the PM can be trusted with any news. Certainly its opinion section is rife with falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation has published falsehoods, repeatedly. It's a rubbish outlet, end of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm still of the mind that this process is out-of-process and goes against WP:PAGs. We should not be deprecating entire sources - it is like rating porn - unless, of course, the website itself poses a threat to our privacy and security. We certainly should not be participating in a decision-making process that is based on our own POV which may be opposite the ideology supported by a particular source, or what we perceive to be truth, right or wrong, social justice, or that may be against what our own WP:PAGs prescribe per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia that is supposed to represent the sum of all knowledge from a NPOV - like it or not. When we deprecate and downgrade entire sources, we are limiting our access to the free press and all available published material - and that opens the door to WP:POV creep and censorship. That is what happens when governments control the people, not vice versa. We should not be forcing a particular POV on our readers; rather, our job is to provide all substantial views, and allow our readers to decide for themselves. _Talk 📧 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well put. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Deprecating a source is different from blocking it. BeŻet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

lol, thanks that analogy made me laugh. To keep with the porn analogy...is it a porn film if there's no sex? No. Is it a reliable source if there's no reputation for accuracy or fact checking? No. It's not about POV's it's about being WP:reliable. I 'd like to point out a massive contradiction between what you've said here and your comments about Al Jazeera not being a reliable source on this same noticeboard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm surprised that after all the many debates in which you've participated here, you still miss the point. Deprecation creates only a presumption against using the source. That's clearly appropriate here: this is a source known only for opinions, many of which are egregiously incorrect because they draw in turn on crappy sources that we reject. The site provides nothing but right-wing spin, often by nobodies. No Wikipedian should be citing The Post Millennial. We should add it to the deprecated filter to remind people that you need a really good reason to use this source - exactly as applies to Occupy or The Gateway Pundit.

Misplaced Pages aspires to be a serious reference work not a news aggregator. The inclusions of opinions by professional opinion-havers in journals of opinion is fine in a news magazine, but we are not that.

• Oppose. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we are to represent diverse perspectives we should selectively use material from a wide range of sources. The burden is on editors to use material selectively. This is difficult to do when a source of material has been deprecated. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Australian

Australian media tends to not recieve much coverage on this noticeboard, the only one I can recall being the Quadrant RfC. The Australian is a major national newspaper and has been cited over 8,500 times per theaustralian.com.au  . I wouldn't bring up a national newspaper like this unless I had concerns about its reliability. These two opinion pieces from 2014-2015 describe The Australian as a deeply partisan publication, essentially in lockstep with the Liberal Party of Australia. Is this an accurate depiction? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for most subjects but needs attribution for political stories in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable it's apparently one of the most trusted Australian commercial news sources, just behind Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. They may be partisan, but it's not clear that it's affecting factual accuracy of their reporting. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's known for climate change denial, I would say we should avoid it for science related topics. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blatantly partisan, but also a real newspaper. Generally reliable, but perhaps do not use for science as noted by Buidhe - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, unlike the other Australian News Corp newspapers such as the Herald Sun or The Daily Telegraph, The Australian has a good reputation for factual accuracy, though it is definitely a highly partisan source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable, it is owned by the News Corp Australia and, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, right-center biased. E.g., it claims the 2019-2020 bushfires in Australia have nothing to do with climate change. But generally speaking, the broadsheet newspaper has a reputation for accuracy.Tadyatha (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tadyatha: Obligatory comment that MBFC is just some guy's blog, and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. My ignorance. Tadyatha (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, its one of the best quality Australian papers. Partisanship/bias is evident but doesnt effect reliability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable Quality centre-right broadsheet ala The Times and Daily Telegraph (UK); the opinion pieces linked are just routine partisan bickering. Did the criteria for being a RS change to "literally nothing but the NYT" at some point? --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news more so than many other newspapers. It should also be reliable for computing / tech topics as it has had reporting on that for more than 40 years.—Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable - reputation for fact checking. As Buidhe notes their partisan views does not appear to have affected its factual accuracy. --Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Australia's only national newspaper. Has published for many years. The controversial articles are generally the opinion pieces. Deus et lex (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable generally, but the opinion pieces tend to be slanted more to the right than the left and should be used as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Kerry (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable Although it is a partisan source, it is about as reliable as the Daily Telegraph and The New York Times. They seem to have a good fact-checking process. The opinion pieces should be cited with caution though. This is the case for a lot of reputable news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, opinion pieces may slant to the right, but no more than opinion pieces in the Guardian Australia and The Age / The Sydney Morning Herald tend towards the left. Cavalryman (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
• Reliable I loathe the Australian, but their news reportage is reliable. Their opinion pieces are where generally the dragons and devils lurk. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• GR - but exercise caution as with all news sources in today's clickbait environment. _Talk 📧 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for straight news stories, opinions (when notable) should be attributed. Jayjg 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable I look on The Australian as the counterweight to The Guardian. Both cover stories with a slightly different slant, but both are good at their journalism and may be relied on for accuracy. Opinion pieces in both lean further right and left respectively. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable This paper uses deceptive language to write what appears to be negative facts about people from the left of politics, without actually stating them absolutely, and without themselves actually having reliable sources for their apparent claims. It is also very selective in avoiding writing anything true but negative about the right side of politics in Australia, or true but positive about the left side of politics. As one of many outlets from the company in Australia, they clearly play a role as part of the NewsCorp broader campaign of discrediting the left side of politics. I have seen editors on Misplaced Pages claim something MUST be true because they saw it reported in both The Australian, and on Sky News, another NewsCorp outlet, or one of NewsCorp's tabloids, thinking they were independent. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I submit that we need to be very careful about trying to read representative consensus into the collected comments of editors on a journal that is, like most of Murdoch's outlets, hidden behind a paywall. It is pretty much universally agreed that at least parts of the paper are right wing (outrageously so for some opinion pieces), and in no way can it ever be described as left wing. To read the content, most people would have to pay a subscription to NewsCorp. Now that's something far more likely to be done by people with a right wing slant to their political stance to begin with, and unlikely to be done at all by anyone with views on the other side of the fence. It means that we can hardly read the comments above as generally reflecting those of people with views from right across the political spectrum. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Canadaland

canadalandshow.com   is used 54 times as a source. Canadaland is a partly crowdfunded news site and podcast.

• In 2015, Simon Houpt of the The Globe and Mail wrote a long article about the site and said that its editor has a track record of playing fast and loose with facts.
  • This article also cites some other evaluations such as Montreal Gazette blogger Steve Faguy stating that Canadaland has a habit of sensationalizing and editorializing.
• Head of the CBC News Jennifer McGuire wrote an editor's blog about Canadaland. She wrote that Canadaland had deliberately made false assumptions and left out important facts.
• In 2017, Canadaland published a fake obituary of Conrad Black. Christie Blatchford's National Post article detailed the incident: The problem is, it wasn’t a story or a column; it was a pretend obituary, fake news in the current lexicon. She concluded that It was, in short, a cruel and juvenile piece that no newspaper would ever publish, let alone with such relish. It shames the profession.

I'm a bit concerned that this is used as source about politics and other media outlets. Do you reckon that despite these controversies this is now a generally reliable source? --Pudeo (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be concerned too. That concern would lead me to not rely on this source for fact. I'd be cautious using it if at all which might be too generous Littleolive oil (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it either. (t · c) buidhe 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and have never heard of Canadaland until today. It certainly doesn't have the track record to be considered as a generally reliable source. PKT(alk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to PKT's view, I'd say Canadaland is reasonably well known in Canada as a podcast producer; among media people in Canada its news website is also well known. Canadaland's Thunder Bay podcast was praised by NPR's All Things Considered , IndieWire, CBC , and NOW . At player.fm, Canadaland currently has two podcasts listed in the top 10 English-language Canadian podcasts by popularity . As for its news reporting, my own impression is that Canadaland has high journalistic standards; for example, it publishes corrections/clarifications when any of its reporting is shown to be inaccurate. Opinion is distinguished from news reporting; for example the "obituary" of Conrad Black mentioned above is headlined "For Future Use: An Obituary For Conrad Black" and labelled "OPINION", and makes clear that Conrad Black is not actually dead. The piece may be in poor taste but it is in no way fake news (defined as deliberate disinformation). Canadaland first became well known for its reporting on the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and has broken numerous stories relating to Canadian media . News reporting by Canadaland does meet Misplaced Pages's criteria as a reliable source. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Some more information indicating Canadaland is considered a reliable source:

• 2018 Toronto Star news article: "... Canadaland, an independent news website known for its coverage of the media."
• 2018 CP news article: "The statement was first published Saturday by the website Canadaland."
• 2020 CP news article: "Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer pointed Monday to a report by Canadaland that red flags were raised in 2018 by auditors..."
• 2020 National Post news article: "... information first revealed by the news site CANADALAND."
• 2017 Toronto Star column: "As Ashley Csanady, host of the political podcast Canadaland Commons, put it on the air this week..."
• 2020 CTV News story: "... shortly after Canadaland, which has reported extensively on WE, first broke the story on Twitter."
• 2020 CBC News story: "The website Canadaland reported on Morneau's familial ties to the WE Charity on Friday morning."
• 2014 Columbia Journalism Review: "... the freelancer who helped break the scandal, Canadaland's Jesse Brown ..."
• 2015 National Post news story: "... in an interview with the media watchdog website Canadaland on Wednesday."
• 2020 National Post news story: "In early 2018 she began a column for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, but was dropped at some point later the same year, according to CanadaLand."
• 2017 Montreal Gazette arts interview: "This is familiar territory for the podcast , which has been looking to tell Canada’s unheard stories since 2013, and has since expanded into a mini-media empire of free content primarily funded by voluntary donations with four weekly programs – which form Canada’s most popular podcast network – six full-time employees, a stable of paid freelancers and a news website known for breaking its own stories."

Mathew5000 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Mathew5000's demonstration of UBO, editorial control, and positive comments from other outlets, I'm is at worst a weakly reliable source. I've come across it on a couple occasions myself where it seemed like it might be useful, well-sourced, and balanced for those purposes (though I don't believe I wound up using it). Those cases when I considered using it involved discussion of other local Canadian media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a rule, we should almost never be sourcing any content in Misplaced Pages articles to any podcasts; I can, in theory, imagine that special cases may occasionally exist where we have to use a podcast for reasons unique to a particular situation, but we should be minimizing that as much as possible. Just because a podcast is popular and well-known is not, in and of itself, evidence of whether its content is reliable or not — I'll grant that Canadaland has occasionally scooped the media on real stories, but there are at least as many examples of it messing stories up as there are of it getting stories right. Most of Mathew5000's links certainly offer verification that Canadaland exists — but almost none of them actually speak all that strongly to whether its content is reliable or not, which is not the same thing as existing. I'd be on the side of no, Canadaland should not be accepted as an RS. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: We aren't talking about information in Misplaced Pages being sourced to a Canadaland podcast, but rather to a news article on Canadaland's website. That's my understanding, anyway, based on the mention at the top of this thread of canadalandshow.com having been used 54 times as a source (canadalandshow.com  ). Have a look, for example, at how the Canadaland news story "Toronto Star Suspending Internship Programs Indefinitely" is used as a source at Toronto Star#Internship program suspension. The links I posted above, to Canadaland being cited by the National Post and various other Canadian media, do more than verify that Canadaland exists. They show that other Canadian media treat Canadaland with some respect, for example reporting information that was first reported in Canadaland, or specifically describing Canadaland as "an independent news website known for its coverage of the news media" (which connotes that its reporting has a favourable reputation, not just that the website exists). Mathew5000 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are using Daily Hive as a source—which we are, frequently—then Canadaland is at least as reliable. Daily Hive is at least half advertorial-style content and has been critiqued before for at-times shoddy journalism. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Daily Hive isn't a source we should be using, though. Obviously it gets used — a lot of people either don't understand or don't care what is or isn't a reliable source for our purposes, and will try to use just any web page they can find that technically supports the content (we even see people try to source stuff to iTunes, Netflix, Breitbart and YouTube!) — and it's not easy to always catch every attempt to use a bad source right away. But that doesn't mean it's a source that should be getting used. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• We need to take into account the fact that Canadaland's main focus is media criticism, so when we cite the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and Christie Blatchford in opposition to them, these are all outlets and individuals that have come in for sustained criticism by Canadaland. The fact that they have wide public acceptance does not mean that they are impartial in their assessment of Canadaland. By the same token, if critical mentions in the media are sufficient basis to discount a source, then given that Canadaland's primary purpose is to document the failings, omissions, and biases in these and other media outlets in Canada, one could just as easily argue on the basis of that documentation that the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and certainly Christie Blatchford are themselves not reliable news sources.

I would be curious to know how many of the people who discount Canadaland have actually consumed much of their journalism. I've been following them for years and find them quite reputable. I would venture to suggest that anyone who has 'never heard of Canadaland until today' should perhaps not be weighing in on their reliability. The only solid basis for discounting Canadaland is to cite specific instances of stories which they both got wrong and then refused to correct. We should be extremely wary of basing our judgement on a vague sense that they're problematic, especially when that vague sense might well have been created by Republican PR firms hired by WE. Standingwolf (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Standingwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Preliminary discussions for a potential RFC on CNN and MSNBC

Now that the RFC on Fox News has ended, I think it makes sense to have an RFC (or perhaps two separate RFCs) to see if the same (or similar) limitations should be implemented for CNN and MSNBC (the other US cable news outlets). Before doing so, however, I want to get a rough sense as to whether the community has any appetite for what could be another lengthy RFC so soon after the last one. And, if so, start discussion on how to neutrally word it. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wait a bit. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see a point of RFCs for the sake of RFCs. Just because they are also cable news networks does not mean there has to be an RFC as well. FWIW, the last RFC on CNN in 2019 was SNOW closed. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because "Should CNN be deprecated or listed as generally unreliable" is blatantly a ridiculous question, I think any RfC on these sources is likely to be more nuanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely thinking of something more nuanced... NOT a deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So something like "CNN (for example) should not be used for coverage on right wing politics" or "MSNBC is treated as generally unreliable on political reporting"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "not generally reliable" is a more likely outcome than "generally unreliable", and would match the current status for Fox. The distinction being that the former suggests that the source may or may not be usable in any given situation, whereas the latter suggests that the source is unusable by default in the absence of a strong argument for exception. _signed, Rosguill 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We would also want to discuss the reliability of the opinion shows ... similar to how we discussed Hannity, Carlson, etc in the Fox RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• CNN and MSNBC should definitely be evaluated separately given that they're both high profile sources that would likely draw participation equivalent to the FOX RfC on their own. _signed, Rosguill 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Rosguill. CNN and MSNBC are not affiliated, and should be discussed separately. — Newslinger talk 20:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. SQL 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed as in the current election climate such a discussion will be over-politicised, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the Fox News RFC that just ended, I think we have already crossed that bridge. In fact, I would think that having an RFC on other outlets would help de-politicize that one... it would show that we are holding all outlets up to the same level of scrutiny. Blueboar (talk)

I believe CNN in particular is about as reliable as Fox News at this point. Recently they published a story claiming Kim Jong-Un was dead/in "grave danger" after a botched heart surgery which was later proven incorrect. Same with Chris Cuomo says "it's illegal to look at Wikileaks", the Covington MAGA hat kids, and their constant pushing of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. I don't know enough about MSNBC to comment on its reliability and I would have to do more research. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Except Russian collusion was outlined by Mueller, along with obstruction, Mueller just deferred to Congress and the DOJ on whether a sitting president could be indicted. Cuomo is referring to stolen emails and he is right, it is "illegal to possess these stolen documents" in the same way it is illegal to possess any stolen goods. Every news media ran with the rumours of Kim Jong-Un being dead, because rumours of his death and the story about the heart operation were coming from the same sources and backed up by sources within the US establishment; misinformation was rampant among even sources "in the know". Covington MAGA situation was a mess because of contrary reporting on the ground, and was a royal screw up by all concerned. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess, let's take one of those WP:CIR failures at random shjall we? The claim that CNN reported falsely over Kim's health is tendentious, and originate from Trump. CNN actually reported, according to a reliable secondary source, that "US monitoring intelligence that North Korean leader is in grave danger after surgery". Guy (help!) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe do some preliminary due diligence work off this page first so examples that are false positives don’t take up the oxygen. The RfC options can also be workshopped.BTW is there an actual problem to be addressed or is this just to have the appearance Fox wasn’t singled out? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do we have undeniably reliable sources that regularly report on CNN or MSNBC presenting deliberate misinformation? I don't mean mere mistakes, I mean stuff like altering photos or conspicuously omitting relevant information. If not, bringing up an RFC on those networks just because there was one on FNC is false equivalence. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Atlantic: MSNBC's in Trouble for Selectively Editing Romney's Wawa Moment, Politico: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks, The Slate: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Fail to Start a “Romney-Ryan” Chant According to the Pew Research Center, MSNBC and Fox News stood out in terms of partisanship from the rest in the 2012 elections. I don't see any point in processing MSNBC and CNN together, though. --Pudeo (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's all from eight years ago, three of these are anecdotal, and none is scholarly. Note that middle-of-the-road partisanship isn't enough to exclude a source, and that's not what was voted on in the case of FN. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seriously? They are not remotely comparable to Fox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is the epitome of false balance. No, this is a very silly proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• The unwritten rule on Misplaced Pages is that right-of-center sources should receive stricter scrutiny than left-of-center sources. For example, contrast our policy at WP:RSP for the Daily Caller with our policy for Venezuelanalysis. The DC maintains an email address for corrections requests and does correct when they are made aware of an error . I am unable to find any mention of corrections at Venezuelanalysis. We don't say it, but the precedent is clear. Tread with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Given the specific way the Fox News RFC closed very narrowly, that the only thing that probably should have, as an "across the board' for all cable news channels, is general caution of using their opinion/talking head shows as RS for facts, just as we would not use their opinion columns on websites for facts. (Fox News' ones are just more "landmind"-ish in terms of claims). Anything else presented as a news story on these channels or via their websites, there's no strong reason at this point, given the close on Fox News, to seek to tackle them now, unless you can present a consistent bias on a specific topic area as with politics or science. Which I'm pretty confident there wasn't for these. --Masem (t) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely unnecessary "but both sides have to be formally considered" gray fallacy. CNN and MSNBC don't appear here every 3 months. Opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces. This applies to all opinion shows in any venue. Fox is special because they are blatantly and outrageously in the tank for whoever the Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump/anything remotely republican/anything remotely anti-liberal featuring known outrageously unreliable sources like James O'Keefe without any shame for doing it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either RfC would result in any change in status but I think Fox being here every few months was more to do with a few editors trying to bludgeon the process rather than any inherent issue with Fox. I strongly suspect if Fox had been just as accurate/inaccurate but was left leaning we would have never had the last RfC. That is also why I think either new RfC would result in nothing. Some editors, myself included would see either of those sources as no worse than Fox. Since I put Fox in the generally reliable bucket I would also put CNN and MSNBC in the same bucket. An editor who put Fox in the unreliable bucket for partisan reasons is less likely to put CNN in an unreliable bucket even if they are shown to be 100% "as bad as" Fox. Net result, the close call that was the Fox RfC is just enough less close to call the thing "generally reliable". Still, the constant "Fox again" issues were more due to a few editors rather than new evidence time after time. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support separate nuanced RFCs for CNN and MSNBC per BB and others above. Levivich  02:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Headbomb, Peacemaker67, and David Gerard: these would be unnecessary indulgences in false balance and the gray fallacy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with everything that was said on the gratuitousness of the proposal, and submit that a better use of our time would be RfC: Fuck, Marry, Kill: Cooper, Cuomo or Carlson? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose I am not seeing a reason not to go ahead with this. Just as mentioned above as two separate RFCs since the two are not affiliated. No source is beyond question. PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see much value in pursuing this. I'm not aware that the reliability of news from these sources is seriously or routinely disputed. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  MrX, Then you aren't paying attention. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I am paying attention Sphilbrick. If you're alluding to something that I should be aware of, by all means, please point it out. - MrX 🖋

