Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [1] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [2]. I looked back to the last discussion [3] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [4]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it would do a disservice to Wikipedia if I were to withdraw this RFC. Per my reasons and those by LaundryPizza03 stated above, the reasons stated by Hemiauchenia below, and the fact that the site is used as a source on multiple WP:BLPs currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's used as a source (on a BLP or otherwise) for anything that seems even slightly dodgy, you should remove it -- neither deprecation nor an RfC is necessary for that. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's already listed as unreliable at Perennial sources. There's no need to deprecate it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate I think some commenters don't understand how prominent Jihad Watch used to be, it's not just some random conspiracy blog run by a nobody, but a prominent website, associated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes the deprecated FrontPage Magazine. Jihad Watch has even drawn comment from one of Pakistan's prime ministers, and its author is described by the SPLC as "one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States". The website is currently cited 38 times in article space per jihadwatch.org  . I that stripping out the non-aboutself references to this source is something that needs doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have aborted this unnecessary RfC -- the number of possible unusable sources is infinite, they do not need to be run through RfCs one-by-one. Find something useful to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newslinger: Given that the April 2020 discussion wasn't a formal RfC, can it be used to deprecate the Jihad Watch without going through another discussion, given how strong the concensus was? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The world is not divided between "sources that are usable" and "sources that are deprecated"; there are categories such as "sources that are so clearly unsuitable for basic factual statements that to hold structured discussions about them is a pointless waste of time" and "sources that no one has ever seriously proposed to use to source anything" and "sources that are already listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP". Absent a clear need, the world is not made better by formally deprecating things in these categories -- running an RfC to confirm an existing and unchallenged consensus is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: I said exactly the same thing during the Zero Hedge deprecation RfC at which time Zero Hedge had around 20 Wikipedia citations which I felt was really more about making a point rather than a useful source deprecation. The real need is to strip out non-aboutself references to Jihad Watch, which I have done to several citations already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​By definition, deprecation does require a formal RfC (i.e. one using the {{rfc}} tag). — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate, if it isn't absolutely clear yet. I note the associated FrontpageMag is expressly deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is absolutely clear, and that's why I've removed the RfC tag, again. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if this site is being repeatedly spammed across article and there is indisputable consensus that it is generally unreliable, shouldn't this just be referred to WT:BLIST? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course, this RfC is a waste of time, which is why I've removed the tag again. IHA, please notice how almost everyone is saying the same thing. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBL Hi, IHA's adopter here. I have been silently watching this RFC in order to provide offwiki feedback. I was not planning on making any comment to avoid accusations of canvassing or tag teaming, etc. However, I feel the need to say, as an outside observer, that it is incredibly clear that people are not saying the same thing here. Some people are saying it shouldn't be depreciated, and other people are saying it should. Both sides agree it's a bad source, but I still see a good faith disagreement as to what to do about it.
  If you have an alternative means for IHA to get the result that they want (ie. depreciation, blacklisting, edit-filtering, or auto-reverting), then please feel free to suggest that. Until then, IHA seems to be following the only method laid out within Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to achieve their desired outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur that it's a reasonable RFC to raise here, and ask that the RFC tag not be removed again. We've seen before (e.g. Mail on Sunday) when an apparently-gratuitous RFC had to be run, just because some people insisted the obviously terrible source closely associated with an already deprecated source was great actually and kept putting it in. If we have to nail this one down, we might as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So far, there is a clear consensus among the people who have participated in this RfC that it should never have been opened, and zero people arguing that Jihad Watch is an acceptable source (which is, of course, further evidence that an RfC is not needed). The situation of the Mail on Sunday is completely incomparable in all respects. If a couple of you want to jerk yourselves off to the accomplishment of officially deprecating a source that no competent editor would ever use or defend, I guess I can't stop you, but it's an utterly idiotic waste of the time of everyone. MJL, maybe you can explain to your mentee that they should not edit war and not waste community time and also learn what the hell a personal attack is. Please no one ping me back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw this While Jihad Watch is in no way an acceptable source, we only deprecate sources that are cited enough by editors to be a problem. Compared to Newsmax or Occupy Democrats Jihad Watch is far less prominent. I would not be against blacklisting the source. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate It is currently being used in BLPs such as Hani Ramadan and we should deprecate. There's no need for it to drag this out any longer. Spudlace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spudlace, I went to Hani Ramadan, to check whether the jihadwatch link was actually being used to mislead readers about a BLP individual. I found JW had quoted what looked like a legitimate article from swissinfo.ch. While it is less than ideal to reference a mirror, it is not a BLP violation as you implied. JW's link to the swissinfo article was 404... But it took me about fifteen seconds to find that swissinfo had merely moved that article to [5].