• CNN and MSNBC are separate. An RfC on CNN is unnecessary (it's reliable). It may be worth recording the fact that MSNBC should be used only with attribution, I don't know. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• It stands out to me that almost no examples of (supposed) problems with either source have been offered here (and the few that have been offered have mostly been rebutted as mischaracterizations on the offering editor's part and not problems on the outlet's part, e.g. them reporting like other outlets that some US officials believed Kim Jong Un was ill ≠ them 'falsely reporting that Kim was ill'); it does lead to the impression that RfCs are being proposed only out of a sense that (false) balance is needed. (If RfCs are held, I can't see a reason to conflate them, they're two different sources and each RfC is likely to attract a distinct large body of commenters.) -sche (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support RfC only to see if there is any noteworthy issue with controversial event reporting - while I agree that Fox News seems to have lower standards these days compared to its liberal counterparts, both CNN and MSNBC should probably be assessed for the following separately (I've added my opinion of CNN & MSNBC):

1. Non-political news: will be generally reliable just like Fox News (duh)
2. Political: reliable for non-controversial events, must be examined for controversial stuff, will probably depend on how controversial the event is
3. Talk shows and opinion pieces: only for attribution to the journalists involved (duh)

45.251.33.198 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC, it seems petty. If a challenge to either comes up organically thats fine but otherwise lets leave them alone. As for François Robere’s superior iteration of the question... Carlson, Cooper, Cuomo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT RfC for CNN and the RfC for MSNBC should be separate. CNN is far worse than Fox News Channel, particularly its newscasts. NYTimes - "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation." Politico, mistakes a sex toy flag for ISIS flag; labels Alabama as Mississippi, NYTimes - "But the biggest damage to CNN has been self-inflicted — never more so than in June, when in a rush to be first, it came running out of the Supreme Court saying that President Obama’s health care law had been overturned. It was a hugely embarrassing error.", list of completely botched stories, Law.com "Libel Lawyer Lin Wood Settles Second Defamation Suit With CNN", 10 worst most embarrassing US media failures - "This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments", The Media's Top Lies, CNN refuses to correct error, CNN gave Class Relotius their "Journalist of the Year" award, then published an article with the headline Claas Relotius writing fake stories 'on a grand scale, and it goes on and on and on. _Talk 📧 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is going to be a very difficult RfC if this is an example of what we'll see. O3000 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose CNN RfC, open to MSNBC, although I've not seen any problems. This discussion seems pointy to me. Fox appears here often for good reason. CNN and MSNBC not so. As Horse Eye Jack said, if these sources come here organically, that’s fine. Otherwise, it is tit-for-tat. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Open to re-assessing these sources in response to specific concerns (as the Fox re-appraisal was prompted by their use of misleading digital image manipulation in their coverage of the Seattle protests). But as an exercise in reflexive false equivalence—which is clearly the framing behind this proposal—I'mma say no. We already do way too much of that. Also, note that policy and good practice already prohibit the use of opinion shows/columns as sources of fact, so we don't need an RfC to establish that for CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any other outlet. MastCell  20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but I think that came out after, not before the latest round of deprecate Fox discussions. Springee (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lord, no. We just shot down one attempt to deprecate a noticeable percentage of perfectly fine sources used on the Misplaced Pages, now we want to do another one? People, your politics are showing, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think the intention was the opposite. If these were shown to be widely accepted as RSs then people won't try and act like perfectly fine sources are questionable. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know why we're having this discussion but RfCs are an integral part of the consensus building process which happens to be policy. Any editor who doesn't want to participate in an RfC is not obligated to do so, but we will have an RfC to rate CNN's reliability in the same manner we did Fox News and other entire sources that came before and that will follow. No source is immune from the rating system which began with the inception of WP:RS/Perennial. Also see WP:CONLEVEL. _Talk 📧 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK... Thank you everyone for the input. I see that we have mixed feelings about even holding an RFC... but ENOUGH people want one that I think I will move forward on it. I need to think about wording now. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Note... and I will do two separate RFCs, so we can focus our attention on each outlet individually. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There's actually pretty strong sentiment, arguably even a consensus, against opening RfC's on CNN and MSNBC right now. That's evident in the discussion above. Of course, you can choose to open them anyway, but I would strongly suggest that in your RfC statement you link this discussion, as participants should be aware that a majority of respondents here felt that the RfC's were unnecessary or a bad idea. MastCell  17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I have to ask: if you were going to go ahead and open RfC's no matter what, why did you bother starting this thread? You asked if there was support for these RfC's; the answer was a pretty resounding no; and then you're like, well, here come the RfC's. Of course you're within your rights to open them, but I don't understand the value of this piece of theater. MastCell  23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" O3000 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "full of sound & fury, signifying nothing", but yeah. MastCell  16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: If we must have a discussion about having a discussion, then the answer is "no". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose just as I did when the notion was thrown out there in the middle of the Fox News RTC as a clear example of false balance "whataboutism". This is pointless and a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• For others like me, who don't live on this or related noticeboards, I'll assume that Misplaced Pages:FOX is the relevant RFC on Fox News that's ended. WP:CNN refers to "consensus not numbers" rather than Cable News Network and WP:MSNBC is a red link, so it seems we still need to have those discussions. This can of worms was opened, starting the ball rolling with a 2017 RfC that deprecated the Daily Mail and the ball was given a big push with the creation of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You may just now be realizing that it was easier to start that ball rolling than it will be to stop it. This is all something I've been uncomfortable about – the focus on the contributors (sources) rather than their contributions (news reports). But, at this point fairness and neutrality calls for an evaluation of all sources, as distasteful as that feels. Blueboar, please get on with it and don't let anyone intimidate you. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly how I feel. Don’t worry. I’ve been around here a long time. I don’t get intimidated. (Any perceived hesitation is just delay because I have been busy with off-wiki life). Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar I'll admit I do get intimidated, having seen that an editor can be banned in the blink of an eye and there is no reliable process to reverse it. I have been privy to an indirect warning that questioning the reliability of NYT can result in a site ban. Yet, in my normal activities as an editor, in under a year I witnessed 2 instances of egregious behavior by the NYT: printing a lie about an accuser of a powerful Democrat and failing to fix the error after being informed of it. If Wikipedians are - without justification - holding any media source (no matter their legacy) as untouchable, I find it hard to take any of this seriously. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Agree wholeheartedly with Wbm1058 just above: because the can of worms was opened, it needs to be applied evenly across all similar sources as a matter of course. I must note however, the closing of discussions has over time eroded from an evaluation of policy-based, accurate arguments (ignoring all others) to little more than a head count. News sources have indeed become partisan, and editors are as well. We are faced with a dilemma only solved by sticking closely to policy: WP:NHC Consensus is not determined by counting heads...The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Without strict adherence to policy, the RfC process is no longer valid. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The RFCs were snow-closed (one by me, one by someone else and endorsed by me). These RFCs were never going to work - they were literally raised only because the Fox RFC was raised.

But there may be material for a more general non-RFC discussion raising claimed reliability issues that might be substantive. Can we try to have one of those? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem that the threads were closed, besides the fact that you only got the voices of those who are most active on WP. I'll remind Blueboar (though I'm sure he doesn't need it) that there is no requirement for consensus or approval from the masses to start any RfC, on any topic, at any time. And in my understanding, he didn't open this thread to gauge popularity of his idea, but to hear different arguments for whether it's too soon after the exhausting Fox RfC (an RfC which I assume did not go through an approval process before launching, because that's not a thing). petrarchan47คุก 01:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just so everyone knows... I am perfectly content with the results of these RFCs. My only “agenda” was to ask the question. Having asked, we now have an answer. Done. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I assumed so. The fact that people did not assume good faith says more than them then it does you in my eyes. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We have held RfCs only for right-leaning media, though a massive number of respondents in the Fox RfC mentioned that Fox is no worse than , and gave examples. Therefore, leaving the process with only Fox having gone under the spotlight means attaining NPOV is going to be even more challenging in some topic areas. But I sure don't blame Blueboar for letting it go. petrarchan47คุก 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No... we just HAD two of these outlets “under the spotlight”. If that spotlight did not shine as brightly as you wished, or end in the result you desired... well, that’s your problem, not mine. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

US Liberal sources vs. US Conservative sources: Cage Fight!

(As usual we are going to pretend that US Libertarian sources and US Green sources do not exist.)

Note that words like "liberal" and "Conservative" mean something else in the UK. This is about the US meaning of those phrases.

You see a lot of complaints claiming that Misplaced Pages has different standards for liberal and conservative sources. A recent pair of RfCs was flawed because it compared good liberal-leaning sources with a bad conservative-leaning source. So I am going to start by asking some questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC) ~

What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?

• The difficulty here is in classification. Sure, Infowars and The daily Mail are unreliable, but are they really politically conservative? Would not alt-right be a better pigeonhole to put Infowars in? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Infowars is conservative politically, in the American context (which for some reason this discussion is limited to) alt-right is a subset of conservative. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

On the right:

Breitbart News

Daily Mail

Drudge Report

Infowars

On the left:

Redneck Revolt

MoveOn

Palmer Report

Shareblue

Got any better (or in this case worse...) choices? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it, Daily Mail isnt America, Drudge is a news aggregator, and the Palmer Report is a blog. Those don't seem to fit at all within this discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What are the absolute most reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?

• "Biased but reliable" is what we are looking for here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• On the liberal side, I would say the New York Times is the most reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• The Wall Street Journal is definitely reliable, but I'm not sure how much of its conservative reputation is due to its editorial page vs. its actual reporting. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• New York Times and Wall Street Journal. - Although I must acknowledge that WSJ news articles are consistently more objective than NYT news articles, despite my love affair with the NYT. The WSJ establishes itself as conservative-leaning more by omission than commision, i.e., they do not cover some important stories that receive detailed coverage in the Times, Washington Post, and other prominent newspapers. Of course, the WSJ editorials and most of their columnists are very conservative, Peggy Noonan being a notable exception.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'd say NPR, The Atlantic and Vox are among the most reliable on the left. The Young Turks is probably one of the most left-of-center sources in the US, but I think they score particularly high marks for accuracy, transparency and disclosure of conflicts of interest in their reporting. Armadillopteryx 22:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• National Review is a conservative publication that is at least somewhat reliable, unless contradicted by facts posted in some other more consistently neutral venue. These days, none of the mainstream major U.S. news sources seem consistently "liberal", not even NPR; since 2016 they've all tried to both-sides everything. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• As people have already mentioned NYT/WSJ is the classic matchup, although it might not really do for our purposes becasue they're more center left and center right than fully liberal or conservative (besides for the editorials there isnt much daylight between hem). I think we're looking for something more along the line of Mother Jones and The Intercept on the left vs The Christian Science Monitor and Deseret News on the right, all are reliable but opinionated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please suggest pairs of liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources of equal reliability.

• No unfair match-ups like Fox News vs. CNN, MoveOn.org vs. Forbes, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• This diagram, if accurate, can give many such pairings. It seems to match CNN to The Washington Times. VR _talk 23:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Ad Fontes again ... Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Ad_Fontes_Media. GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.VR _talk 02:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Could be useful as a list of candidate sources to start your research. For example, I didn't know that Wonkette existed. (I didn't list it as a candidate in the section above above because it shades towards satire/parody.) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Place arguments that Team Blue is superior to Team Red or viva versa here.

• I know that some of you won't be able to resist jumping the gun and claiming that My Team Is Full Of Good And Pure People, Every Source That Leans My Way Is Perfect, And The Other Team Is Full Of Lies And Evil. All such arguments, and anything else that does not address the specific questions asked will be moved here. There is a time and a place... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hell no... my team are a bunch of lying skallywags who will do or say anything to get elected. It’s just that the OTHER team is worse. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar wins the prize for most humorous and truthful response. Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar makes a strong case. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to pretend that US Libertarian sources and US Green sources do not exist. Fox News is not a bad conservative-leaning source, just because it does not match some peoples political persuasions. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I may have overstated the problems with Fox News, but the obvious "lying by Photoshop" images shown at and the weaselly retraction that failed to acknowledge that they lied by Photoshop made me change my opinion of Fox News from "Use with care" to "Generally unreliable for facts, events, interviews and quotes." If Fox News is willing to mislead me about where a particular person carrying a gun and wearing a green mask was standing, how can I trust anything else they present to me? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

But again, the question I would like to see an answer to in the appropriate section above above is, "however good or bad you think Fox News is, can you name a liberal-leaning source that is just as good or just as bad?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Team Blue has a tendency to railroad innocent criminal defendants in the court of public opinion. There are few positions worse than that of an innocent person charged with a crime that could send them to prison for a long time. Such cases sometimes play out partly in the media. A past example of this was the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax. For a past example, why hasn't the NYT retracted this? The key two sentences: But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury. There was never any ambiguity; the three are innocent. The NYT didn't want to see it. More recently, we have the case of Daniel Holtzclaw. Long story short: he didn't do it. The sources that have chosen to notice are squarely on Team Red and include sources Misplaced Pages regards as "not reliable". Malkin's work in particular is groundbreaking and, taken as a whole, utterly convincing. What could be more compelling that getting an innocent person out of prison? Team Blue won't touch this with a 10-foot pole. Shame on them. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Wasn't Daniel Holtzclaw found guilty in a court of law? I think you're mixing up the court of public opinion and actual courts. Also just FYI we dropped Malkin from the red team after the whole holocaust denial thing, idk what team she plays for these days but it ain't red . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Place arguments that reinforcing the idea that a simple dichotomy exists and is worth fighting over is counter-productive here

• I have trouble seeing what sort of positive outcome could result from this discussion. The very idea that we should care about an artificial dichotomy is what distracts from discussions that are about reliability rather than bias. These arguments get pulled in all the time anyway, so why strip out the productive parts to focus on them? Is the idea to isolate them to highlight their tangential (or sometimes parallel) nature? To conclude that there is indeed a correlation between, say, "left-wing" and reliability? These seem unlikely to me, but maybe I misunderstand. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Infowars is politically conservative, just an extreme fringe form that does not care for general reliability. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)

I notice Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not yet mention South China Morning Post (SCMP).

I know there have been ownership changes and the recent Hong Kong National Security Law (effective July 1, 2020) may impact reporting at the SCMP (and the same law could impact every publication in Hong Kong SAR).

I found at least one previous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Straits_Times_and_the_South_China_Morning_Post

At the very minimum Perennial sources should tell people not to use articles from "Lin Nguyen" who turned out to be a fabricated persona. The SCMP withdrew all articles by this persona. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely anything published after the new national security law should have just as much reliability as The Onion. Articles during the period between the British handover and that law I'm not sure about. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Xinhua (RSP entry) is a better starting point of comparison than The Onion. _signed, Rosguill 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That RSP entry is far too generous to Xinhua. . Adoring nanny (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the entry based off the opinions present in the 2 discussions, and I think it is a reasonable reflection of them. If you think it's too generous then that's down to the responders, not me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW The Atlantic here published: "A Newsroom at the Edge of Autocracy" (August 1, 2020). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been owned by Alibaba Group since 2016, when it closed its non english language editions and subsidiary publications like HK Magazine it also retracted an article criticising Li Zhanshu in 2017, so I don't think that the national security law is going to have a significant impact, as these changes have already been happening to the SCMP since 2016. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The allegations presented in The Atlantic are concerning, particularly the censoring of reporters coverage of the Hong Kong protests by editors to give a strongly pro-goverment slant, and the publication of an interview with Gui Minhai, who was detained by the Chinese government at the time, effectively akin to a forced confession. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Lin Nguyen articles were all opinion pieces; they didn’t affect the SCMP's usual news reporting.To my knowledge, the SCMP has been generally regarded as one of the most (if not the most) reliable news outlets in HK. Regarding bias, they've usually been more critical of the mainland Chinese government than friendly towards it, even since 2016. — MarkH₂₁ 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statuses in RSN and "Perennial sources" also affect the selection of opinion pieces suitable to quote in articles. In Alec Holowka I brought up an opinion piece from RT on his suicide in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Death but other editors felt it was not appropriate to refer to it because RT is discouraged for controversial subjects. See: Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it? Shouldn’t opinion articles and editorials derive their reliability predominantly (if not solely) from the author rather than the publication, per WP:RSEDITORIAL? — MarkH₂₁ 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @MarkH21: That's a good question for a separate thread of RSN. I couldn't find much on that particular author (Igor Ogorodnev) so all the editors had was the publication itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Newspaper of record#cite_note-51 says "The clippings are from the South China Morning Post, the paper of record in Hong Kong". --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've encountered the SCMP on a few occasions and just read the Atlantic piece, which I think should be considered a reliable look into the state of the newspaper. The SCMP is clearly a newspaper of record, and in some non-sensitive areas it should certainly be considered generally reliable. There are serious concerns about its ability to report fairly on the Hong Kong protests and on some issues sensitive in China, although I would need to look further into it to determine whether this often manifests as inaccuracies (a problem) or just bias (not so much of a problem per WP:BIASED). Regardless, I'm glad to see this discussion happening, since the SCMP is a very notable omission to the RSP list. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging participants from Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#South China Morning Post reliability: @Skyring: @-Ni3Xposite: @Ckfasdf: @Feminist: @Slatersteven: @The Drover's Wife: @DreamLinker: @Burrobert: (Adoring nanny is already here) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: do you want me to format a formal RfC? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I would love that. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @Buidhe: and @Darouet: from the first discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (SCMP)

• Option 1/2 The SCMP is the major English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. I would consider it a reliable source without exemption prior to 2016. However, after the 2016 purchase by the Alibaba Group and the continually deteriorating political situation in Hong Kong. I think caution is necessary for contentious topics like the Hong Kong protests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed by vote to a 1/2 to make my opinion more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: I have not changed my opinion on the reliability of SCMP. It would be common sense to attribute any claims it makes around its reporting of the Hong Kong disturbances. I haven't seen any change in the nature of SCMP's general reporting. The statement in the Atlantic article that "the use of terms like riot and rampage that often made it into the final versions of stories recounting protests" reminded me of similar statement that FAIR has made about the New York Times and Washington Post reporting on the various US protests. Regarding Lin Nguyen, which seems to have been the starting point for this discussion, the SCMP admitted its mistake and removed the five articles which had been located in the Opinion section of the paper. It said it had "reviewed and strengthened its verification process for submissions in response to the Daily Beast revelations". Seems like a sensible response. Burrobert (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I brought up Lin Nguyen since the entry for Der Spiegel does say it's generally notable but to avoid articles by Claas Relotius specifically. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Yes a similar note for SCMP would be fine. Burrobert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. ~ HAL333 00:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 more or less along the lines of what Hemiauchenia argued. _signed, Rosguill 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 (reliable with caveats) per The New York Times' March 2018 article which says that In effect, Alibaba has taken Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record since the days of British rule and put it on the leading edge of China’s efforts to project soft power abroad. Every day, The Post churns out dozens of articles about China, many of which seek to present a more positive view of the country. As it does, critics say it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of propaganda. It also notes that there have been acts of self-censorship to avoid annoying the CCP. Still, from what I gather, it has many of the best journalists in HK. I have noted that some, possibly undue pro-China views, have been sourced to SCMP, such as a curious chapter detailing "Hong Kong's hatred of mainlanders" and xenophobia as an undercurrent for the protests. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bigotry against people from the mainland and Mandarin-speakers is a well-known issue in Hong Kong. SCMP writing about it doesn't undermine their reliability as a source. Are we going to start deprecating sources because they cover issues that some editors perceive as being "pro-China"? In case anyone needs reminding, this is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia, or a European encyclopedia, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tricky, this. Pre-2016 is OK, of course, but post 2016 it's also reliable for a lot of things, just nothing related to China or politics. I guess that's a 2? Guy (help!) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Probably Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, more or less, per above. feminist (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for post-2016 articles, per above. There isn't evidence that the paper literally makes things up, however, we should also avoid sources that are turning into state propaganda outlets, "soft" or otherwise. Lack of press freedom in Hong Kong will also impact the reliability of other Hong Kong based media. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Cynistrategus (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 — one of the most important newspapers for any editor or educated person trying to stay informed about global events and opinions. So far, criticism presented here amounts to an Atlantic article from a journalist who complains SCMP editors toned down pro-protestor language in his submission to the paper (what a surprise), and one more article from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China , and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China . More broadly, bringing up the SCMP at the RSP is yet one more example of the list's mission creep. At this rate Misplaced Pages will end up treating all domestic and international news sources that fall outside of the center of the quite narrow Anglo-American political spectrum as suspect, or unusable. That's a devastating development for what is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pinging Blueboar since they've had valuable commentary on this issue in the past. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know the source at all, so I can not comment on specifics. In general, deprecation should be reserved for clear cut, “worst of the worst” situations. Even “we could do better” level sources should not be deprecated. That said, if we CAN do better, we should. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a high opinion of the SCMP and labelling it option 2 for "additional considerations apply" is more a reflection of the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong than the SCMP itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 SCMP is a well regarded international newspaper. Being owned by a mainland company means that of course there is going to be a bias towards the Chinese government, but as of now no sources seriously dispute that the paper is "generally factual." Maybe in a few years if Beijing continues to tighten its grip on Hong Kong and its press outlets in a demonstrable way the SCMP should be downgraded, but as of now a bias towards the Chinese government doesn't change that fact that it is generally reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I feel that the SCMP is a trustworthy source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I have worked quite extensively on the protests articles and I don't think I have seen cases where SCMP is outrageously inaccurate or biased. Their factual reporting is generally reliable. Their opinion articles, however, are mostly written by biased, unreliable, blantantly lying pro-Beijing columnists. OceanHok (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @OceanHok: Perennial sources also considers opinion columns, so if you don't mind please share examples of highly biased columns. That way the entry can add caution against using such columns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Wait, perennial sources tells us what opinions can be referenced? Who has the audacity to prescribe acceptable opinion here? It's one thing to rate the factual reliability of sources, but saying which opinions are acceptable is something else entirely. Some editors may like the opinion columns of their favorite newspaper of record, some editors may think those columns are complete garbage. WP:RSN really has no business declaring some opinions good and others bad. What matters for opinion is WP:WEIGHT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: This came up in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1 where I had suggested including an opinion from a columnist of RT but other editors rejected the idea because RT was unconsidered unreliable for controversial topics, straight reporting and opinion pieces alike. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of examples. Some of their views and thoughts are hugely troubling to me. In many cases, they were following the rheotic of the HKSAR government. Not saying it is not ok to support the government, but in most cases, they were just discrediting the opposition without solid proof, or they intentionally discussed only one side of the problem.

• : These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
• : This one states that the "rioters" "lies" but didn't address the issues behind the police's lack of credibility or discussed why the police's claims were not accepted.
• : the title itself is ridiculous enough already. They also followed the rhetoic that the voting stations will be vandalised by the protesters (which obviously didn't happened on that day).
• : calling opposition lawmakers clowns without recognising that the pro-Beijing bloc is exercising tyranny of the majority as there is no universal suffrage for the LegCo election.
• : Supporting Carrie Lam to delay the election because it gives time for people to "cool off". The way to "take a break from politics" is to postpone an election?
• : And what happened on the next day was that the protesters and the ethnic minorities were offering support to each other when the protesters passed through Chungking Mansions.
• Therefore, with so many problematic statements, I find it is really hard to consider these opinion pieces as usable. OceanHok (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. The issues raised above should be kept in mind when using the SCMP for claims about the protests and other sensitive political issues. But for factual reporting it's generally reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 This RfC is ridiculous. Most newspapers have political biases and reliability issues. The only cases which are worth recording are those where they routinely engage in parody and fantasy : The Onion; National Inquirer; The Southport Times and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: 1. Misplaced Pages:Perennial sources does call out specific cases of scandal like Claas Relotius (Der Spiegel is otherwise generally reliable), and 2. there has been a recent major change in Hong Kong law (though it can potentially affect all HK outlets), and 3. SCMP is such a common news source that Perennial sources should address it. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 as a general reader I've found their articles informative and fair, but fully accept the need for caution. A bit better than other papers of record, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. . .dave souza, talk 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: As I mentioned in the pre-RfC discussion, the SCMP has been and is the newspaper of among the most reliable sources in Asia. It is still Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record. The factual accuracy (as opposed to its tone/bias) of its news reporting hasn’t been directly challenged by other RSes.The NYT and Atlantic articles discuss a change in bias towards Beijing. However, a change in bias itself doesn’t mean that the factual reporting is less reliable (cf. WP:BIASED). Whether its fact-checking and accuracy deteriorates as the situation in HK press freedom changes is speculation about the future. If/when that does happen, then the SCMP should be revisited as an RS. — MarkH₂₁ 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Even if there may be bias on a small subset of topics and cases of problematic opinion pieces, it would require quite a stretch to argue that SCMP is anything other than "generally reliable for factual reporting." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Additional considerations apply. Most of the time SCMP is a reliable source, but the impact of the direction management is pushing and the new Hong Kong security law need to be taken into account when using it. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 The South China Morning Post is used as way for newspapers such as The Washington Post to know what is going on in Hong Kong. I have found that a search in the WP's articles yields many citations of the SCMP. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is limited freedom of speech in Hong Kong right now and the newspaper has been called "increasingly pro-Beijing" by the NYT . P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't want to call this discussion a waste of time, but this certainly comes to close to being one. Remember per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." That guidance is already enough to go on in this instance. -- Calidum 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 with all usual cavaets on a case-by-case basis. No indication that there's enough problems of China's interference in the paper's reporting to be concerned that it makes them unreliable, in fact when I have to use them (this in the article of technology and video games) they certainly aren't speaking in a manner I'd consider as a mouthpiece for China. Obviously if an article feels fishy, use caution but that's true for all RSes even to the NYTimes, so I don't think option 2 is appropriate here. --Masem (t) 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, possibly split into 2 entries like Fox News and The Guardian on the main WP:RSP list. SCMP is a reputable newspaper with strict editorial control - educators on all sides of the HK political debate trust them as the written standard of Hong Kong English). However, it is also known in HK that SCMP has always had a pro-government bias, whether that government was British Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong. The Alibaba takeover has exacerbated their pro-Beijing bias but so far I don't see much of SCMP twisting facts to suit their agenda. I think we should put SCMP in the "reliable" category for factual reporting, but caveat all opinion sections in the same way we split Fox, Guardian, and other broadsheets with a known editorial bias. Deryck C. 19:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, because they have done good factual reporting of current events in Hong Kong. Félix An (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 with the caveat that we aren’t yet able to judge the impact the new situation (national security law etc) will have on SCMP’s ability to produce high quality journalism (especially investigative journalism). I think that this discussion is premature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for their factual reporting, seems to be reasonable accurate. Any opinion columns are subject to WP:RSOPINION. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, it's a good source and it is almost reliable.--RuiyuShen 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per OceanHok on news articles. Op-eds should be treated in the same manner as those of WaPo, etc. per WP:RSOPINION. We have not allowed Jeff Bezo's acquisition of the WaPo to affect our assessment of its reliability, there should be no difference vis-a-vis Alibaba and the SCMP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's not a fair comparison, because RS say that Bezos has not interfered with the operations of WaPo, whereas reliable sources say that Alibaba has affected the reporting of this source. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per MarkH21 and Bzweebl. The publication's (supposed) new pro-Beijing position has not affected the reliability of its factual reporting. KyleJoan 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: The SCMP is one of the most reliable sources there is on China. Its reporting typically reflects a much deeper level of understanding about Chinese politics and society than reporting in major Western new sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I used SCMP frequently in a professional capacity related to coverage of the Hong Kong protests; I was admittedly frustrated with their tone at some points, as someone who supported the protests, but I would be lying if I said I noticed or suspected any glaring revisions or omissions of facts when it came down to it. A good editor should be able to strip away any latent editorializing tone when present and be fine using SCMP for reference. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - No evidence has even been presented that there are any issues with reliability. ~Swarm~ 23:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 I agree with Hemiauchenia. wikitigresito (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Despite what I would have guessed, SCMP has been fairly accurate on their reporting and fairly neutral. I don't think the National Security Law will affect it because they can just move legal headquarters somewhere else; Alibaba's ownership is worrying but it still is the best non-biased source on China out there, at least for now. Albertkaloo (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2020
• Comment This is a bit of an odd discussion. For the SCMP to be ruled unreliable, we'd need to be guided by experts' views on the topic - e.g. expert media commentators who state that the SCMP is no longer reliable, etc. I can't see any such sources being provided above. From what I've seen in following Hong Kong from afar, there are long running concerns that the SCMP sometimes self-censors itself and has a long running history (including during British rule) of leaning towards the government line. But I haven't seen recent sources stating it's no longer reliable. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - From among the publications on Asian-specific topics covered by various outlets, the SCMP's coverage is usually some of the best. They tend to separate personal positions and facts fairly well, and I'd go as far to say that there are plenty of publications that ought to learn a thing or two from that. Goodposts (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Horse Eye Jack. I note that SCMP pretty much has been the newspaper of record in Hong Kong. From 2016 to 2020, after Alibaba acquired SCMP, there was little to no change in the general reliability of SCMP. (I note that in its news articles, if Alibaba is mentioned anywhere in its news articles, SCMP goes out of its way to point out that Alibaba is the owner of SCMP.) However, given the recent passage of the new security law in Hong Kong, it is currently not possible to assess whether SCMP's reliability will be affected following the law being passed; I opine that SCMP will continue to maintain its reliability (unless evidence to the contrary is discovered); however, SCMP is likely to shift (or at least face much more greater pressure to move) to a more pro-China stance, but not to the point where its reliability is affected (unless again opposing evidence is found). JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 (so far) for news stories; opinions, as always, should be attributed. Jayjg 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 before the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong. Option 1.5 until the 2016 purchase by Alibaba. Option 3 from 1 July 2020 due to the new Hong Kong "Security" law, which is in fact more about ending free expression. This is a sufficiently major change in their environment that it would be unwise to assume they will be able to continue their past practices. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Stop your WP:SOAPBOXing (more about ending free expression) and actually produce a link which comments explicitly on the SCMP. Neither of your BBC links does that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 and Option 3 - It is a mouthpiece of CCP now. SCMP was a reliable source, but not since it is owned by Alibaba, which is the most Pro-Chinese group in the world after communist party of China. NavjotSR (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (SCMP)

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

I agree that we should treat newspapers of record (and all newspapers) with serious scrutiny: the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War is an extraordinary demonstration of the importance of that principle. However, as I note above, what we've actually been doing at the perennial sources list is casting doubt or prohibiting the use of newspapers in the United States (e.g. the Grayzone) or internationally (e.g. Xinhua, RT, the Times of India) whose political or national orientations fall outside the narrow center of Anglo-American politics. Sometimes it's unclear whether consensus was even achieved for a given outlet . Furthermore it's bizarre to watch national outlets come under attack here, at an international encyclopedia, as respective governments find themselves in increased geopolitical conflict with the United States. It's both within our mandate and power as editors to be able to understand these conflicts, not participate in them ourselves. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with The Grayzone is that it has this strange "anti-imperialist" worldview where everything that western governments do is bad and anything that Maduro / Assad / Putin / Xi does is good. Of course neither of these perspectives is true, and nor is their reverse. I would support calling a RfC on Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Televisión Martí and Alhurra as these are directly controlled by the US govt, and I am unsure about their editorial independence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'd be happy with an RFC of all of those US government-controlled publications WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Grayzone responded to being depreciated with a "You can't handle the truth!" meltdown that included calling Katherine Maher a "veteran regime-change operative" it is pretty obvious they operate in a different reality to the rest of us. Compared to the platonic ideal of a Reliable Source everything is going to fall short. That doesn't mean every source is equally (un)reliable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We deprecated the newspaper without consensus on the basis of a few flimsy articles from much weaker sources, and flimsy reasoning from editors who didn't demonstrate even a modicum of the competence of the journalists they were criticizing. The close was particularly egregious. As for their reaction to being deprecated, much found in their two articles on the topic is excellent . -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You’re going to lay it all on the line for TGZ? Please tell me this guy is pulling my leg and isnt going nuclear over a shit-tier source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The deprecation close was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these . The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" , another from The Daily Beast (which our own list calls "a biased or opinionated source"), and lastly an article about the contents of a conversation that Max Blumenthal had with Karen Greenberg on the politically sensitive topic of torture in the US and Israel . Importantly, from the perspective of our own governance, the close did not conform to any consensus that emerged from the deprecation discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that TGZ is a shit-tier source and you're just quibbling about procedure? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that and I wouldn't be caught dead using such language here. In agreement with the rough consensus of the RfC discussion , the Grayzone is an opinionated source that is usable on Misplaced Pages, and in certain instances, where its views or reporting have been contested, it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• "Hong Kong third wave: three labs picked to help mainland China medical team conduct mass Covid-19 testing in the city": SCMP
• "China’s Offer to Help With Virus Testing Spooks Hong Kong: Infections have surged in the city, and its labs have been going at full speed. But wariness of the Chinese Communist Party runs deep." New York Times

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

Not one person has voted option 4, therefore your contention that anyone is trying to deprecate the SCMP is preposterous. Please make arguments about reality rather than constructing fanciful straw men to tilt at. Also whats with the sic? I’m not seeing an error in Chinese Communist Party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A fair number of people have voted to discourage use of the SCMP for topics related to Hong Kong. Those are precisely the topics in which the SCMP's reporting is more extensive and neutral than that of newspapers like the New York Times. I'm arguing that it is in precisely these contentious topics that usage of SCMP is important for a globally balanced, neutral view. As for the , the name of the ruling party of China is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. I see that the Misplaced Pages article was moved a few weeks ago (which might be in line with WP:COMMONNAME, given how often Western sources get the name wrong), and that you voted for the move. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" have pretty much the same meaning, just different ways of translating it. The CCP prefers the first translation but most third party entities prefer the second. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the discussion about the name of the CPC to overshadow my actual point above - which is to compare reporting by the NYT and SCMP. The two articles I cite are illustrative of a trend, in which many Western news sources take strong political angles on Chinese topics. In the above NYT example, plans to offer coronavirus tests to every person in Hong Kong become primarily a story about Hong Kongers being spooked by the CPC. The SCMP covers the issue in a much saner way, as primarily a story about coronavirus testing, that also involves some protests. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your core argument was "That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China.” despite nobody voting or arguing for WP:DEPRECATE. The SCMP and NYT might frame a story differently but they’re both reliable, can you imagine if there was no difference in framing between reliable sources? Everyone would write almost exactly the same story and we’d all be worse off for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Xinhua News Agency

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of Xinhua News Agency?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Xinhua)

• Option 4 Xinhua has promoted the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 originated in a US Army lab in Maryland. . For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see . We should not make an exception for "non-controversial" topics or the like. For example, for the critical first few weeks, Covid-19 was not considered "controversial". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't find anything in your sources that say Xinhua News Agency reported that COVID-19 was created in a U.S. army lab, just that the Chinese government had spread this disinformation. Some of your sources are behind a paywall, so perhaps you could provide the quote. Note that the head of the U.S. government, Donald Trump has publicly stated that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese Lab. That doesn't mean that PBS and NPR shouldn't be considered reliable. As for your other example, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim that "nearly 100 people" in Hong Kong protested in favor of the government. Since Hong Kong has a population of 7.5 million, that would be about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population. There are 42 pro-China members of the legislature, the executive council has 30 members, so we're up to 72 verified supporters of the government already. TFD (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The difference is that NPR is WP:Independent of Donald Trump. It is free to, and frequently does, say that Trump is talking nonsense. By contrast, Xinhua is not WP:Independent of the CCP. NPR-style reporting would be to say something along the lines of "The CCP is promoting the theory that Covid started at a lab in Maryland, but we found no evidence to support this." But that's not what they do. Per my The Atlantic source , "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really." That's how Xinhua promoted the Covid conspiracy. See the article which as of yesterday was here and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here and archived here . Unlike what NPR does, I can't find anything from Xinhua saying that the theory is nonsense. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You claim above that Xinhua has promoted a specific CoVID-19 conspiracy theory. Can you provide a link to a Xinhua article where they do that? If you can't, you should strike your statement. Factual accuracy matters, especially at WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

does it precisely in the manner described by - "We're just asking questions, really". Adoring nanny (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). To list just a few, The Sunday Times (generally reliable) had a long report that repeatedly hints that SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the WIV: . The Independent then wrote its own article based on The Sunday Times' story, including new quotes from Richard Ebright, who has been promoting the WIV leak theory non-stop for months: . The Independent quotes Ebright as an expert, even though his expertise is in bacteriology (not virology) and the claims he's making about mutation rates of the virus are WP:FRINGE (for example, they're completely at odds with Boni et al. 2020). The Washington Post (generally reliable) played one of the largest roles in the promotion of the WIV leak theory, with its publication of Josh Rogin's column claiming that the US State Department had uncovered severe problems at the WIV in 2018: . Though this was nominally posted under "Global Opinions," it was written in the style of a news article, and was widely referenced by other news outlets (and later by the Trump administration). For example, the BBC wrote it's own "We're just asking questions" article that speculated on the lab leak theory, based on Rogin's piece: . The BBC article extensively quotes Filippa Lentzos, a promoter of the WIV leak theory. Even the venerable Columbia Journalism Review (itself often used to determine reliability of news sources) wrote an article that while criticizing some of the right-wingers commenting on Rogin's story, also posed the "What if?" question about the WIV: . In other words, if "We're just asking questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" is a basis for judging a news source unreliable, get ready to deprecate The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Washington Post, the BBC and Columbia Journalism Review, and possibly many more sources. Xinhua is really a very minor offender in this department. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a CCP mouthpiece, it is probably reliable only in an WP:ABOUTSELF stylee for attributed statements about the CCP. As a source of fact, I would say no thanks. So that's option 3 with a bullet I guess, or maybe 4 but we need to clarify the wording slightly. Guy (help!) 08:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 per JzG. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 We currently have around 9,500 citations to Xinhua per xinhuanet.com   and news.cn   Xinhua is the official state news agency of the Chinese Government. Like the Russian Government's TASS (RSP entry), and the Turkish Government's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry) and TRT World (RSP entry), Xinhua is usable for statements regarding the official views of the Chinese government, and non-controversial topics per WP:NEWSORG. However it is not a reliable source for stuff like the Xinjiang Camps/Uyghurs, Tibet human rights, Taiwan, or anything else where the Chinese government could be reasonably construed to have a conflict of interest. I don't see strong enough evidence (excluding the COVID-19 stuff which I don't think is definitive) that Xinhua is an outright propaganda outlet in the same way RT or Sputnik is, which I think CGTN falls a lot closer to. Any use of Xinhua should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that it is not always immediately obvious that something is controversial. For example, who could be opposed to a reduction in terrorism, an increase in stability, economic prosperity, and an increase in happiness? (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment) Adoring nanny (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That particular piece is the attributed views of "Dr. Kaiser Abdukerim, a member of the Chinese delegation and president of Xinjiang Medical University", it states this right in the lead: "A Chinese expert from the Uygur ethnic group on Monday stressed here that without stability in his hometown of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, nothing can be achieved there." I don't think that Xinhua is making up what he is saying, and therefore can be considered reliable for his views. The statement by Dr. Kaiser that: "Today's Xinjiang enjoys social security, its people live and work in peace and contentment, its economic development is flourishing, all ethnic groups enjoy heart-to-heart solidarity, and the human rights of people of all ethnic groups are fully guaranteed" is not true, but it is his attributed opinion. Of course Xinhua is being selective in promoting this view, but this could be said for most sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UT