The simple excision of the JW reference without looking for the original legitimate article it mirrored was disruptive, in my opinion. I realize someone else followed up to your hint here. But you could have performed the same check I did. So I encourage you too to be more careful.

In my opinion, the argument you advanced here falls short, and should be ignored by the closing admin. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate per comments above and last discussion. User:JayBeeEll, instead of disruptively removing the RfC, how about getting it blacklisted if you don't think this RfC is necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doug Weller:, I have nothing more to add here. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw-- I fail to see who is actually trying to insert "Jihad Watch" into an article? It's currently listed in only about 30 articles, mostly for aboutself reasons. Unless there is widespread abuse, deprecation is clearly not needed since Jihad Watch is already listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
• Withdraw per Alexbrn and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC. Doesn't allow for context and point to disputes about diffs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate blatant propaganda site. Should be removed from wherever it is used. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC Who really use it? --Shrike (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate -- not a usable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate or blacklist. Major promoter of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, as seen in https://www.jihadwatch.org/category/love-jihad. Frequently cited by other unreliable sources, including OpIndia (RSP entry), as a "Western" source for specious anti-Muslim claims. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order the article Love Jihad may describe this phenomenon as a "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately, anyone who as followed the relatively rare instances of female converts to Islam who become radicalized, their trials show that it was quite common to find they were targetted by what that article called "Jihad Romeos". See Jihad Jamie. I did a lot of work on the Brides of ISIL article, so I read about many of these women.

Newslinger, thanks for directing my attention to the Love Jihad article, as it may require a bias-ectomy.

Please, no one should the Love Jihad article's characterization of the phenomenon as a conspiracy theory as a reason to deprecate jihadwatch.com. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. See below (emphasis added):

Additionally, you have not provided any reliable sources showing that Jamie Paulin Ramirez's marriage was an instance of "Love Jihad", which involves a Muslim feigning love with the intention of converting a non-Muslim. According to the sources in the Jamie Paulin Ramirez article (including Reuters), Ramirez had already converted to Islam prior to meeting and marrying Ali Damache. The Ramirez case is an instance of radicalization, not an instance of "Love Jihad". Jihad Watch has published 18 articles promoting the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. As a persistent publisher of false or fabricated information, Jihad Watch should absolutely be deprecated. If Jihad Watch is so obviously unreliable that an RfC is not necessary, as some editors in this discussion state, then blacklisting is the most appropriate solution. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC - The website is only being used on one article where it backs up its own claim, Other than that it's used no where so as such I see no real reason to formally deprecate something that isn't being used and as far as I can see has never been a hot topic of debate. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No deprecation, no blacklisting

In 2017 Jarble started Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#Jihad_Watch with an assertion that more than 60 articles cited jihad watch. [6]

Well, currently, it seems to be cited by just one article - Islamophobia in the United States. Is that citation appropriate? Neutrally written? I don't think there is any question it neutrally written, and appropriate.

Deprecating potential cites, blacklisting potential cites, should not be done for frivolous reasons. As someone else said above, if there isn't a history of problematic citations from this site then deprecating or blacklisting is completely inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010:, @Geo Swan: When I filed this initially, the list of pages it was used on was much, much longer. It appears a set of editors took this filing as impetus to try to remove many uses from pages, which is I guess fine on its own, but does not change the fact that the site was used extensively in the past (as noted by @Hemiauchenia:). Given that the previous discussion while not an RFC itself was nearly unanimous in favor of deprecation, I felt that having the RFC and nailing it down would be good for prevention of future problems involving the site, especially as it is owned by the same organization that publishes another already-deprecated source. I think it's entirely unfair for people to say "well it's not used now" when it was when the RFC was filed, and unfair for people to claim there's "no problem" when it took the RFC to get them off their asses to do a cleanup. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Intelligent contributors use RS intelligently.