Per the article, "As a professional in medical education, he said he was especially impressed by such figures that from 1949 to 2017, the population mortality rate in Xinjiang decreased from 20.82 to 4.26 per thousand . . ." So the article is approvingly quoting him being impressed by mortality "figures" of 4.26 deaths per thousand people per year. Sure sounds like an alternate universe. One wonders what the mortality rate is in the camps. Same story for the "happiness index" he approves of, whatever that may be referring to. Are the camp inmates happy? Lastly, the article describes him as an "expert." That part is the article's statement, not his. Is "expert" really an appropriate way to define him? Does his expertise include the camps? Does it include the ability to distinguish real data from fake data? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

4.26 is less than half of the UK's mortality at 9.3, but this is probably related to Britains proportionally older population. I can't find any other evidence of Kaiser's existence outside the UN speech other than a single paper where his is last author. Compare Xinhua with this story in CGTN and you can see that the CGTN story comes much closer to outright propaganda. I definitely think there is a case for deprecating CGTN, but not really for Xinhua at the moment. See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#CGTN_(China_Global_Television_Network) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind seeing China Central Television/China_Global_Television_Network added to the Perennial sources list. Not sure if new RFCs are needed for those? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: As as I mentioned in previous discussions, Xinhua often has decent reporting in English for quite a few non-controversial topics. For example, I used it heavily on some tables to provide accurate dates for Xi Jinping presidential trips. For international reporting, it has published many reports about COVID-19 in underreported areas in Africa. These reports could be verified in non-English sources (French, Arab), but hard to find in other secondary English sources. Now, there's a few topics where it would be no-go except for quoting Government officials, specially US-China disputes and other political controversies involving China. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option four makes a statement which is demonstrably true but I am opposed to outright bans on any source. CCP propaganda can be judged on a case-by-case basis, recognizing what it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 US government sources peddled the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but that theory didn't stand up, did it? All government-controlled organs are partisan by definition and this naturally matters in controversial cases such as wartime. Xinhua should be treated like other government sources of information and attributed so the reader can decide for themselves whether to trust them. Holding a straw poll here to decide the matter is ridiculous because Misplaced Pages and its editors are definitely not reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Straw polls on RSN are the standard way feedback on each particular source is collected. Honestly I haven't thought of a better system than that, though one could post information on polls and surveys indicating trustworthiness of sources in certain countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: In both Chinese and English, Xinhua generally report factual information with carefully chosen terms that favor the PRC government. It also often publishes articles for major government propaganda points. Xinhua should only be used for certain restricted cases.It's important to note that the heavy journalistic spin doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting. An appraisal from a 2010 Newsweek article (pre-2013 Newsweek is considered generally reliable on WP:RSP): It helps, of course, that Xinhua's spin diminishes when the news doesn't involve China. And even if the agency fails to improve its image, naked bias is not a handicap the way it was for TASS, the Soviet Union's 100-bureau news agency during the Cold War.That said, I still would not use Xinhua as the sole source for most claims given that their editorial oversight is severely compromised by being an arm of the PRC Central Government, which does not hesitate to actively censor information. It's really only useful as a source for the view of the Chinese government, or for obscure details of uncontroversial events (e.g. the dates and lineup of a concert). — MarkH₂₁ 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Updating vote: after seeing Newslinger's response and seeing that Xinhua has a news exchange agreement with AFP, I'm also okay with a very restricted option 2 that relegates its use to covering the Chinese government point of view and uncontroversial events. — MarkH₂₁ 04:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, any source that published conspiracy theories related to COVID should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Neither The Telegraph or The Atlantic stories specifically mention Xinhua in reference to COVID 19 conspiracy theories. The NYTimes story refers to this tweet which contains a bizarre video mocking Pompeo using automatically generated speech and weird animated figures, see what you make of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3. It is similar to RT (TV network) that was depreciated. We need to be consistent. It does not matter that much if it is controlled by a government, although to be controlled (rather than simply be funded) is a red flag. It is known for promoting disinformation, which is opposite to be known "for fact checking and accuracy". My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  RT and Xinhua are superficially similar as state-run news outlets by Russia and China. However, they have different histories and different sets of appraisals by RSes. The history of RSes calling out RT for disinformation and other journalistic malpractice is significantly more extensive than Xinhua.The two outlets have no formal relation, so Xinhua needs to be looked at independently from RT. — MarkH₂₁ 00:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  They do have a lot of similarities, as sources say. For example, according to US senators , "Similar to Russia’s state-controlled RT and Sputnik news services, the People’s Republic of China controls several media organizations that disseminate news and propaganda domestically and internationally." So, they are placed together. Also, they both appear in the controversies about the "foreign agents" in the USA. Now, according to the letter above, Xinhua is not just a propaganda organization (like RT). “Xinhua serves some functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership…”. See als o here. Yes, that appear to be a difference. In Russia such reports for "the leadership" are compiled by the GRU and SVR (Russia), not by RT. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, and none of these similarities have to do with the reliability of factual reporting published by Xinhua. That can be assessed on its own merit by what RSes say about the accuracy of Xinhua's reporting. — MarkH₂₁ 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think this analogy is precise. Xinhua is China's largest state-owned news agency and is targeted to audiences both within and outside China, which makes it the equivalent of Russia's TASS (RSP entry), currently considered a situational source. The Chinese equivalent to RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry) is China Global Television Network (CGTN), a television network that was modeled after RT and is targeted exclusively to non-Chinese audiences. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree: the analogy with TASS would be more appropriate. It indeed served as a front organization for the KGB, although even TASS did not prepare the intelligence reports for the Soviet leadership. But it does not add any reliability as a source for controversial content. Using TASS or Xinhua for official statements by the government? Even that would be pretty much just a "primary source". One should use other, secondary RS which would place such government statements to proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 It's a reliable source for the views of the Chinese government, but there are better sources for that. Presumably a secondary source will discuss important Chinese political views without us having to determine what is and is not propaganda. The misinformation is disqualifying similar to RT, and anything factual those sources say will be corroborated by a news organization with a better track record. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm against banning major news outlets on principle.ImTheIP (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, even if they technically meet the definition of option 4 and are eligible for deprecation I would oppose deprecation on the grounds that it would leave us with few direct sources for Chinese government opinion. They are the world’s second most powerful country after all, even if they engage in world leading levels of disinformation and generalized information operations. That being said the disinformation published by Xinhua in relation to the coronavirus pandemic has been shocking even by the standards of Chinese information operations and information warfare, the argument for full depreciation is a solid one I just oppose it for the reason stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice) by process of elimination. Xinhua News Agency is the official state-owned news agency in China, and its content is guaranteed to be consistent with the Chinese government's position. If used (whether under WP:ABOUTSELF or on its own merits), content from Xinhua should be attributed in-text. Xinhua is not generally reliable (option 1), because it is a biased or opinionated source that is not editorially independent from the CCP. Among all mainland Chinese state-owned sources, Xinhua is the highest-quality source, which is enough to make me oppose deprecation (option 4). There are other Chinese sources for which deprecation is warranted (e.g. the Global Times), but if I were only able to use one mainland Chinese source to provide coverage of China across Misplaced Pages, it would be Xinhua. It's the gold standard. Compare to Russia's TASS (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  An alternative approach would be to treat Xinhua similarly to Turkey's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry), a state-run news agency that is considered a situational source (option 2) for general topics and a generally unreliable source (option 3) for controversial topics and international politics. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per Wugapodes. If you need to quote the Chinese government's statement, there are better, third-party independent sources for that. OceanHok (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2-3 WP:ABOUTSELF for the PRC. Xinhua is useful for uncontroversial details like who's the Party Secretary of randomProvince, what jobs did they held beforehand and when they were elected to the Central Committee. Some people may see that stuff as trivial, but due to the way the PRC/CCP Nomenklatura functions I think that it provides notable information. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, except where WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - This is the official news agency of the most populous country on earth, and should be treated as major news organizations in the west that are closely aligned with their respective governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Newslinger. Regarding the argument that state media outlets transmit conspiracy theories through insinuations, anyone trying to cite a claim in an article to something as weak as an insinuation should rightly be reverted, regardless of the publication. As long as the disinformation doesn't rise above the level of insinuation (and as long as the publication publishes something other than insinuations), I don't think that we as editors have much to worry about. _signed, Rosguill 16:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: there is quite a lot of opinion here but few examples. Those examples that have been given don’t show unreliable reporting. Regarding the quote "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really.": this describes some of the COVID reporting published by western media outlets that have been trying to assign blame to China. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 1) The AFP cooperation agreement, in force since 1957, speaks volumes. 2) And there is no basis whatsoever to have an assessment vastly different in spirit (e.g. "generally unreliable" or deprecation). 3) Per Rosguill and Burrobert, insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, anyone who suggests otherwise should be regarded as in violation of WP:CIR; to add to Andrew Davidson's point, major U.S. newspapers (WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WSJ) played as propagandists to promote the false notion that Gaddafi was perpetrating large-scale state violence on yet another largely nonviolent "Arab Spring" revolution; as an example, the WaPo has no story on HC 119, which confirmed that the US/UK/France had made a false case to the UNSC for NATO intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  CaradhrasAiguo, I don't know that I'd say that insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, they just aren't the kind of promotion that affects our ability to use the source here because we shouldn't be basing claims on insinuations in any context. _signed, Rosguill 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1-2 depending on the topic. For non-politically-controversial subjects (e.g. China opened _______ new train/subway line/road/some other building), it would be a reliable source. However, for some more controversial issues, it is reliable only for getting the Chinese government's view on the subject, as it is the official view of the Chinese government (e.g. The official Chinese government view on ______ subject, according to Xinhua, is "blah blah blah"). Félix An (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, just like for any other news agency. But this discussion is far too theoretical for my liking. Are we discussing something specific here? Is there a specific factual inaccuracy that we're evaluating? I haven't seen any examples in this thread of actual problems in Xinhua's reporting. I therefore propose that this thread be closed with no result. If someone has a question about a specific Xinhua article, they can bring it here to get input. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, an unreliable source as is typical for a state run outlet from a one party state which is consistently at or near the basement of press freedom rankings. Analogous cases include PressTV (which was deemed unreliable) and Telesur (which was deprecated) so I don't see why this source should be granted an exception. To grant an exception to Xinhua for the simple fact that it's a non-"Western" or non-European/Anglospheric source isn't going to cut the mustard. If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between its political vs non political reporting, then we can split the Xinhua source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. While there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. @Newslinger: and @My very best wishes: The two of you are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I would say (in my lay and non-expert capacity) that the comparison with TASS and I would even go so far as to say RUssia Today is misleading because: 1) Russia is a constitutional democracy and 2) the press freedom situation/ranking in Russia is significantly better than that in the People's Republic of China. At this point I would strongly recommend closing this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting given my comments and the tally of the votes above (11 votes for option 3/4 vs 6 votes for option 1 vs 5 votes for option 2 - I've disregarded option 2/3 votes to prevent bias.) Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Press TV (RSP entry) is a television network solely targeted to non-Iranians, which makes it the Iranian analogue of RT and China Global Television Network, but not TASS or Xinhua, which are news agencies that serve both domestic and international audiences. Telesur (RSP entry) is a single television network with plenty of competitors, whereas Xinhua (as a news agency) is the closest thing China has to an Associated Press or Reuters, complete with a news exchange agreement with Agence France-Presse as others have mentioned. Yes, China scores lowly on the Press Freedom Index, but there is more to a source's reliability than the country that it is based in, and even in countries with low press freedom, some sources are more reliable than others. Finally (and this applies to both comments above), RfC discussions are not solely assessed through vote-counting, and early closures are not performed unless there is overwhelming support for a single option and close to no support for the other options – which is not the case here. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that Xinhua can't be used for "political" topics would be the worst outcome, as it would substantiate editor fears that this discussion is being used to censor Chinese political viewpoints. Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, In some non-political news, this is still relatively reliable. But for news involving politics or controversy, just because it is the official release channel of the Communist Party of China, this means that it will be accompanied by its political needs to meet its interests. This may deviate from the objective facts.——Cwek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, mostly per Cwek. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 01:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Xinhua is not just state owned, it is an integral part of the Chinese Communist Party. All information coming from Xinhua should be indicated in the text, not footnotes, of articles. It is a task for someone who actually knows something about China to figure out what is true and false, slanted or straight in a Xinhua article. It is not 4, which I would reserve for unprofessional, low grade conspiracist drivel. It is a professional propaganda unit of the world's largest Communist Party. It has many professional journalists, but its goals are set by the party, its writing is supervised and monitored by the party. Writing which is in any way inconsistent with party policy appears there only by accident, and will be punished. Accuracy is NOT its primary concern, except insofar as it serves the party's purposes. It can and often should be cited in China-related articles, but with clear indication of where the information came from. It should never be used for general information outside China! Why should it be when there are so many accurate and timely sources of information that are not part of the CCP? As for general information inside China, always check whether there are non-Xinhua sources available first. It should never be a default choice and special care in attribution should always be used. Rgr09 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, most of their news reports are reliable. Their political comments may be controversial in neutrality. --Steven Sun (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: So just to be clear. Are you saying we should split the evaluation of this source into its reporting on political vs non-political issues (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics? Because it seems like that's what you are saying. I am asking because of how similar your position is to mine, which is to close this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting Festerhauer (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't split the discussion as we don't have an agreed-upon boundary yet. We do want to think carefully about how we delineate the topics for which Xinhua is considered unreliable, as POV pushers (in either direction) will wikilawyer every single word of the RSP entry to get it to say what they want it to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, a good source.--RuiyuShen 03:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1I think Xinhua News Agency is reliable. If you say it is non-neutral, then Fox News, CNN, Voice of America and other media also have non-neutral phenomena. For example, Fox News exaggerates Mr. Trump’s political achievements and CNN has fake news. Voice of America is not neutral in some matters, and my English is not very good, so use Google Translate, please understand!Jerry (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — 城市酸儒文人挖坑 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 1-2: Most of the time, Xinhua Net is a good source for Chinese news, even it is the best one in all nationwide news agency of China.--Xiliuheshui · chat 04:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I know it is serious and accurate when reporting the facts, and more neutral than RFI, VOA (especially when reporting China). Compared with NYT, BBC, it has less doubts, assumptions and implies which is trying to lead to conspiracys in its reports. Maybe you dont agree with its ideas for it has a Chinese offcial background, but it doesnt mean it is unaccurate when reporting the facts. --“ ROYAL PATROL ” 04:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 when the reports are not about China's politics. KONNO Yumeto 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Xinhua is a reliable source with special considerations. This is pretty clear cut to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time citing their articles: they are more reliable than many national and international news providers, except on certain topics where there is an incentive to propagandize — and likewise for SCMP. Prohibiting either of these two would have completely unnecessary and wide-reaching consequences across the project, and I would strongly oppose a blanket restriction even on politics because there are dry, non-controversial political stories where they are literally the most reliable source tangible.   — C M B J   04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - A lot of political decision/policy from China Mainland government and China Mainland NPC are published via Xinhua News Agency as official policy release channel, thus needed to be Option 1. For non-politically news, Xinhua News Agency is fairly reliable. For political decision articles that is not marked as "Official Release", they can be in the scope of option 2. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for controversial topics and international politics and Option 2 (situational source) for general topics. Per Newslinger () Flickotown (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, mostly per Newslinger. It is a state propaganda source, so must be used with caution and attribution except the most basic information, such as the dates of Xi's trips (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Xinhua is owned by the government of P.R. China and hence they are, or could be, biased when reporting around topics like China's international policy and so on. When reporting most of China's internal news, they are still pretty reliable. Itcfangye (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — Itcfangye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 2/3, it is a state propaganda source which should be used with great care.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Xinhua News Agency can be regarded as a relatively reliable media in China, and it is actually relatively neutral except for political reports. --⌬Yxh1433 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2-4 depending on subject. Like RT is a state propaganda mouthpiece. For boring insider baseball it is probably fine. The more the CCP dislikes something or needs spin, the less likely it is to be reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 depending on topic. I came here wanting to argue 2/3 but was convinced by the arguments that (a) RT is in category 4 and (b) actually I have never written about any topic for which Xinhua was a reliable source I depended on - for topics about Mainland Chinese culture and events there are more specialist sources; for anything vaguely political they're firmly in category 3+. Deryck C. 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. As an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, use should be attributed by default, which is how their reporting is generally handled in reliable sources I've seen. Reporters Without Borders calls it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" and "at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party". Some straight news and the fact that independent original reporting from China is hard or impossible to come by for certain topics doesn't make it reliable. I think this is most important when considering due weight – if other sources don't cover something they've said, we shouldn't either, and if they do, we should be able to cite those sources instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for most cases, while Option 4 for global news/politics of regional/global concern . It should be generally reliable in local (China) news, but when it comes to global or regional news, like that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even that in Xinjiang, it becomes a propaganda service rather than a global news service. I can't agree with what most Chinese editors think of putting it a direct option 1 because it is the official mouthpiece of China. Being a mouthpiece means some reliable sources for news related to the location, but at the same time, can raise doubt of neutrality and factuality if the thing that they report is of global concern that doesn't align with the country's values.--1233 ( T / C） 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is state-run media, how about Yonhap, Tanjug, Anadolu Agency? If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is communist country media, how about VNA, KPL, Prensa Latina? As for Covid-19's source, Xinhua is just quoting rumors on social medias, just like some media (including US-based) said Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology. I think Xinhua is generally reliable as a news broadcaster, though its political words and opinions are left-wing. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of those would indeed also be unreliable. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe of all the sources you just named Yonhap is the only one we hold to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So what about Antara, MTI, CNA, they are all generally unreliable as state-run media? 隐世高人 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Antara is complicated and has changed massively over the last three decades. I’ve discussed MTI before and its a middling source but their issues seem to be with selective coverage and boosting of the governing political party there not disinformation. By CNA do you mean Taiwan’s or North Korea’s? I wouldn’t consider either to be of top quality but Taiwan’s CNA would be a solid 2. State media as a category is not inherently reliable or unreliable, its a very diverse group of sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh jeez pete Singapore’s is CNA too isn't it? I would say they’re also a two, they generally produce higher quality journalism than Taiwan’s CNA but Singapore’s press environment and freedoms are inferior to Taiwan’s. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

When you ignoring Xinhua's left-wing words and opinions which makes it nonneutrality, Xinhua would be generally reliable. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - we should exercise caution regarding all news sources, particularly state-owned sources when it's political, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSBREAKING while keeping in mind that the paradigm shift from print publication to digital online has made once trusted news sources dependent on clickbait revenue and sensational headlines in a highly competitive cyber environment. Also to consider are the nuanced changes in journalism today which is an opaque blending of opinion journalism and factual information in the same article (see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2020-05-31/Op-Ed for links) which creates media spin and makes it difficult for the average reader to distinguish between the two. _Talk 📧 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Pretty obvious. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• 'Option 2' It depends on thetopic. For topics of current controversy where the Chinese government had a particular contested opinion, then Option 3. For routine news,Option 1. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 mostly per Hemiauchenia. It is a government news outlet, and in China there is no practical difference between the party and the state. However, Xinhua's articles skew straight reportage rather than publications outright designed to be party propaganda like People's Daily or Global Times. I would trust Xinhua for e.g. statistics of airports in China. feminist (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I find Hemiauchenia's opinion reasonable. wikitigresito (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - Per Newslinger, because it makes sense to still have a Chinese source for inside China stories. Albertkaloo (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Xinhua's reporting in many underdeveloped news markets is sometimes the only source available online, owing to their global footprint. I don't see any case made for why all of Xinhua's reporting should be presumed bad.