First, even the most highly regarded RS occasionally publish bad articles. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have had rare occasions when they trusted and promoted brilliant new writers, who turned out to be plagiarists, who unethically copied other authors, and confabulators, who just made stuff up. Intelligent contributors who use the recommended caution and neutrality when citing sources can cite a bad source in a truly neutral way, so their citation of a brilliant but dishonest journalist is not an embarrassment, because they used the neutral voice.

Second, intelligent, reliable contributors will be just as able to recognize when a particular RS might be unreliable, they can be just as careful as you think you are.

You say you had a list of problematic usages of jihadwatch? Well, if editors have since fixed all those usages, so we now can't find a single one, then doesn't that prove formal deprecation or blacklisting aren't necessary? I suggest we reserve deprecation and blacklisting for rogue sites so tricky they routinely fool even experienced contributors, and they fool contributors so often they can't be controlled through normal quality control.

I have a concern that deprecation and blacklisting can turn out to be editorializing - an attempt at censorship.

Because you didn't list a single problematic article third parties, like me, can't actually confirm the site is being used in a problematic way. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, I thought linking the list of citations was sufficient. Clearly I didn't account for people who would uncivilly assume bad faith later on. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment indicates that Jihad Watch had been inappropriately inserted into articles at least 59 times, and that the use of Jihad Watch is inappropriate in nearly all cases. Domains are regularly added to the spam blacklist after being inappropriately linked in articles just a few times, so Jihad Watch exceeds the threshold for blacklisting by an order of magnitude. — Newslinger talk 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate. This is only cited in 11 articles at the present moment, but... Vive Charlie miscites it as a primary source that the author of the cited article works for Vive Charlie, Eurabia cites it as a primary source to showcase the views of its authors, it's cited in David Horowitz Freedom Center as a primary source to indicate that it's a blog run by Robert Spencer, Islamophobia in the United States cites it as a primary source to show that it is an islamophobic hate site... if it can only be cited as a primary source, and that mostly just to say it shouldn't be trusted as a reliable source, we should really deprecate it. It's abundantly obvious that it is among "highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" per the beginning of WP:DEPRECATED. Why would we want to wait until a problem occurs with content cited to this obvious hate site? FalconK (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being “unreliable for facts”, this means it has already been effectively deprecated. Are we discussing some form of further deprecation? If so, I am not sure what that would be. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: please see WP:DEPREC, the source has not been deprecated as of yet. Deprecation is a necessary requirement to place an edit filter warning anyone who tried to use the source in the future. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... It look to me like it WAS deprecated ... is this just about getting approval to add the tag that generates an automatic warning? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RSN Archive 293 says "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page." Hemiauchenia's "concensus" [sic] note which was added on December 12 is worthless, as is the deprecation page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate* Not only should JihadWatch be deprecated, but it should also be included in WT:BLIST. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with 'It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being "unreliable for facts"'; things like this do not need to be RfCed, just proposed for RSP addition (and or blacklisting if misused often enough that they need to be prevented).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Closure

I have placed a closure request for this RFC. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this is now at 32 days.IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:RS/P

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

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

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

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

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[7] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [8], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [9]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [10], Government Executive [11], Albuquerque Journal [12], CBS News [13], TIME [14], CNN [15] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [16], [17] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [18]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife...), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [19], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [20] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [21] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable per User:Chetsford with the RSOPINION restrictions feminist noted. I think I would consider much of their material analysis but absent a source directly contradicting them I would say it is usable in that capacity. Springee (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's aggregation and partisan opinion content, so should be treated accordingly. So if we're talking about their original content then no, of course we shouldn't use it for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. unreliable), but there may be uses for attributed opinions of certain authors in exceptional cases (as usual, RSOPINION does not mean that every/any opinion carries WP:WEIGHT on its own, but it's possible there are uses for them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is an offshoot of Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, where Normchou, Esiymbro, and I agreed that the Tibetan Political Review does not appear to be a reliable source. This is disputed by Pasdecomplot on the basis that it has not appeared at RSN yet.

Tibetan Political Review is self-hosted on Google Sites, has no affiliation with any academic publisher, is not listed in major journal indices, has no evidence of academic peer-review, and does not appear to be reviewed or discussed by established RSes (that we could find). It only existed for 7 years and often reads more like a blog than a research journal (e.g. the first article).

As such, it does not qualify under academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:SOURCE) or reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and likely falls under has not been vetted by the scholarly community. This is much closer to:

journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Perhaps someone else could shed further light on the usability of Tibetan Political Review though, or draw a broader consensus on its reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC); strike-out editor who didn't comment directly on TPR 02:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a collection of opinion pieces? Run by a poet and a couple of lawyers, so definitely not a scholarly journal. They accept unsolicited submissions. Doesn't appear to even have been discussed before. I don't think this can be used for anything other than what they themselves are saying, and since neither the Tibetan Political Review nor the writers appear to be notable, I'm not sure why we'd ever even be quoting/attributing them. At any rate, not an RS for anything other than their own opinions, attributed. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify the dispute, both the independent scholar Warren W Smith and Tibetan Political Review are being challenged at Nyingchi. I propose that the focus of this RSN be broadened to include Smith as an author, as well.
• Tibetan Political Review was founded in June 2010, and its editorial board is comprised of academics and jurists in the U.S and India. These include Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal. Their web site was [22] as listed on the Tibetan Political Review page at fr.wikipedia [23], but is presently [24]. Their Wikipedia page doesn't list the editorial board's other professional interests, even if they are published poets.
• It's cited by Courrier International[25] which is published by Le Monde; included in University of Minnesota's Human Rights Library[26] for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet; listed in Oxford University's Press Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews [27]; cited by Harvard Kennedy School Asian American Policy Review [28] and by Harvard Law School [29]; cited by Tibetan Review[30], and by World Tibet News/Canada Tibet News Network[31] as well as by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet[32]. The list could continue, but might be seen as "bludgeoning" the issue that Tibetan Political Review is effectively peer reviewed, is cited, and definitely found very reliable by both academic institutions and a governmental agency vetting reports from Tibet, MarkH21 and Esiymbro and Normchou.
• Warren W Smith has a scholarly piece in Tibetan Political Review, and it's what led to this RSN; a very knowledgeable and respectable piece covering modern history in the region [33]. Any editor with the same knowledge base would agree, regardless of its "hosted" url. That's why it was provided as RS. Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[34] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". Smith also has a page at fr.wiki[35], where it's noted that a critic Barry Sautman is himself criticized in his own page's lead for espousing PRC views[36], as in Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine.
• At Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism it's clear Smith's scholarly views of China's Tourism policies in Tibet as presented in Tibetan Political Review are an issue. And, Tibetan Political Review has also become an issue, although the author and RS's stability dates from 30october, when it was discovered while digging for RS on the Middle Way Approach. My dispute is not about a lack of RSN on these topics, but the effective silencing of a scholar's criticism of policies due to random issues, such as the URL and such as ignoring the academics on the editorial board and the academic institutions which find Tibetan Political Review reliable - including Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Minnesota. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these sources seem to establish peer review, and only the Canadian Immigration Board calls it a journal. As valeree points out, the editors are distinctly lacking in qualifications in the relevant fields (between the four list on the about page only 1 has a relevant degree - a BA in Political Science). Warren W Smith may be an SME, but I personally would not call anyone a SME unless they had an English Wikipedia page. While I generally overlook this, in this case the claim is deeply controversial and the post provides no supporting evidence. The fact that it reads like a polemic, not an academic paper (tourism is aimed at turning Tibet into something like a theme park where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies about primitive Tibetan society doesn't sound like something I'd see in a serious journal) does not help me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 01:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally only one of the links of citations (the Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews link) is a published academic review, and even then it isn't reviewing the TPR article itself. The rest is a mix of student publications, a mention that an alum is on the editorial board in an alumni spotlight, raw links on a library page, non-academic Tibetan diaspora journalism, and a Canadian immigration board's response to an information request. If that is all that can be found for the 837 articles published by the TPR then it definitely does not qualify as being vetted by the scholarly community.

  The other editors here also bring up a valid point about the editorial board being self-described as poets, writers, and lawyers without academic affiliations. That's not the kind of editorial board that you find with scholarly journals. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The points Smith makes about Chinese tourism policies in Tibet are widely shared, by residents throughout Lhasa and visitors to its spiritual sites, at monasteries, and are found as related to the demolitions and forced displacement of nuns and monks at Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar. Other sources go further to state tourism policies in Tibet are used as a form of ongoing cultural genocide. Smith's informed and pithy statements are supported by Tsering Woeser and many others, as I've learned while editing. It's rather shocking, certainly, but the information is a proven reliable account of current conditions in Tibet, by an academic specialist. Thus, it is something you'd find in an academic journal, and it appears long overdue in being cited widely.