Just FYI Ad Fontes Media and their media bias fact check are not reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ad Fontes Media. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) and Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry) are separate entitites fyi, though they are often mentioned together. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, I’m confusing AFM’s Media Bias Chart with Media Bias Fact Check (shame on me but those are awfully similar). I don’t believe that either is reliable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Object to form of RfC - based on the lack of a succinct question. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The RfC statement meets WP:RFCBRIEF and this RfC format has been recommended since Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6 § RfC: Header text. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 - I am fimiliar with their work, especially in the field of foreign policy when I was researching the Syrian Civil War. Their publications on the topic tended to be accurate, well-informed and corroborated by other news outlets. Furthermore, as another editor noted, they have a cooperation agreement with AFP, which is considered a very trustworthy reputable news agency. Xinhua is state-run media, which could mean editorial viewpoints in line with those of their respective government, but most of their work lacks any serious issues. As long as their reports continue to be accurate, I do not believe that their state-run status ought to be cause enough for a deprecation. For these reasons, I opine that they ought to remain an acceptible source, though may require attribution in cases in which their status as a state-run outlet could be problematic. Goodposts (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-3: Xinhua News Agency is a big news agency, and its reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. Xinhua inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think Xinhua should be split into multiple entries in the Perennial sources list when it gets added there:

Option 1 for all African and Central/South American and uncontroversial Chinese topics per MarioGom and King of Hearts. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (and to a lesser extent Central/South America); in these regions, Xinhua has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. Specifically, I should note that English-language reporting in Africa is relatively scarce and Xinhua does help to somewhat plug this void of African-based reporting. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, there will definitely be a pro-China bias, but I don't know if this bias affects their reliability for such cases so Option 2).

Option 2 for all other general topics per Newslinger and Hemiauchenia not covered above or below. From here on citing Xinhua should preferably (but not mandatory) be used together with in-text attribution. Topics that fall into this category include some European topics (i.e Eastern Europe), Oceania topics, South-east Asian topics (except South China Sea), South Asian topics (except the China-India border), the Middle East, etc. For such topics, Xinhua is generally useable, but if other sources are available, cite those sources in addition to the Xinhua article being cited.

Option 3 for all topics where China is involved / has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and some European topics (i.e Western Europe), the politics of East Asia, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. For such topics, Xinhua can be used for the viewpoints of the Chinese government; outside of that, other sources should be used instead. Citing Xinhua for these topics should use in-text attribution.

Per Newslinger, I don't think Xinhua should be deprecated given that it is the "gold standard" of Chinese reporting. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to clarify what you mean by "where China is involved". As I explained in my !vote above, I consider Xinhua most reliable for Chinese inside baseball and routine reporting of uncontroversial events that don't rise to international prominence (where Chinese sources are often the only ones available). And since China is one of the biggest investors in Africa, I'm sure the CCP has certain politicians it favors, so I'm not sure it is that great for covering African politics. If Xinhua reports on any international news that isn't covered in other media, that's very suspicious. So for me Xinhua is primarily a source for Chinese domestic matters which are not highly political in nature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: With regards to uncontroversial events inside China, I agree with you, so I've amended my !vote accordingly. Xinhua is a good source for non-political matters within China and should be treated as generally reliable for such topics. As for African politics, examples like | this, | this and | this show that Xinhua is relatively unbiased so long as the Chinese government does not have a conflict of interest. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I guess for any international news reported by Xinhua it's always going to be on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is generally reliable when the reports are not about politics.--BlackShadowG（talk） 09:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. Might occasionally be useful for documenting government statements. Jayjg 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. As Thucydides411 noted: If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). I also agree with Darouet re Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. A biased implementation of policy that ranks Western-aligned media that walk in foreign-policy lockstep as somehow more 'independent' and 'reliable' than non-Western-aligned media does our readers a disservice. Humanengr (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1'. No evidence has been presented of poor journalism, just criticism of the state. If being in step with the CCP makes them unreliable then surely all of Murdoch's papers are unreliable, he once ordered his editors to "Kill Whitlam" our democratically elected Prime Minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis which lead to the un-elected opposition taking power. We still consider his rags reliable, and many of them are despite their notoriously partisan owner. Do we have evidence of Xinhua publishing falsehoods? I've seen none. This debate is mostly just pro-china vs anti-china opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 I'm no fan of the CCP by any means, and I find quite a few false equivalences between this and various Western media among the Option 1-ers, but per KofH and Horse Eye Jack I find that this is an at least tolerable Chinese source (esp. compared with stuff like China Daily) so outright deprecation would give us a systemic bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2. When the reports aren't about politics, it's reliable, as China's national news agency. When talking about politics, you should check their reliability separately, not deprecate. --Rowingbohe♬(Talk/zhwiki) 02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is definitely not reliable for any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim made or any claims where the Chinese government is known to lie (COVID-19, Uyghurs, Hong Kong etc). But it can be a valuable source for non-controversial news in China as well as the views of the Chinese government. Like it or not, that government runs the largest country on earth.VR _talk 05:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I explain my rationale in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Xinhua)

Pinging participants of the last discussion @SwissArmyGuy:, @Newslinger:, @MarioGom:, @Horse Eye Jack:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If there is consensus that Xinhua is generally unreliable, we would need to re-evaluate the reliability of the Global Times (RSP entry), a Breitbart-like tabloid (except state-owned and pro-CCP) that could not possibly be more reliable than Xinhua. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely. If Xinhua is deprecated then almost every single news outlet in mainland China would have to be deprecated. Xinhua is the only publication in mainland China with a news exchange agreement with AFP, for instance. — MarkH₂₁ 04:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua. The other government sources are worse and the “independent” sources don’t exist for our purposes as they only re-write and republish content from the government sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Every news source should be evaluated on its own merits. Blanket banning of sources from entire countries is a very bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a blanket ban if theres an exception. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that your proposal would mean banning Caixin, which as far as I can tell, does excellent reporting. During the outbreak in Wuhan, for example, it published articles that revealed a lot of previously unknown information about the initial phases of the outbreak and the initial government response. These articles were fairly critical of the government. This is just to illustrate that a blanket ban on an entire country's news sources is misguided. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal investigative reporting does not exist in China in a way which would be recognized in the west, what does occur is illegal. Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider. See media in China for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think to add to Horse Eye's statement is I believe exposing stuff on local governments is allowed by the CCP in China but not on the CCP leadership and nor the central government. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats very true, within China the media plays an important role in exposing and/or scapegoating local and regional officials for major problems/corruption to deflect from or obfuscate the failings of higher officials or the CCP. Its much more a kangaroo court of public opinion than what we would recognize as genuine muckraking though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan, contrary to your blanket statement. More generally, their articles appear to be mostly original content - not reprinted from government media. We should evaluate every news source on its own merits. Deprecating every news source from China, without looking at them one-by-one, would be wrong-headed. You appear to have some very strong preconceptions about Chinese news sources, but the statements you're making about Caixin are just factually incorrect. Political dislike of China by some editors should not trump WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: If Caixin's reporting was focused on the wrongdoing of the Wuhan municipal government I could see the CCP let them do that, but one would not expect Caixin to do "independent investigative reporting" on the CCP highest leadership. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan” source? That would mean they broke Chinese law btw, there is no dispute here that independent journalism as we would recognize it in the free world is illegal in China. China is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to press freedom, they make the Russians look good in comparison. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Caixin does good investigative reporting, as proven by their coverage on Wuhan (), but because you assert that their reporting is actually illegal in China, you want to ban their use on Misplaced Pages. Where's the logic in that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed the part about investigative reporting, is there a specific quote you have in mind? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Caixin article I linked? It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known, before the article was published (29 February 2020). Caixin learned this information by talking to people directly on the ground - for example, at labs that had tested samples. This is the sort of high-quality reporting that you're saying should be barred from use on Misplaced Pages, simply because it comes from China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read the article, however if I want to read it again I must subscribe. Thats why I’m asking for specific quotes. I also noticed you havent responded to the much meatier comment below. Are all those WP:RS lying? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The whole article is here at archive.is. I'll see if I can get one on Megalodon. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m not seeing a level of information here that would allow us to discern whether or not "It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known.” We need a third party to deliver that analysis. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Every statement in the article that begins with something along the lines of, "Caixin has learned that ..." is based on Caixin's original reporting. There are many such statements throughout the article. For example, almost all the details about how the first patients were discovered to have a novel coronavirus was uncovered by Caixin, by talking with its sources (including people at the testing labs). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that? I also wonder how you can argue that their board is independent given their Chairman’s affiliation, you do know who he answers to right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is almost no media freedom or editorial independence in China, per the BBC "Most Chinese news sites are prohibited from gathering or reporting on political or social issues themselves, and are instead meant to rely on reports published by official media, such as state news agency Xinhua.” and media outlets are shut down for doing independent reporting. Most indipendent media outlets have been forced to shut their doors and the few that remain publish under heavy state supervision and control. Xi Jinping has stated that Chinese state media are “publicity fronts” for the CCP/government and that “All news media run by the Party must work to speak for the Party’s will and its propositions and protect the Party’s authority and unity,” (Xinhua translation) Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: how we have not deprecated Global Times is beyond me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Then start a vote for it. No sarc when I say this, but it should be a guaranteed deprecation given the reputation of that publication/Communist Party rag Festerhauer (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time it was up for discussion Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times I made my views clear, it wasn’t a RfC so a formal deprecation wasn’t on the table. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Err...so do you want to start an RFC on it or do you want me to? It's better if you did as I'm not familiar with the procedures of rsn. And while we are at it maybe open an RFC on CGTN as well? I mean we might as well given what we have discussed here...Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe in starting RfCs from whole cloth, I prefer it to be a specific incident which is escalated here. We don’t want to clutter the space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Festerhauer See Global Times RfC below. It is used in more than a thousand articles, so better deprecate sooner rather than later, imo. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

buidhe we might as well do CGTN too as its between Xinhua and Global Times in reliability, that would be our direct analogue to RT. They also publish straight up disinformation like this gem: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest you do as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.” TBH this one video is probably grounds for deprecation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the votes in the TASS discussion were for option 3, yet it wasn't found to be generally unreliable. I think DannyS712 did an excellent job closing that discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between Xinhua's political vs non political reporting, then we can split the source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. The thread above shows that while there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We are only two days into this RfC, and RfCs on this noticeboard are open until there are no new comments in five days, with a minimum duration of seven days. An uninvolved closer will assess the consensus here. It is premature to make such an assessment when the discussion is still highly active. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Well I would have to respectfully disagree with what you've said. Based on what's written above I just don't see my assessment as being premature. There is near universal consensus that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics and that needs to be reflected in the final consensus; you don't need to look any further than all the comments that have been made after our above exchange (Cwek, Eric Liu, Rgr09 and Steven Sun). Their voting options may be different but they all agree on one thing: that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics. You are right when you say that the discussion is highly active but tahat doesn't mean we can't draw stable conclusions in the interim. And you are also right when you say that we ourselves will not be determining the consensus, but of course our contributions are still important as they help determine the consensus. Could you comment on my point above to split Xinhua's source between its political vs non political reporting (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics accordingly? Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Sixth Tone (RSP entry) split would also be appropriate for Xinhua, and I had made a note under my original comment in the survey section referencing Turkey's Anadolu Agency (which is treated similarly) after you submitted your previous comment. Yes, many editors who have already participated in the discussion agree that Xinhua is less reliable for politics, but there are still at least five more days in this centralized RfC, and the consensus could very well shift in either direction. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please participate in this discussion regarding the interpretation of WP:Biased. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just to mention that someone placed a link to this page on Chinese wiki's village pump, with an inaccurate claim that "enwp proposes to list Xinhua New Agency as an unreliable or deprecated source" (while this is actually an discussion on reliability-related issues), before the surges of editors with little experience here. --Antigng (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Antigng: Except that is exactly what Adoring nanny is setting out to do, considering this previous post of theirs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually quite impressed that nobody has yet been able to show an example of Xinhua's reporting being factually inaccurate. I came into this assuming that there very well could be problems with Xinhua's accuracy. But all of the criticism has been entirely theoretical - that Xinhua must be unreliable, because of its connection to the Chinese government. But the inability of Xinhua's detractors here to actually present real examples in which Xinhua's reporting has been unreliable has convinced me that the news agency is probably generally reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: With reference to our article Xinhua News Agency, it was easy to find:

• Dodds, Laurence (2020-04-05). "China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda ads blaming Trump". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on April 6, 2020. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
• Zhong, Raymond; Krolik, Aaron; Mozur, Paul; Bergman, Ronen; Wong, Edward (2020-06-08). "Behind China's Twitter Campaign, a Murky Supporting Chorus". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
• Kan, Michael (August 19, 2019). "Twitter Bans State-Sponsored Media Ads Over Hong Kong Propaganda". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Doffman, Zak (August 19, 2019). "China Pays Twitter To Promote Propaganda Attacks On Hong Kong Protesters". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
• Lakshmanan, Ravie (2019-08-19). "China is paying Twitter to publish propaganda against Hong Kong protesters". The Next Web. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.

Doubtless older resources could be found for less topical matters. GPinkerton (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You posted a bunch of links about China. Do you have anything about Xinhua? I'm asking for actual examples that demonstrate Xinhua's supposed unreliability, not a litany of complaints about the PRC in general. If there are real concerns behind this attempt to deprecate Xinhua, other than general dislike of China, then there should be some specific examples you can give in which Xinhua's reporting is unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: All the articles I listed detail Xinhua, the agency which has been spreading and amplifying misinformation it wrote for the purpose at the behest of its superiors. The headlines mention China, the actual articles describe Xinhua malfeasance in China's service. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your links show neither "malfeasance" nor "misinformation" by Xinhua. The first link only mentions Xinhua once, and doesn't actually point out any instance of inaccuracy or misinformation in Xinhua's reporting. The second article, from the New York Times, only mentions Xinhua to link to a humorous video they posted on Twitter. I don't think anyone is proposing treating tweets as news articles. I'm sorry, but at this point, you either show actual examples of misinformation printed by Xinhua, or you admit that you can't find any. Decisions on WP:RS have to be based on real facts, not on political dislike of one or another country. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried taking a peak in the local references section? It doesnt appear you have, why go nuclear on GPinkerton when you havent done your due diligence? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda by Xinhua, among other state-sponsored channels Chinese and no, is analysed here:

• Ma, Cindy. "Coronavirus Coverage by State-Backed English-Language News Sources". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
• Ma, Cindy. "Covid-19 News and Information from State-Backed Outlets Targeting French, German and Spanish-Speaking Social Media Users". The Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved 2020-08-06.

by the Oxford Internet Institute. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I opened the PC Magazine link, and it is a typically incoherent mess and hack job, stating on the one hand In response, Twitter told PCMag it removed the ad cited by Pinboard for violating its ad policies on inappropriate content, which bans advertisements that can be considered inflammatory, provocative, or as political campaigning. Twitter also appears to have removed many other ads Xinhua was promoting concerning the Hong Kong protests., while, in the next paragraph, It isn't the first time a state-run news agency has been accused of spreading misinformation via Twitter ads. Well, which is it? Inflammatory / provocative / political campaigning, or outright "misinformation", for which they provided no evidence of Xinhua itself (and not random accounts) engaging in? Inclusion of tangential links, as Thucydides mentioned, to bait discussion elsewhere is not a sign of good-faith discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

All you have is somebody else has said this, it is really not that helpful. Do you have the link to an actual article that is in the Xinhua news network's domain that is not reliable? VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean stuff like this is clearly lie by omission. Like TASS, it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interview with a Chinese government official, in which all views are properly attributed to that official - just as we expect reliable sources to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics". Here is the problem: with sources like that you never know if this is really a personal opinion by a state official or a scripted disinformation he was asked to promote, and you do not know if this is something really "non-contentious" or this is a "kernel of disinformation" about something you know little about. such tactics are generally well known . My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Like this kernel of disinformation put out by gov't official, broadcast by Xinhua: . Or: this bland propagandizing or this. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As Comrade J said, 98% of information would be accurate. Only 2% would be the "kernel of disinformation". But you never know which 2%. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

1. It's perfectly legitimate to report what Chinese officials say. 2. Nothing in that first link is "disinformation." It's a short statement by a government official complaining about anti-Chinese sentiment in the US. You appear to be upset about the idea that a news outlet might actually report on the views of Chinese officials. This is a global encyclopedia, and reporting on the views of Chinese officials is just as important as reporting on the views of American officials here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• A concrete lie by Xinhua I've seen repeated statements in the RfC that Xinhua doesn't lie, they are just selective. I'd like to point to a counterexample. In this article, Kaiser Abdukerim is described as an "expert." The remainder of the article consists mainly of quotes from Kaiser. The choice of word "expert" is therefore crucial in framing how the reader understands the article. And Xinhua introduced that word. The article then goes on to describe his reaction to various "statistics" about death rates, poverty rates, the "happiness index", and so in in Xinjiang. These "statistics" all claim to show dramatic improvements. But the Xinjiang re-education camps hold a large number of people who are utterly destitute, die with considerable regularity, and are surely unhappy. A true expert would notice that the "statistics" could not possibly be correct. For example, it is not plausible that there is a death rate of only 4.26 per thousand in a region where a significant portion of the population is held in such camps. Therefore, Xinhua should not have used the term "expert" to describe Kaiser Abdukerim. But it's actually worse than that. A quick control-F shows that they use the word four times -- once in the headline, and three times in the body. So they are hammering the usage home. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: Re: the CNN link, using one verified death (of the infant Mohaned) and a former detainee's spurious claim of deaths of fellow detainees is hardly solid evidence, and your die with considerable regularity extrapolation is thus WP:SOAP-violating nonsense. There are numerous examples of former detainees fabricating stories of physical abuse; e.g. that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per CNN: But Tursun's story of detention and torture -- which she also delivered in full to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 2018 -- fits a growing pattern of evidence emerging about the systematic repression of religious and ethnic minority groups carried out by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Those are CNN's words, not mine. Based on what do you conclude that her account is "spurious"? See also . Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your initial strongest claim above was large number of people who...die with considerable regularity. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I am not going to allow a shifting the goalposts. And as with the Nayirah testimony, yes, people do perjure themselves in human rights testimony to U.S. congressional institutions. And please stop the WP:SHOUTING. There are templates such as {{tq}} which can allow for emphasis in quoting.
• Just for the record, I don't contest the "destitute" part for many detainees who feel utter emptiness in the facilities. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Toned down the bolding. You are arguing that nine deaths in a single cell does not support "considerable regularity"? What about this? I am still interested in your assertion that the nine deaths statement is "spurious". Based on what? Does evidence that one person lied support an assertion that a different person lied? Or do you have something more? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You're citing "Radio Free Asia," a US-government-funded outlet established explicitly in order to oppose the Chinese government. Even if we believe the article, it claims that 150 people died, which would not have much of an effect on overall mortality in the region (Xinjiang has a population of over 20 million). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Adding why there are so much Chinese users flocking to this place: someone posted in the Chinese Misplaced Pages that enwp tried to label Xinhua as unreliable when this is clearly a RfC. Then, these people who basically ruined the Chinese Misplaced Pages's discussion atmosphere of sensitive topics, flocked here to defend the news agency. They are mostly Chinese and seems to be linked to a working group (which called themselves a User Group) Wikimedians of Mainland China. BTW, this vote sea have been seen in the Chinese Misplaced Pages at admin votes and some other issues, but it is really another story. Back to this story: there should really be a separation of columns and news articles of Xinhua, where can be seen below:

--1233 ( T / C） 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Note to closer: people living in mainland china who don't want to be blacklisted, arrested, or otherwise punished, may not feel free to write something bad about CCP organizations such as Xinhua. People living in China are subject to punishments up to and including disappearance for expressing the "wrong" opinions. See also . Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Its actually a bit more pervasive than that... Its any Chinese citizen anywhere in the world, there is a portal maintained by the Chinese Communist Party's Cyberspace Administration which allows users overseas to report Chinese citizens committing political crimes (they can even report them by just their username and the CCP will investigate who is actually behind that account). In July they handles 95,000 reports and thats just for political crimes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: It looks like you're telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Have I misunderstood you here? @Horse Eye Jack: Do you agree with Adoring nanny's suggestion? This is really beyond the pale, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your assertion of what Adoring nanny’s comment does, advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern is not the same as telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Do you disagree with the characterization of the nature of political crimes in China or the Cyberspace Administration's online portal? I doubt the Sydney Morning Herald is making that up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the practical distinction between "advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern" about Chinese editors and "discount the views of Chinese editors." Anyone can see what Adoring nanny is asking the closer to do - to treat the Chinese editors as if their votes are based on fear of their government, and therefore to ignore them. I don't see any other plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Failure to WP:AGF would be unwise, I’ve already given you another plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. That you don’t see a distinction between them is your opinion, I see a very large distinction and you need to respect that. Also consensus isn't about votes, wikipedia (like China) isn't a democracy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spell out the distinction: how should the closer take this legal concern into account? If the implication isn't that the closer should discount the opinions of Chinese editors, then what is it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about that issue that needs to be had. But on this RfC, it's a distraction, so I've struck much of my comment. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The USA runs Guantanimo Bay, can you tell me how many people went through that camp, what their names were and what crimes they had been accused of, what they were eventually charged with, how much time they served? We will never know how many have been disappeared after being subjected to "extraordinary rendition", the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another with the purpose of circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and torture (A crime against humanity in international law). The USA has been disappearing people with collusion from British and Polish security agencies since the 90's and they continue till this day. Do we suggest US media sources are unreliable based on these well known facts? Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me that Xinhua's reporting fits the description of WP:QUESTIONABLE, so should be considered generally unreliable and fall into option 3. Consider "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight": here is a Xinhua article that states, without qualification, in the headline, lead and article body that 'over 470,000 people gathered on Saturday in a rally held at Tamar Park'. A factual source would at the very least attribute this number to the rally organisers, and to be accurate and reliable would also say that the police estimate of turnout was 108,000 (contrast an accurate report of the same rally).

I've seen three main lines of reasoning for treating Xinhua as option 2. Firstly, per @Hemiauchenia:, that there's no strong evidence that Xinhua sometimes acts as propaganda à la RT. I point back to the linked article above. Considering the topic is a pro-police rally in Hong Kong, sentences such as 'people from all walks of life take part in a rally to voice their opposition to violence and call for restoring social order, expressing the people's common will to protect and save the city', and phrases such as protestors 'say "no" to violence', are clear, blatant propaganda. As Xinhua is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the CCP, it's fair to presume that the article is intended to mislead readers about the scale of pro-police protests, amount of popular support for pro-democracy protests and promote an image of pro-democracy protestors as only seeking violence. ReconditeRodent linked a report that confirms how the CCP controls/influences Xinhua's output.

The second argument is one that @MarkH21: and @Newslinger: make, that Xinhua isn't fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting, but simply skews, manipulates or otherwise misrepresents facts. Essentially, because it's a news agency it's the 'gold standard' for factual reports within China. However, as Horse Eye Jack has rightly pointed out, the sad truth is that there is very limited media freedom in the PRC and therefore can be no factually reliable large-scale WP:NEWSORGs, Xinhua is no exception. Returning to the above article, it's obviously unrealistically generous to account for its inaccuracy as a gross failure of fact-checking. For this reason, I think it's worth looking back at WP:QUESTIONABLE, which also says "beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking that this guideline requires" per the 2017 Daily Mail RfC. There seems to be a presumption that Xinhua, because it has less commentary and analysis, is factually accurate. How can there be evidence for this, even on non-sensitive issues, if it has no independent editorial oversight or reputation for trustworthy fact-checking?

The final argument, made by @Darouet: and Mark H21, is that Xinhua is a reliable source for illustrating the Chinese government's position. On this point I agree with Wug·a·po·des - the political concerns of the Chinese government will be analysed and discussed by political science journals, current affairs magazines and well-respected research groups such as Brookings or Chatham House in a much more reliable, neutral and rigorous way (and without having disinformation mixed in), while factual claims by Xinhua can be confirmed by more reliable news or statistics sources. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References (Xinhua)

References

1. ^ "Xinhua: the world's biggest propaganda agency". Reporters Without Borders.
2. ^ "China shuts several online news sites for independent reporting". www.bbc.com. BBC. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
3. "China biggest jailer of journalists, as press dangers persist: watchdog". www.france24.com. France 24. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
4. Toor, Amar. "China cracks down on major news websites for original reporting". www.theverge.com. The Verge. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
5. Yang, William. "How China's new media offensive threatens democracy worldwide". www.dw.com. DW. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
6. "China, Turkey jail more journalists than any other country: report". www.dw.com. DW. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
7. Cook, Sarah. "The Decline of Independent Journalism in China". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
8. Gan, Nectar. "China shuts down American-listed news site Phoenix New Media over 'illegal' coverage". www.scmp.com. South China Morning Post. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
9. C. Hernández, Javier. "'We're Almost Extinct': China's Investigative Journalists Are Silenced Under Xi". www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
10. Moser, David (2019). Press Freedom in Contemporary Asia. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. Chapter 5. ISBN 0429013035.
11. Tiezzi, Shannon. "Xi Wants Chinese Media to Be 'Publicity Fronts' for the CCP". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
12. Bagshaw, Eryk; Hunter, Fergus. "China 'exporting CCP speech controls to Australia' as second university caught in row". www.smh.com.au. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 8 August 2020.

PETA

At User talk:Normal Op#PETA (permalink here), I stated the following to Normal Op: "Regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under 'questionable sources', WP:About self applies."

And, well, you can see Normal Op's reply. In response, I stated, "This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to."

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• If it's not covered by a third party source, it's not WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The policies/guidelines in play are WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:CHALLENGE. Yesterday, I laid out my case in detail for exactly this sort of edit (though using a non-PETA advocacy group as an example) at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Activist editors ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE. — Normal Op (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, a salient point: don't make decisions about sources on Misplaced Pages based on MBFC, which we don't consider a reliable source. Including it in Cite Unseen seems questionable if the goal is as a guide to what Misplaced Pages considers reliable. That said, mention of a non-notable award (any non-notable award) and citing only the issuing organization is going to be WP:UNDUE. There is no reliability issue, though, as PETA is a perfectly fine source for who it gave its own award to. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed... the problem ISN’T reliability (an organization is reliable for saying that it gave an award to person X, per ABOUTSELF)... the problem is DUE WEIGHT (why should we mention that the organization gave the award to person X). Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my concern was the editor removing the source with an "unreliable" rationale when the source was being used to report on PETA's own activities. As for mentioning that certain celebrities have appeared in PETA's PSAs, have been given PETA awards, or whatever else? PETA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and gets plenty of media attention, such as its "Sexiest Vegan" list, as reported on by Elle. So, yeah, if a reliable media source reports on something going on with them, it may be worth mentioning per WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The ASPCA is the most well-known American animal rights organization and if PETA gets plenty of attention then there is no need to use the unreliable PETA for anything at all as anything relevant will be covered by WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we'd need to compare sources on which organization is the most well-known. But as for "unreliable"? Like others stated above, its reliability isn't the issue regarding these cases. It's reliable for its own activities as long as it's not making a statement that would require a secondary source for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

”Its own activities” is a near universal category... Do you mean they would be reliable for their own non-controversial activities such as awards and whatnot? For instance if they call the conviction of one of their activists a “miscarriage of justice” would we then state in wikipedia’s voice that it was so? Surely thats not what you are suggesting. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going by what WP:About self states. Simple. Rhododendrites and Blueboar are clear above. And so is WP:About self. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To give a more practical example that I could see with PETA, let's say the NYtimes mentions a celeb did a visually-interesting promo for PETA, and PETA has a blog statement that gets into details about the shoot with the celeb, some that would be worthwhile encyclopedic info in talking about the shoot in the celebrities page that the NYTimes mention didn't discuss. The fact the NYTimes mentioned the celeb's shoot with PETA would be the needed allowance to use PETA's blog to talk about its own shoot with the celeb for the facts of that shoot and nothing more. If no source otherwise mentioned the shoot, then we'd not be able to use PETA's blog here for lack of weight. (obviously how much of that blog to use in light of the NYTimes would still be tempered, shouldn't be paragraphs-long inclusion). --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements. We should be clear on that. We should also be clear that in articles other than PETA, it should generally not be used, per WP:UNDUE. The comparison with the ASPCA is a valid one. If the ASPCA publishes an article with statistics on, say, prevalence of abandonment of pet alligators, or cases of dogs dyiong ion hot cars, that is probably acceptable, because the ASPCA, while it certianly has activist tendencies, is not in the end an activist organisation, its main activity is animal welfare, whereas PETA is about animal rights. But this isn't really about PETA, it's more about awards and accolades, which is a broader problem. Most "awards" handed out by groups, especially activist groups, are awarded in order to promote the group rather than to recognise some worthy individual. It's a form of the association fallacy: by associating PETA with Justin Bieber, thus parity is asserted between the two. Perhaps we are supposed to think that PETA is popular with pre-teen girls or something, I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, association fallacy is the reason why celebrity branding is so effective in advertising. Good catch, Guy. Normal Op (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • * There are 400 articles in Misplaced Pages that use citations or links to website peta.org. Most of them are celebrity articles. Check just a few and you will see how the celebrity branding is being used by PETA to advertise and legitimize their message. There are hundreds more than 400 if you count the other domains petaindia.com (35), peta2.com (115), petaasiapacific.com (17), peta.org.uk (46), peta.de (18, English), peta.de (138, German), petafrance.com (25, French), peta.nl (1, English), peta.nl (3, Dutch), peta.org.au (6), petaasia.com (7), petaasia.cn (3, Chinese), petalatino.com (6, English), petalatino.com (6, Spanish), and there are others. Normal Op (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

      Ouch! I would just get rid of any use of PETA on a celebrity wikipage for WP:DUE, WP:NOTADVOCACY reasons. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on it, but then I get blowback, like this RSN. But it's all good, because that puts it in the open and gets other wiki-pinions. Maybe this thread can forestall the other 400 edit wars others will start as I begin to strip those 400 citations. Come join the project? Normal Op (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy says, "PETA is obviously not reliable for anything other than its own statements." And yet I see that Normal Op removed PETA as a source for its own statements and positions at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in July and is now back at it. Purging going on. I'm not stating that one should not ideally rely on secondary sources, though. No article about an organization should be mostly built on sources by that organization.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also applies in this case. Using PETA for things that are vegetarian/vegan in the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, for example, is fine.

As for supposed blowback, I was very clear about why I brought this matter here. And others have agreed with me about reliability and a source being used for its own activities...but not using the source for things that would require a secondary citation for corroboration. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that reliability isn’t the only policy in play here. It does not matter whether PETA is reliable as a source for a statement about its own activity if some other policy indicates that we should not mention that activity. It’s a moot question. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:About self has already been cited more than once in this discussion. If WP:About self, WP:Due weight and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are followed, there should be no problem. Reliability isn't the only guideline in play here, but it is one of them the rules in play. If we are going to deem PETA unreliable for anything but its own activities and statements, as long as those statements don't run afoul WP:About self, we might as well go ahead do that. Turn this discussion into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a general RfC on PETA is needed, since most people seem to agree that PETA is only citable via WP:ABOUTSELF; the disagreement is over what exact claims are self-serving or not. In general I feel we ought to avoid citing selfsource'd mission statements in the lead as often as we do, since they're often unduly self-serving, especially for controversial organizations or ones with a generally negative reputation. If that mission statement is taken seriously by anyone or is seen as a meaningful way to understand the organization, it ought to have at least some secondary coverage; if it does not, it's WP:UNDUE to focus on it, and potentially even actively misleading if the overwhelming thrust of coverage describes the subject differently. "The Death Cyborg Army says their mission is to bring peace and stability to earth" isn't a reasonable way to start an article if they're the only ones saying it about themselves and nobody else takes it seriously enough to even cover that claim. --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that going with an RfC is best. We have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the PETA question

The example Flyer22 Frozen gives is a very narrow example, and I feel the above answers have already covered it well. However, a lot of these peta.org blurbs that I'm finding inserted into BLP articles say extra stuff like "So-and-so is an animal rights advocate" or "So-and-so supports PETA" when there are no other mentions about animal rights or PETA in the biography and the only citation is directly off PETA's website. In this case, I feel strongly that these three Wiki policies/guidelines apply.

1. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
2. WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
3. WP:BLPSOURCES: Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Opinions? — Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is a source for information about itself that is in controversial. Anything that might be seen as self serving (such as membership) is should not be used for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If the public figure has given an exclusive interview to PETA or otherwise told PETA that they are an animal rights advocate, etc., as has happened in the past, using PETA as a source for that is fine. But using an additional source or a different source to report on that matter, similar to a different source being used in the Mariah Carey article to report on a PETA award she received, is also an option. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

1. PETA isn't a questionable source. The organization promotes the idea of ethical treatment of animals. Hardly an extremist position in the Western world. 2. If we take this to the extreme, the official site for Premier League could not be used as a source for who won the league because it's a self-published source and involves a claim about a third party - the team that won. 3. I think one should look at what the claim is. A celebrity winning a PETA prize is mundane and uncontroversial. The likelihood that it is true is overwhelming. It is not the same as a claim that someone was awarded a prestigious prize from the International Holocaust Denial Society. ImTheIP (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group that exists to promote a specific viewpoint, which is contested (most people in the world are not vegans). I have trouble seeing that it is WP:DUE on high profile articles like Justin Bieber, where reams of independent, reliable sources exist. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, yes it is. It's an activist group with a fringe perspective ("meat is murder"). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a more important question here is whether or not the content is DUE. It might be notable if the article was about a member of PETA who set fire to a car because it had leather seats, or if they threw paint all over a woman who was wearing a mink coat, or something else notable. Just belonging to PETA is no different from being a member of any other advocacy or organization - do our readers care, is it relevant in the grand scheme of that BLP's life, and does it pass WP:10YT? I'd be more inclined to challenge that content per WP:NOTADVOCACY. _Talk 📧 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

But if it is true (idk) that PETA has a fringe perspective, then it becomes more notable, not less, who they award their prizes to. Consider again the fictitious International Holocaust Denial Society. If they give an award to X it is relevant to know how X responds. Whether he or she repudiates the prize, declines to comment or warmly accepts it. Though, of course, you would need strong third party sources to verify that the prize is a real thing and not just some publicity stunt/attention grab.ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: They're all publicity stunts using celebrity branding techniques; or as Guy pointed out above, an association fallacy. Here are 400 publicity stunts by PETA mentioned in Misplaced Pages. One of their publicity stunts is naming people "Sexiest vegan", or "PETA's person of the year". There is no "acceptance" to refuse. Hollywood celebrities take all the news and attention they can get; it helps their career. Actors are not really free to turn down advertising gigs or endorsements by anyone as their careers are often short-lived. Normal Op (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, a lot of things are publicity stunts and there is no Misplaced Pages rule against describing successful publicity stunts. There are lots of organizations handing out awards to celebrities and other famous persons. I see no harm in mentioning who has won major PETA awards.ImTheIP (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has recently been created Jackie Kearney and mentions a PETA vegan award. Are mentions of these awards not aloud on biographies from now on? If this is the consensus then this should be publicized better because users are going to keep creating articles linking to PETA or adding the PETA website as a source to existing biographies. Should it be added to this list and get a ruling? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Whether their views are fringe or not isn't really the problem (well, it introduces an additional problem if they are, but none of the cites that I saw were to obviously fringe material, so that's not the issue.) The issues are that first, PETA doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (hence, they're not an WP:RS, making what we can use them for very narrow); second, many of the claims are potentially self-serving given that the organization is controversial and they're basically saying "look at all the good / uncontroversial stuff we do" or "look how important we are"; and third, if it's WP:DUE it ought to be covered in a secondary / independent source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable An advocacy group that runs hyperbolic and gimmicky campaigns (I don't appose what they are advocating per se, but they are what they are). They have a fringe agenda and no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. As per Aquillion, they also make many self serving and promotional claims. Bacondrum (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor stripping PETA from any and everywhere

I'm sorry, but looking at Normal Op's latest contributions, all I see is an editor yanking PETA from any and everywhere based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. All I see is an editor with a serious anti-vegetarian and anti-veganism angle to his edits. This editor is not taking WP:CONTEXTMATTERS into consideration whatsoever when it comes to this topic. As seen at Talk:Sia (musician)#Undue advocacy content in this article, where he was challenged by Ssilvers, Jack1956, Somambulant1 and SchroCat (permalink here), Normal Op has argued against use of PETA, pointing to this thread as justification, as if this thread has ruled that PETA is unreliable. As seen here, he removed the following from a section titled "Activism": "Albarrán became a vegetarian after seeing a documentary about slaughterhouses and remained as such for around 25 years, until making the transition to veganism. He has participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights." Oh, so we can't use PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan, and/or that they participated in campaigns by PETA for animals' rights? What? Just like we may use sports sources to report on someone being an athlete, or LGBT sources to report on someone being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we can use PETA to report on someone being vegetarian or vegan, especially when it's a significant part of that person's life and they specifically told PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. PETA is a perfectly good source for reporting that someone participated in a PETA event. Based on Normal Op's bullying at Sia (musician) I removed the PETA sources, but I think his argument was wrong. He is still edit warring to delete the mention of animal rights advocacy at Sia's tour Nostalgic for the Present Tour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA is an advocacy group , so if it is the only source reporting on a person's support for animal rights, that can be seen as promotional and should be removed. Same would be true for GLAAD regrading one's sexuality. I'd argue that a sports team talking about an athlete is a far different relationship as that's a professional one and not advocacy. But that said, once other sources have talked about the person's animal rights activities from a third-party, it seems fair to use PETA to add more info that third-parties do not give, as now it does not give the feeling of advocacy. Care still must be taken to not make the added material look like advocacy for the group. --Masem (t) 05:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: There is no edit warring by me. However, there seems to be a bunch of other editors who have jumped on the anti-advocacy bandwagon in the last 24 hours and are either removing peta.org citations and/or are finding alternative (non-peta.org) sources to cite. They probably read this thread and jumped on board. The count seems to have gone down by over a hundred since yesterday, and I made just 4 or 5 of those. Normal Op (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: you keep trying to narrow it down to things like "PETA's Person of the Year Awards", because you know peta.org wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a full and general reliable source discussion when the scenario is expanded to how these peta.org citations are really being used. And I'm not focusing on PETA's Person of the Year Awards; I could care less about them. For your information, FF, I am anti-ADVOCACY and against using Misplaced Pages for ADVOCATE work. I do not discriminate between one advocacy or another. I didn't have an opinion about PETA or peta.org before I started researching it for Misplaced Pages, and don't even recall how I wound up in the animal rights topic, but I have since then discovered that ADVOCACY is rampant in the PETA, animal rights, and vegan topics. You need to quit WP:HOUNDING me, FF, just because you don't like the subject area I'm editing in this month. (In June it was Confederate statues, before that it was places on the National Register of Historic Places, and before that it was Tiger articles.) I'm trying to fix the advocacy stuff, per Misplaced Pages policies, and to better the encyclopedia, while you're trying to stop me with this... what is it... oh yeah, the THIRD calling me out on a board over the SAME issue in like two days because it's not going the way you want it to. Stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, already. And no more PAs!