  Smith has a page in French Wikipedia, and is cited in several French media outlets - additional diffs can be provided. El D's opinion about English wiki pages for authors is an opinion not supported by RS. Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [37] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

  Another editor opines views, picked up by MarkH21, but those views aren't supported by diffs. My source says the board has academics. Is there a list of board members and their professional affiliations for each academic RS, or even for each RS that can be used for comparison? Probably not.

  The highly prestigious and academically stringent Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Law School citings, characterized as "student publications", indicate that current scholars and future leaders have confidence in the reliability of Tibetan Political Review. Their confidence signifies an academic standard within the student body and professorial body that Tibetan Political Review meets.

  All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What other sources say about other issues in Tibet are irrelevant. If they back up the claims of the TPR, then use them in the article instead. If they simply claim that Tibetans are undergoing political genocide, then they are irrelevant to the claim that Nyingchi is a "fake village". My statement against it being the sort of thing that would be found in an academic journal was an issue with the wording, not the meaning.

  I doubt that student publications can be considered part of the scholarly community. Here is the editorial board of the IJCP (being used above as a source against Xinhua). This is what an editorial board of a scholarly journal should look like. (on the subject of Xinhua, I do not believe my views on Xinhua are relevant. If you would like to dispute them, take them up on the relevant RSN.)

  My request for an English language Wikipedia page is my personal interpretation of WP:SPS. I am happy to give a lot of leeway on it for non-controversial claims, but this one is clearly quite controversial. If the TPR is reliable, then it is clearly not needed. But if it isn't then I would like, on controversial issues like this, the involved source to have a Wikipedia page demonstrating their notability. ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  IJCP is a completely different source. We're not saying all academic journals need boards comparable to IJCP. The issue is reliability, as evidenced by academic usage, review, and academic credentials of those involved.

  The "personal interpretation" for pages is noted, but is not RS policy from my understanding.

  []Harvard Law#Rankings|Harvard Law]] and Harvard Kennedy School are considered part of the US, and the world's, scholarly community.Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The rankings and reputations of the schools at Harvard are not relevant here. A Harvard Law School alumni bulletin that says that someone is on the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review and a Harvard Kennedy School student publication that cites the Tibetan Political Review once do not tie the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review to the reputation of Harvard as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @Pasdecomplot: Your assertion that people in Tibet share Smith's views does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that he is a subject-matter expert or a reliable source. If his view is repeated by reliable sources, then use those reliable sources. Whether someone has an article on some version of Wikipedia doesn't demonstrate that they are a subject-matter expert.

  The article you describe as from the Harvard Kennedy School describes itself as A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication. Student publications are not established RSes regardless of the home institution, just as masters theses and doctoral theses-in-progress are not considered RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article that you describe as a citation from the Harvard Law School is literally an Alumni Focus bulletin that only mentions the Tibetan Political Review once: says Tenzin Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and member of the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review. That is anything but a citation of the Tibetan Political Review and says literally nothing about its reliability.

  The Tibetan Political Review Editorial Team page describes them exactly as Valereee did, e.g. a poet, writer and translator living in New York City, a writer living in Dharamsala, India, He is admitted to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. The fact that they graduated with bachelor's degrees and law degrees from universities does not mean that they are academics.