I assert PETA is NOT a reliable source. We're here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Maybe we SHOULD be debating whether to add PETA to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

When I see these tiny insertions in dozens of articles saying so-and-so is a vegan or so-and-so is pro-animal rights, and there's nothing else in the article about it, and the citation source is peta.org, I can assume that it's not a big part of the person's life or someone else would have published it. Contrast those with the article for Joaquin Phoenix which mentions "animal" 15 times and doesn't need a peta.org sourced citation to show he's an animal rights activist. Check Bob Barker's article and you'll find "animal" 11 times and zero peta.org citations. That's because those two men ARE animal rights advocates and the newspapers know about it; it's a big part of their lives. (See WP:DUE.) But when you instead see that these tiny PETA blurbs have been inserted into hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles, and you check a few dozen of them and find the only mention of "animal" or "PETA" or "vegan" is with a peta.org source, one can logically conclude the content was inserted as part of an advocacy campaign that is an extension of PETA's advertising machine. If you look at one or two or three articles, you don't get the big picture. When you do a search for "peta.org" and find hundreds of these little insertions, and check a bunch of the BLP articles, you quickly find out it has been part of an WP:ADVOCACY campaign. I use the word "insert" because I've checked several of these with the "Who wrote that" tool, and I've found that the editor that inserted the PETA content, only inserted that content; they weren't already editing a biography and decided to add animal rights stuff as well. And I found that this pattern of editing behavior happened over and over and over again. See WP:DUCKTEST.

Then there's PETA's "Sexiest Vegan" awards and "PETA's Person of the Year Award". These are free awards that PETA can "give away" (simply labels, actually) that operate as free advertising with all the benefits of celebrity branding and none of the costs/expenditures. By simply naming someone, without even getting their permission, PETA can all of a sudden gain some sort of news coverage (or generate its own) that aligns PETA with a celebrity. Celebrities are usually happy to take any attention they can get; it increases their value as a commodity. So the celebrity isn't going to say "No". The award itself has no actual value beyond the publicity and public goodwill it generates. The awards themselves are worthless and, as such, mentioning them in Misplaced Pages in someone's biography is WP:UNDUE. You argue that mentioning it in a wiki article is harmless, but you're wrong.

As for using PETA's publication to support what they say about someone else, even if you were in the room and you could verify it happened, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you know a fact to be true; it only matters if some other reliable source said so. That's why we use secondary sources for our citations in this encyclopedia.

PETA has a long record of controversial publications, outrageous stunts, stretching the truth and outright lying about events and facts, as well as what people say or think about issues. Here's just one such news report (published in The New Yorker and reposted by its author) where it says "peta's publicity formula–eighty per cent outrage, ten per cent each of celebrity and truth", and Newkirk's quotes "We are complete press sluts" and many more... er... "questionable judgment" quotes.

In a second example (which I had researched and wrote for the PETA article) PETA continues to this day to promote the information that milk causes autism even after being proven wrong AND admitting it! "When pressed, PETA cited two scientific papers, one from 1995 and one from 2002 using a very small sampling of children (36 and 20), and neither showed a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. Newer studies from 2010 and 2014 have shown no association between dairy and behavior in autism. Despite having been corrected, PETA says they still keep the information on their website "because we have heard from people who have said it contains helpful information." Excuses by PETA to keep their false scientific claims on their website for the last six years! Do you get that? This is not what reliable sources do!

So why would anybody ever use them as a source! Peta.org would fail to be called a "reliable source" under the Misplaced Pages reliable sources policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:REPUTABLE. And from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: " In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." PETA is not a newsroom with an editorial staff doing fact checking, they are an advocacy organization, and with their history of falsifying matters and publishing it, they would NEVER pass a reliable sources test. Editors above have been very generously "PC" about the touchy subject of calling out such an outspoken organization (whose annual budget for advertising is over $10M ). After all, one's fellow Wiki editors many well be PETA followers. No, you cannot use peta.org's statement that so-and-so is a vegan or vegetarian. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF, and it's self-serving for PETA to publish that. It's completely different than a sports publication mentioning someone is an athlete. Using an LGBTQ source to say that someone is gay or bi might well be advocacy and nonRS. First of all, being called an athlete is unlikely to be controversial; being called gay/bi/etc. is more likely to be controversial. But that's all hypothetical and not really related to the PETA discussion. Per Misplaced Pages rules, if you want to discuss or argue about a policy, such as WP:ABOUTSELF, then you're supposed to discuss it on the Talk page of the policy.

You need to find some other reliable source that says someone is vegan — and if you find one, and they say that, then go ahead and use THAT in someone's biography article. Earlier today I did just that; I swapped out a peta.org citation with a reliable source saying that someone was a vegan; then posted that. But I don't suppose you noticed that when you checked my contributions and then called me anti-vegan.

I have presented a case that PETA/peta.org is NOT a reliable source. I have read (above) that others also think peta.org is not a reliable source for anything other than information about PETA itself (per ABOUTSELF). So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source, nor even one opinion that PETA is a reliable source.

Remember, we're on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

— Normal Op (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think quite that much needs to be said. The previous part of the discussion (PETA saying things about themselves) was at least debatable because what's self-serving is sometimes unclear, but stating that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"So far, I haven't seen one argument or piece of evidence to show peta.org IS a reliable source." In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. Has PETA been caught doing that? If not, I don't understand why it would be an unreliable source. ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Milk_and_autism Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In my mind an unreliable source is one that regularly or at least intermittently publishes false information. This isn't quite correct, although I can understand why you would think that given the sort of sources we usually discuss on WP:RS and how the discussions tend to go. Overall WP:RS requires that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this is something that, in theory, needs to be positively affirmed and proven by the people who want to use the source - it isn't something we assume. So when talking about a think-tank, advocacy organization, or private website the burden is on people who want to use the source to make the argument that it passes that threshold. The reason discussions here normally seem like the inverse of that is because most of the time the sources that require in-depth WP:RSN discussion and a full RFC are ones that, at first glance, seem like they might pass that bar (eg. sources that present themselves as reputable news organizations or high-quality publications, and whose presentation in that regard at least some editors accept.) We don't generally waste time discussing organizations that trivially fail that threshold and which nobody (or almost nobody) thinks is an WP:RS. PETA is different in that it's not really claiming to do serious fact-checking or anything like that - while some of the people above saying it's not an WP:RS might be basing that on its bad reputation, for the most part that's not the issue. It's not an WP:RS because, by the nature of what it is, it's not really attempting to be one and that's not really its purpose. For an activist organization, you would have to actually show they perform fact-checking and have a reputation based on it in order to convince people it's generally usable as an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for that, Aquillion. That's very well expressed. Normal Op (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, I didn't read any of your latest comment. I might read it later, but I won't be replying to it. I know from this ANI thread on your tendentious, advocacy editing and having skimmed enough of your gaming the system/wikilawyering arguing that debating you would be a huge waste of time. It's because of that ANI thread that I now see why you focused on the "Pet food" section of the Veganism article. In my opinion, that ban should not have been lifted, and it is perhaps time for a different one. And I will also note that no one has stated that PETA should be used for scientific claims. This is where you do not grasp WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Like I stated above, we have people debating the reliability of PinkNews above and giving it more leeway than a source like PETA...despite the fabricated news reporting PinkNews has engaged in. So RfC started below. It's designed similarly to the PinkNews RfC.

Aquillion stated "that someone is a vegan or the like is unambiguously a claim about a third party and therefore not an acceptable use of WP:ABOUTSELF; and I think it would be difficult to argue that PETA itself has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires." If a public figure tells PETA that they are vegetarian or vegan, that is a WP:About self matter and is acceptable. We use exclusive interviews and similar all the time. We have no reason to think that PETA is lying. No such reports of them lying about stuff like that exist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Though not your first PA offence against me, Flyer22 Frozen, this is your second and final warning to knock off the personal attacks! I've already muted you because of your contemptuous writing to me, and about me. You even accused me of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to me edits of others. You have been going after me like a dog with a bone. Your attachment to PETA has quite an Misplaced Pages:Advocacy flavor, to wit: "Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Misplaced Pages, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." I care not one wit about PETA one way or the other, but you seem to care... a lot. Normal Op (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop pinging me to this page that I'm obviously watching. I see no need to ping you to this page again either. To repeat, I am not interested in your gaming the system/wikilawyering. I am far too experienced a Misplaced Pages editor to fall for any of that. It humors me to see you trying to school me on Misplaced Pages's rules. You stated that I "even accused of edit warring on an article by mis-attributing to edits of others." False. You state that I have committed a personal attack against you by noting your documented activism on Misplaced Pages, and yet you call me an activist when there is no documented proof of it and when many editors (Mathglot, for example) on this site know that I do not tolerate activism editing on Misplaced Pages. When I look at your history, including your recent "must purge Misplaced Pages of PETA" silliness, as if this is some WP:DAILYMAIL case, all I see is an activist. Go report me at WP:ANI if you must. Your assertion that I am attached to PETA, when I do not agree with their extreme views and have been clear on my user page in the past that I do not try to police people eating meat, is laughable. It's as laughable as you stating that you "care not one wit about PETA one way or the other." For me, this is about the way you have gone about editing on this matter. Yes, I am a vegetarian. But I am not a vegan, and couldn't care less about trying to police your meat-eating. I did not become a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages guidelines, if I am mentioning you, I should notify you. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function. Normal Op (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

in regard to deletions like this shouldn't we wait until a consensus is first reached here? I don't think we should delete anymore PETA until we get an official decision has been made by consensus vote. (see discussion below). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Talk to the hand", really? Did you just time travel from the 90s? Somehow I'm not surprised that you would reduce a woman's response to "talk to the hand." You stated, "Per Misplaced Pages guidelines, if mentioning , should notify . If you don't want the pings, use the mute function." This is yet another Misplaced Pages aspect you are wikilawyering. And, really, since it's not based on any rule, it's questionable to even call it wikilawyering. If you were reporting me at WP:ANI, you would have a point. But that would only count for you notifying me on my talk page. Nowhere are you required to keep pinging me to a page I am watching. When an editor tells you to stop pinging them because they are watching a page or will check back, you should stop. Point blank. This is per WP:Harassment. It's per WP:Harassment because your pings are not being helpful in any way and are instead causing distress. Your unnecessary pings annoy me. Since you know that, you should stop. Stating "Oh, well, just mute your pings. It's your fault if you keep getting pings from me." is silliness. And it's not like you would lose anything by simply ceasing pinging me. You're just going to keep pinging me when mute is on? Who is the pinging for then? What nonsense. Editors have been reprimanded for unnecessarily pinging others -- meaning after they were asked to stop. Likewise, editors have been reprimanded for thanking editors via WP:Echo when it has been used as a harassment tactic. Editors have been warned and/or reprimanded for either when it comes to their interaction with me. And you would be no different. As certain admins (including WP:CUs) know, I have stalkers who ping me via sock accounts. So that is one reason I don't like to be pinged unless necessary.

Now that aside, let's get something make something very clear: Your reckless edits have removed PETA for WP:About self matters. That is the main reason this thread was started. And as made clear by Ssilvers above, SMcCandlish below, Adrian J. Hunter here, and by others, using PETA to report that someone is a vegetarian or vegan because that person told PETA that, or using PETA to report that a public figure did a PSA with them, or won a PETA award are WP:About self matters. As is clear by this post you made, you are aware that PETA is not some little organization and that they are instead powerful. They aren't telling falsehoods by stating that a public figure is a vegetarian or vegan. And yet you are going on your "must rid Misplaced Pages of that pesky PETA in all cases" crusade. It's ridiculous. You've stated that editors are being PC for not going along with your extreme take on using PETA as a source. You've gone on about an advocacy campaign for PETA on Misplaced Pages, when it's significantly more likely that the reason editors have used PETA as a source is because it's so well-known.

When this thread is archived, you're going to point to it like it's the WP:DAILYMAIL case, as if PETA can't even be used to name vegetarian and vegan foods. And, actually, as is clear by the Sia case, you pointed to PETA in a "no, not the Daily Mail" way before I started the RfC below. Sighs. I'm just going to state now that when you are again sanctioned for disruption, whether it concerns the PETA website or something else, I will state, "Told you so." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Added more to post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

___

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PETA?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Only reliable for WP:About self matters

Further questions:

• 1. Is PETA reliable for statements about a person being a vegetarian or vegan? What about when the person tells PETA that they are a vegetarian or vegan?
• 2. Should citations to PETA be attributed and/or have an inline citation?
• 3. Are PETA awards and commentary about a person making PETA's "sexiest vegan" list to be excluded from Misplaced Pages articles unless covered by a secondary source? Should such material be included at all, such as in the "Public image" section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Note: I updated this time stamp when adding in the third "further considerations" aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PETA)

• Option 3 if we're really doing this. There's no indication that they do any sort of fact-checking. Interviews with them are likewise generally unusable - we rely on the interview being with a WP:RS, normally. Since PETA isn't an RS, an interview with them cannot be considered WP:RS - that is not "person X says they're a vegetarian" (which would be the case if we were citing eg. their Twitter), that is "PETA says person X says they're a vegetarian". WP:ABOUTSELF requires that it be published by the person in question - otherwise articles would be full of hearsay from unreliable sources. Awards, commentary, and so on generally require a secondary source, and always require a secondary WP:RS source, without exception, whenever any third party is mentioned, including any awards, recognition, description of someone's characteristics, whether they are a vegan / vegetarian or not, etc. I'm baffled the discussion has gotten this far - we wouldn't accept a political think-tank saying "X totally agrees with us" as a source for their politics without secondary coverage, either. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Οption 4. This organization is singularly focused on one objective, the welfare of animals. The means it uses are often confrontantionally militant. Its internal and operational structure approaches those of a military group. Therefore, it would be expecting truly too much to expect to come out of PETA some neutral critique of others' or its own actions and ideas. But, of course, we can always quote and relay PETA's viewpoints as they emanate from the organization itself, per WP:ABOUTSELF. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - not to be trusted, surely anything they report can be found in alternative (reliable) sources. GiantSnowman 09:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: PETA, like all activism organizations, is not a reliable source for alleged facts, beyond their own positions, statements, and non-controversial history (e.g. who is on their advisory board, or where they were founded), though they are not categorically unreliable "no matter what", like a publisher devoted to falsehoods (Weekly World News, National Enquirer). Advocacy/pressure groups like this (on any topic) aren't reliable for statements of alleged fact about the world, because everything they write is one-sided socio-political staking out of a position, a stance, and is unlike other forms of non-fiction writing. It is the nonprofit/NGO direct equivalent of marketing. That said, PETA is not less reliable (nor more) than other such organizations, regardless of the subject of the activism. PS: In the heated discussion above, Flyer22 is correct that if celebrity A. B. Ceedy says they are a vegetarian in an interview published by PETA, we can use that. That's WP:ABOUTSELF material on the part of that person, and we have no evidence of any kind that PETA fabricates interviews. For interview material, PETA is a conduit for the statements of someone else, and is not the creator of them. There's a very big difference between PETA asserting, in their voice, that someone is a vegetarian, versus PETA quoting an individual personally stating he or she is a vegetarian. Whether PETA is biased and self-serving in who they choose to interview and what they choose to ask them is irrelevant. This reminds me a lot of the failure to distinguish between something like Facebook or Twitter (a legal entity) as a speaker and publisher (e.g., whether claims that Facebook or Twitter makes about its own relationships with various government agencies and how it handles private user data), versus Facebook or Twitter as a self-publishing service, as a conduit for other's own expression. Twitter is not a reliable source for whether Twitter actually abides by regulations, or whether a particular vaccine idea is a good one, or whether Pluto should be reclassified as a planet again. They are a reliable source, in the conduit sense, for the fact that Trump really did tweet another stupid and inflammatory thing this morning, and what exactly the wording was. In short, do not confuse the medium with the message, or confuse the source of the idea with the venue through which you encountered it. PETA as an originator of a claim is useless, but PETA as a relay of the claim of someone else isn't suspicious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
• Option 3 - maybe a source for claims about itself, absolutely not a source for claims about anyone or anything else, and obviously not an RS for statements about living people that can't be source to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's #4 verbatim. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 PETA is an agenda-driven activist organization, not a news outlet. They should not be cited for anything outside simple factual statements about themselves. Zaathras (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 They seem perfectly happy to let truth be a casualty of getting what they want. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: If PETA has made an interview with some celeb claiming to be a vegetarian/vegan, that interview is a sufficient source to claim that someone is a vegetarian/vegan. If PETA has published a report linking meat to cancer then that is not a sufficient source for the claim eating meat gives you cancer. It all depends on the context and what kind of claim is being made. The claims "X is a Nazi" and "X is a vegetarian" are syntactically similar, but the former obviously needs much stronger source support than the latter.ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per SMcCandlish. Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC).
• Option 4 per above. Also, any claims in any source that a person is vegetarian/vegan need to be dated because many people stop eating a vegan diet . (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - close enough to being the same thing. _Talk 📧 01:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Given their nature (extreme advocacy) and tendency to see things form a very "narrow perspective" I am gona say not reliable for anything except the fact they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. No, PETA is generally not a reliable source. But an outright ban on citations is inappropriate. Is the fact that a certain product won one of their awards something that could be sourced to them? Probably, as PETA is the primary source for information about PETA's awards, and that may be content worth including in an article. Is PETA good for factual matters about the world outside PETA? Probably not. I do worry that (as I say below) it's not entirely clear what is actually being proposed, and I do worry (as is fairly clear above) that people's own views of PETA are influencing their assessments. Nonetheless: I echo what SMcCandlish said above about PETA being no "worse" than any other pressure group, and what he said about interviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - They are not a news organization, they are an advocacy group. That's fine for things they are doing, but they don't claim to be objective, so we shouldn't either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: Per Atsme and Dennis Brown. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)
• Option 3 or 4 As per Aquillion and The Gnome. It's an advocacy group, where's the peer review or editorial oversight? Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: One of the tests for RS is whether they do fact checking on a regular basis. PETA does not appear to do this. This is regrettable, because it's true that PETA is sometimes the only interview source for whether someone is vegan. (Other interviewers generally don't ask this question.) Nevertheless, as long as PETA doesn't do fact-checking, wikipedia shouldn't consider them a RS. — Eric Herboso 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it so important to include someone's dietary choices? If it's only of importance to a Misplaced Pages editor and not to interviewers, nor was mentioned by a celebrity, then isn't this advocacy? Normal Op (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You’re correct that people’s dietary choices shouldn’t be on their pages just if it’s merely their dietary choices. But “veganism” refers to more than diet. It’s an ethical stance that includes clothing and other choices. It’s on par with saying someone volunteers everyday for a particular cause, because they make daily choices for that particular cause. They might not be loud about it, and other outlets might not ask them about it, but being vegan in the traditional sense is a significant aspect of what a person chooses to do everyday. It’s similar to if a celebrity chose to be a volunteer firefighter and was serious enough about it to do something related to firefighting every day. I would argue that this is strange and significant enough that it would be noteworthy to include in a bio, so long as it was sourced from an RS. I don’t think PETA is a RS, but I do think that if a celeb publishes their own info stating that they are vegan, then that is allowable per WP:ABOUTSELF. — Eric Herboso 23:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Eric Herboso: If a celebrity publishes their own information, then PETA's publication of that same fact isn't needed as a source. Your assertion that all vegans are "ethical vegans" contradicts Veganism. Normal Op (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Normal Op: I agree wholeheartedly that PETA shouldn’t be used as a source (because they're not a RS); I was saying that WP:ABOUTSELF would allow their own published info to be used as a source. But I completely disagree with your saying that my assertion contradicts veganism. The first line of veganism is completely in line with what I’ve said: that veganism is not just a dietary choice, and that it is additionally a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. I believe this makes it appropriate to include in a bio, even though I don't think citing PETA to do it is acceptable for technical reasons. (As an aside, if your agenda is to not have vegan status included in bios, your best argument seems to me to be that veganism is something that many people eventually stop doing, and so any citation would need to be for a dated period of time. Finding citations that someone was vegan from 201X-202x would be more difficult to find than a single point citation of someone being vegan, and thus might result in less citations of veganism on wikipedia. (I mean no offense in assuming you have an agenda here; it just seems that way from the focused edits & comments you keep making.)) — Eric Herboso 02:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. Advocacy group, not a news organization. Jayjg 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 and 4: As an activist organization with a mantra for sensationalistic campaigns and a history of false statements, they are generally unreliable for any factual reporting whatsoever. As for ABOUTSELF matters, they would only be acceptable for uncontroversial statements about themselves, and never about another person. (I notice an option for 'deprecated' wasn't offered.)
  

Q1: No, especially in the absence of a secondary and reliable source because PETA has a reputation for altering the truth. Also, "being a vegan", as for any dietary choices, can be a temporary condition for many people. It is not a permanent fact about a person such as where someone was born or what their primary language is. Would you report in Misplaced Pages that someone follows the Atkins Diet? No.

Q2: No opinion.

Q3: No, PETA awards should not be included in Misplaced Pages. PETA hands out these awards like water bottles at a marathon race. Such awards are only rubber stamps by a controversial advocacy organization and are neither valuable nor important. Mentioning them in Misplaced Pages is UNDUE and just more advertising for the advocacy organization. How are they even judged? Is PETA in the people business like People magazine is? I would trust People's Sexiest Man Alive or Sexiest Woman Alive before I would put any stock in a PETA award. In my research I encountered: "Celebrities regularly featured in People magazine were excluded" from PETA's 'sexiest' awards. What does THAT mean? Did you know PETA has at least 6 different types of awards? Sexiest Vegetarian, Most Beautiful Vegan Celebrity, Sexiest Vegan Celebrity, Sexiest Vegan Over 50, Sexiest Vegan Indoors, and Sexiest Vegan Next Door (non-celebrities). Each press release includes this sort of agenda promotion: "That skin … that hair … that body! Ever notice that certain celebrities just seem ageless somehow? No, not the plastic surgery nightmare stuff. It’s that glow. What’s their secret? Refraining from eating meat." — Normal Op (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why wasn't an option for "deprecated" offered? Common sense, that's why. This is not a WP:DAILYMAIL matter, which is what I've been telling you. That you want to treat it like one is clearly out of step with what pretty much everyone else has stated. Similar goes for other comments you've made about the source, and yet you want us to believe you have nothing against PETA. You clearly haven't listened to anything that editors who are far more experienced than you are have stated about using PETA. Or if you have, then you don't care. You just want the source's use severely limited or rather the source outright banned. I don't know what else  SMcCandlish could state to get you to listen, but I've pinged him again just in case he thinks he can state anything else that would help. And, for the record, whether or not mentioning "sexiest vegan" is WP:Due is about context, like various other things when it comes to using sources like PETA. If secondary sources are noting that a celebrity, especially one whose notability partly or mainly hinges on their appearance (their perceived physical attractiveness), made PETA's "sexiest vegan" list or topped it, then, yes, it is likely WP:Due for us to mention that. Various celebrity articles have "Public image" or "In the media" sections to address how the public and/or media views them. A lot of these articles, such as Jennifer Lawrence, are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. And Lawrence being considered beautiful or sexy is something that is mentioned in her "In the media" section. If she were a vegan and made PETA's "sexiest vegan" list, it would likely be reported on by one or more secondary sources and would also likely be included there in her Misplaced Pages article. If she were a vegan, and with her reputation for advocacy, it's something that would that she is a vegan would certainly be included in her "Personal life" or "Off-screen work" section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen: Your antagonistic, condescending, and repetitive personal attacks towards me are getting really old. Knock it off! Normal Op (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your "Flyer is being so mean to me" tactic is really old. Knock it off. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, Ginger. Normal Op (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pot, meet Kettle. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, at risk of being the only person in the room with a tan suit: their investigations are GREL; their footage is GREL for the event they capture; and everything else should be considered as reliable as any company pamphlet or neighborhood news. All three cases should be attributed. As for the particular case: Q1 - yes if as part of an interview with the subject; Q2 - attributed; Q3 - I'm not inclined to this sort of tabloid shtick regardless of where it comes from, so no. I am inclined to change my vote if evidence of unreliability is presented. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 Not reliable at all, not even about themselves. PETA has shown repeatedly that they will weaponize and distort information in pursuit of their goals. Everything they do and say is suspect. Even about themselves: remember when they claimed to run animal shelters but killed all the pets they took in? They lie. About everything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As other editors have said, they are an agenda-driven advocacy organization with no editorial oversight. Over the years, this organization has repeatedly presented absolutely outrageous claims as being factual. For example, they once claimed that milk can cause Autism. Sources that regularly spread this much pseudoscience have no place on Misplaced Pages. They appear to be so concerned with pushing an agenda that they seem to not think that facts matter. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PETA)

Comment how is "PETA" defined? Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what? GPinkerton (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As currently noted in its Misplaced Pages's article, it's an American animal rights organization. Some in this discussion have also called it an activist organization. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I would include anything published on any of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' numerous websites including peta.org, peta2.com, petaindia.com, petaasiapacific.com, peta.org.uk, peta.de, petafrance.com, peta.nl, peta.org.au, petaasia.com, petaasia.cn, petalatino.com, petakids.com, furisdead.com, and dozens more. I would also include any statements directly attributed as being from PETA, including statements made by Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco or any of the PETA executives or staff in the performance of their duties at PETA. Normal Op (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of how we define PETA is a good one. The people you mention by name also publish in outlets that do have a reputation for fact-checking. Even if PETA-published sources have to be ruled out or limited (on which I right now express no opinion) we should not ban citations to these writers' work in more reputable outlets. (The only time I can think of citing PETA on Misplaced Pages was literally yesterday, and this was for one of their awards -- though not their "sexiest vegan" nonsense. Their various awards are quite widely commented upon in the vegan world, among the winners, and in the mainstream press.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In what outlet would Newkirk or Pacheco publish that isn't PETA commentary, op-ed, or press release? Do you have any examples? (I'm assuming you saw my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier.) Normal Op (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not share your assumptions (or what I take to be your assumptions) about "op-eds". Newkirk has published several times in The Guardian: this is a highly regarded UK broadsheet. I think it would be problematic if a hamfisted anti-PETA guideline banned citing work published in The Guardian. (Obviously, these pieces can't be taken to be completely "neutral" with regards animal protection issues, but no broadsheet is "neutral" anyway.) Newkirk has also published scholarly work (e.g., she has a chapter in Sister Species, published by Illinois UP, which is a key collection in the scholarly literature on animals and women) as well as non-fiction (but non-scholarly) books with established, reputable publishers (e.g., Animalkind was published with Simon & Schuster). Restricting citations to PETA's website is one thing. Blacklisting people associated with PETA is completely another. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I'm not advocating blacklisting; you must have missed my "in the performance of their duties at PETA" qualifier. Books go through an editorial process that op-eds do not. All 4 of Newkirk's articles in The Guardian are labelled as "Opinions" and are covered under primary source policies including WP:PRIMARY: "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; ... original philosophical works..." Normal Op (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't miss it; a lot of what you are saying (including the "duties at PETA" claim) is ambiguous, which is precisely why we're having this conversation. If I understand you correctly, you accept that the books are OK, even if the proposed "PETA ban" goes through. You are not advocating a ban on work from people associated with PETA. (Though I honestly do not know what your position on the "op-eds" is. Could I ask you to state it in plain English?) So what are you proposing? Is it simply a ban on content published by PETA? Or is it more than that? SMcCandlish seems to think it's more than that. I am inclined to oppose this proposal for the simple reason that I do not know what it is. It feels suspiciously like an attempt to just ban a bunch of citations that certain editors do not like because of a perceived link to an organisation that certain editors do not like. I've got a lot of issues with PETA (though I understand that their very decentralised structure and love of press attention complicates views of the organisation), and I don't see any reason to think of them as a particularly reliable source on most things, but this whole thing feels a bit off. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up (and a partial going-back on myself): Feel free to reply, and feel free to ping me if you want me to see something, but I am not sure I want this to be any more of a time-sink than it already has been! Do not feel you have to answer my questions if you do not want to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I meant to indicate that your attempt to frame this RfC as an author blacklist discussion by using books and op-eds as examples was immaterial because we already have policies/guidelines for the handling of books and op-eds. Books are usually more acceptable because they have more editorial oversight. Op-eds are usually less acceptable because they have less editorial oversight. The phrase I used "statements directly attributed as being from PETA" meant those cases where an otherwise reliable news source is quoting PETA to get filler for their article, or just plain churnalism. I have seen numerous instances recently of 'news articles' which are only repeats of what the 'reporter' read on peta.org or gleaned from the latest PETA advertising video. And I don't mean the reporter was covering the subject; they were merely repeating the PETA campaign message; a sort of well-disguised press release. That falls under "statements directly attributed as being from PETA". Normal Op (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Re, 'how is "PETA" defined?' As an organizational author and as a publisher. 'Is this a website, all their websites, quotes of theirs in other media, their own quarterly journal, what?' All of the above, and quoted statements by them in the press.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Could someone provide examples of use? I'll eventually get around it, but the earlier we have them the better this RfC will go. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned my own citation of PETA above -- it's in Jackie Kearney. I doubt this is the sort of thing that some others so strongly object to, but it certainly seems to be something they want to ban. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Quote below. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is worthy of inclusion people other then PETA would care (see wp:undue). If no one cares why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• In Jackie Kearney: "The book won the PETA UK Vegan Food Award for Cookbook of the Year 2016."

If PETA does something notable others will notice it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Vegan Food Awards 2016". PETA UK. Retrieved 8 August 2020.

RfC: Chabad.org

This request for comment has elapsed, and will be automatically archived after five days with no comments. New comments are still welcome.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The website chabad.org should be treated as:

1. A reliable general reference on Judaism;
2. A self-published / affiliated source in respect of the Chabad-Lubavich movement, used as WP:ABOUTSELF and otherwise only with attribution;
3. Deprecated as a source.

See background for further details. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• chabad.org  

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303 § chabad.org. This website is used as a source in 1,346 articles. Chabad.org "is the flagship website of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement". The issue here is that while the site is used as freely as, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Lubavicher perspective is a minority within a minority within a minority: a subset of hasids, which are in turn a subset of orthodox Jews. Chabad is on the fringes of orthodox Judaism; there are "profound ideological differences" between the Chabad movement and the rest of Judaism. It seems to me that the popularity and well-crafted nature of the site obscures its status as advocating a distinctly fringe position. Much of its content rests on interpretations of the law that are stated in absolutist terms but may and often do represent extremely idiosyncratic views. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions (chabad)

• Support 2 as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: (Guy), when you state that "This website (Chabad.org) is used as a source in 1,346 articles" could you please break down the numbers: Such as, (1) how many articles about the Chabad movement and ideology does Chabad.org on WP link to? (2) How many times is Chabad.org listed in WP:External links in articles, usually about Judaism or Jewish holidays? (3) how many times is Chabad.org actually given as a reference within articles about Judaism in general? Outside of these three areas on WP I can't think of any way that Chabad.org would be used as a reference point on WP. In light of this research you may even consider withdrawing your proposal as unnecessary. I think you will find that your concerns are unwarranted and that the need for limiting the site as a reference point is overblown.IZAK (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, reliable for about self and thats pretty much it. About self extends only to the Chabad-Lubavitcher movement and they are not a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism or Judaism in general. We must be especially wary of using anything the Lubavitcher have published on history as they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field. In general I think we should treat them like any other extremist religious organization, they’re much closer to something like Falun Gong than mainstream Judaism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using the term "extremist" here. The word extremist is loaded with negative connotations to terrorism, and insulting religions onwiki isn't conducive to a good editing environment. There's also no need to call out Falun Gong as an "extremist" organization either. There's no need to insult people's religions in this discussion.Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to engage in whatever level of political correctness and personal censorship you wish to engage in, I will continue to WP:Call a spade a spade. Deeply religious people with *always* find some way to be insulted by wikipedia’s coverage of their religion (and particularly their sect), ignore those POV pushing voices. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But why call a hammer spade? There are criteria in the social sciences for "extremist group" and Chabad is not an extremist group. So please, keep your language neutral. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah Debresser! I do love debating you but don’t you have a COI to disclose before participating further in this discussion? I don’t see any note about it in your vote explanation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack—you say "they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field". What makes you think they have a "long record of distortions and outright lies in that field"? Can you for instance link to anything or cite any source making such a claim? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Chabad is pretty unambiguously a fairly small and often idiosyncratic sect of Judaism in general. We shouldn't be using them as a source for Judaism in general without attribution. Loki (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, no, it's not, it's one of the largest sects of hassidim in the world. It's also not a "fringe" movement in Judaism. Sir Joseph 18:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any sect of Chasidim is small and idiosyncratic. Most Jews aren't even Orthodox. I never called them fringe but wouldn't object to that description since they're a minority of a minority within Judaism. Loki (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Loki—what are you trying to say when you say "Most Jews aren't even Orthodox"? This being an encyclopedia, of course we want to give a detailed explanation of the beliefs and practices of observant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 That being said, I think that the presentation of the evidence against Chabad/Lubavitch overstates their fringe status within Judaism. They are a highly influential and widely respected and well organized and effective minority voice for highly observant Judaism. Yes, the messianic teachings of some of their adherents are controversial, but they remain a powerful and respected voice in Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to be a minority viewpoint in Judaisim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no viewpoint in Judaism that is a majority viewpoint. Editors here should take into account that the outcome of this discussion will be applied to any and all Jewish resources, including OU.org and Aish.org. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Chabad represents around 13% of Hasidic Jews and Hasidic Jews represent around 5% of the total Jewish population, meaning that Chabad counts for less than 1% of the world's total Jewish population. That's very different from just being a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just to argue, if we are going on numbers and percentages, what percentage of Jews perform, or even know about Shiluach_haken? Do you think it makes sense that in this case Chabad.org might be a source? (I haven't checked, but assume it might be a reference or two.) It's on these types of articles that this RFC is proposing that we take out Chabad (and then in the future, the OU and other religious sources). I don't think that's a good idea. Sir Joseph 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia That is actually a stupid argument. I mean, scholars are less than 1% of the population, and still it is precisely the publlications of that less than 1% that are considered the best sources for Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources should be preferred over sites like Chabad.org and myjewishlearning.com  , except where they are reprinting them. As to Shiluach haken a quick search came up with a section discussing the term in The World of Orthodox Judaism, which was one of only 7 hits on google scholar. Ultimately if Chabad is to be used it should be WP:INTEXT attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 1.5, I think I'm in agreement with Cullen. Chabad is probably one of the most widespread and well-known denominations within Orthodox Judaism, if not Judaism as a whole. Their views are, however, often idiosyncratic, and their popularity is largely due to a willingness to engage with people that do not fully see eye to eye with them on theology; anecdotally, the percentage of Jews that fully agree with Chabad's worldview is much lower than the percentage of Jews that belong to their congregations. All that having been said, I think that the framing of this discussion is poor: I think that it can likely be used as a source for non-extraordinary claims about Judaism and can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If this were a standard 4-option RSN survey, I'd say 2, but among the options presented here #2 is closer to a standard #3. _signed, Rosguill 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguill, to be fair, that could be because they are more vocal and they, as you say, do more outreach and they engage and are very proficient with media, etc. I do agree with you though that the RFC isn't written correctly, especially when Guy writes that Chabad is "fringe." Chabad is many things, but it's not fringe. Sir Joseph 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• For "non-extraordinary claims" there will always be many sources without getting into talk page discussions each time about whether attribution is needed or whether the claim is extraordinary. Pardon the comparison, but it's similar to why we shouldn't get used to citing Fox News. The easy stuff can be sourced far and wide. The rest will tie up talk pages and destabilize article text with unnecessary good faith disagreements. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 As per my own previous comments on the RS Noticeboard before this RfC was started. Also, agreeing with all the caveats explained by Cullen328 and Rosguill above. warshy 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: this isn’t a deletion discussion. Whats the logic here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye Jack, I mainly notified the WP:JUDAISM talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Chabad.org and then also placed a notification at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Miscellaneous for the same effort to inform Judaic editors. IZAK (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is a reliable source for anything related to Judaism. Its website is specifically meant for the wider public, and often brings points of view that are not specific to the movement. Even though the group itself is only one of many within Judaism, it is specifically geared towards outreach, and its information is not meant for the use of its adherents only. In addition, we would do the WikiProject Judaism a great disservice if we were to limit the use of one of the largest online resources about Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the outcome of this discussion will have wide-reaching repercussions for all online resources about Judaism, including OU.org and Aish,org, which are just as much not representative of Judaism as Chabad.org (even more so, since e.g. OU.org is a US organization, while Chabad is at least a worldwide organization). Debresser (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at our Chabad.org article: "Chabad.org has a comprehensive Jewish knowledge base which includes over 100,000 articles of information ranging from basic Judaism to Hasidic philosophy taught from the Chabad point of view." and "Chabad.org and its affiliated sites claim over 43 million visitors per year, and over 365,000 email subscribers." I mean, is this really a smart proposal...? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is an impeccable source on all things relating to Judaism. Ari L. Goldman is quoted in the New York Times, commenting on Chabad: "Obviously, it’s a house organ to some extent," said Ari Goldman, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a self-described fan who receives regular RSS feeds of stories from Chabad.org News. "But I also think it’s a reliable source of information." Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Chabad has its own agenda and shouldn't be cited for general knowledge on Judaism, any more than I would support using Jehovah's Witnesses or Campus Crusade for Christ's websites for general information on Christianity. It's surely reliable for itself though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Chabad.org's agenda includes foremost informing people about Judaism. Why would it not be a reliable website for precisely that? I really fail to understand all of you guys here. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—the comparison is not apt because Christianity engages in proselytization and Judaism does not. The only "agenda" found at Chabad.org is informational. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". Can you tell me what that "agenda" might be? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Chabad#Outreach activities Much of the movement's activities emphasize on outreach activities. This is due to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson encouraging his followers to reach out to other Jews. Chabad outreach includes activities promoting the practice of Jewish commandments (Mitzvah campaigns), as well as other forms of Jewish outreach. Much of Chabad's outreach is performed by Chabad emissaries (see Shaliach (Chabad)). This is certainly a form of proselytism, even if it's only aimed at ethnic Jews or Jews of other denominations. Cf. also Chabad outreach Chabad Hasidic outreach is a Kiruv phenomena, whereby Chabad Chasidim attempt to encourage Jews to adopt Orthodox Jewish observance. It's already been pointed out that Chabad follows a different theology than many other Jewish groups. I'm not saying that's bad, it just affects how we should use them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Every group has its own opinions. But the information on the website is mostly general, unless it is specifically about Chabad subjects, of course. I get the feeling you are speaking from some kind of theoretical point of view, without any knowledge of the group or its website. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—if you know of a substantive difference between Chabad and standard Orthodox Judaism please bring it to our attention. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". You are linking to Chabad outreach. None of its activities involve attempts to convert anyone to Judaism. And this is hardly unique to Chabad. See Orthodox Judaism outreach. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They're trying to convert other Jews to Orthodox Judaism. I realize Orthodox Jews might not see that as proselytism because all the people who convert are ethnically Jewish, but it is as much conversion as changing from being a Baptist to a Roman Catholic, which is generally called conversion even though both are (religiously) Christian. Anyway, Chabad.org contains articles arguing for the literal truth of the Bible, for instance, which is in fact a substantive difference from Reform or Conservative Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is not the only Judaism, anymore than Evangelicalism is the only Christianity. Taking descriptions of Jewish practice by any partisan Orthodox source (i.e. a source that is encouraging others to see their version of the faith as the only correct one) and saying they're applicable as general knowledge about all Jews is akin to taking a partisan Orthodox Christian description of practice and saying it's generally applicable to all Christians. It's also been pointed out that Chabad is probably not entirely reliable for its descriptions of the Lubavitcher movement.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)