  You're going off-topic by pointing at another editor's views on other sources and suggesting hypocrisy. You're also going off-topic about Radio Free Asia and also make vague references to editors; I did not suggest replacing the text at Nyingchi that was cited to Tibetan Political Review with a citation to Radio Free Asia, nor did anyone else here to my knowledge. I only removed the text referenced to Tibetan Political Review because it's not a reliable source, and so far five other editors have agreed with that view except you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion of hypocracy. The point on RFA is germaine as a comparison, given the current edits at Nyingchi [38] where the text via RFA (as edited by Normchou) remains after several reverts, including a revert earlier today by MarkH21. The point is this RSN demonstrates Tibetan Political Review is included as a reliable source of current accounts in Tibet as versus RFA, which is not seen as a reliable source for the same accounts, and is described as a source that should only be used as an inline source per the RSN. If it wasn't used to replace Tibetan Political Review, I agree it would be off-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were two paragraphs; one referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and one referenced to RFA. In this edit, I deleted the paragraph referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and did not replace anything with RFA. There also isn't a single participant in this RSN discussion who said that RFA was unreliable in the archived RSN thread that you refer to. You're misrepresenting the comments of other editors with something that is totally off-topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a text quote about RFA from RSN archive 313 I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blocked editor who has not commented at this RSN thread and cannot comment at this RSN thread. That's also not an example of your full claim that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia. Are you still standing behind it or can you just drop the false claim? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The other RSN thread is completely immaterial here; none of those sources were deemed reliable. The most common comments I can find in that thread was that the sources needed to be examined individually rather than as a group, and that the thread was trying to argue about too many sources at once. I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure inaccuracies are corrected for the future archive: Here's the text from the closing at Archive 313, Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny. So, for the record, the statement above none of those sources were deemed reliable is actually not accurate as per closing, but the discussion does supply other general use guidelines. Another innaccuracy I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there was already clarified above, where the only comment on RFA by CarasdhrasAiguo has been provided here, and note the coment was not addressed by the other editors. I only requested the RSN on RFA and other sources, after repeated reverts of those sources by CaradhrasAiguo. Although that editor is not participating in this RSN, their non-summarized revert at Nyingchi of Tibetan Political Review [39]began a series of reverts which then led to this RSN. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, to return to the topic and comments: The Harvard Kennedy School AAPR journal cites Smith twice, and Tibetan Political Review once - the same Smith article on the Middle Way Policy previously edited into Nyingchi. The Harvard Law Bulletin quotes Tenzen Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and board member of Tibetan Political Review, in its article on Lobsang Sangay of Central Tibetan Administration and a Harvard Law alumnus. The IRB's citing of Tibetan Political Review in its background on an immigration case signifies their position on its reliability, as indicated by their absence of disagreement to the information. The Oxford Handbooks Online scholarly research reviews and peer reviewed abstract entitledTibetan Buddhist Self-Immolation by Kevin Carrico cites at least four different articles from Tibetan Political Review in its references, which are cited alongside Robert Barnett, Janet Gyatso, Tsering Woeser, Jamyang Norbu, Elliott Sperling and others. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, if you're referring to my comment as "inaccuracies" that you're correcting for future archives (it would be so much easier if you stopped playing this little game of yours and just addressed me directly, but whatever): The text you are quoting is not the closing statement in that discussion. That text is a comment from a single editor, Adoring nanny. It just happened to be the final comment made in that discussion. That does not make it the closing statement. That discussion never received a formal closing. The statement I made is correct: in that thread, which was never formally closed, none of the sources addressed were declared reliable. None were declared to be not-reliable, either. None were declared anything. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin's Humboldt University's South Asia Chronicle includes an abstract by M.N.Rajesh, which cites Tibetan Political Review and Smith[40], and Reed University's Anthropology of Global Tibet appears to include Tibetan Political Review on its reading list (included on searches). Author, editor and translator Tenzin Dickie is published by Washington Post Online, edits at Treasury of Lives, and edits at Tibetan Political Review [41]. Woeser as a RS cites Smith [42]. And, here's a Courrier International's reprint of Tibetan Political Review [43]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, Again, none of these makes Tibetan Political Review a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. They may very well be informed opinions. Academics may very well put them on reading lists and even cite them. None of that creates editorial oversight. And, yes, academic journals and other reliable sources DO provide a list of their editorial hierarchy, that's one of the things we check for when we are assessing a source for reliability: some sort of masthead. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee is correct. For TPR's 837 articles, our searches has turned up two citations of TPR articles from any peer-reviewed scholarly publications. That is paltry and worse than several known predatory journals, let alone reputable peer-reviewed sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community (WP:SCHOLARSHIP again). The remaining evidence does not demonstrate much in terms of reliability:

• A Canadian immigration board (IRB) information request citation
• A student publication (AAPR) citation
• A alumni bulletin mentioning that a Harvard alum was on the TPR editorial board
• TPR appearing on reading lists
• Verification that one of the writers on the TPR editorial board (Tenzin Dickyi) is indeed a writer
• The author of a TPR article being cited in a blog post by another writer (Tsering Woeser)
• Being reprinted in a newspaper

It appears that there is no stronger evidence for reliability, and even a couple more additional genuine citations from peer-reviewed academic publications would be too few to really bring this to general RS status. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{Replying to MarkH21's refractor}

• As WP:SOURCE states, If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..., but doesn't say they are the only reliable sources. We've established that the board provides professional oversite, and we've established that academic authors in peer reviewed journals cite Tibetan Political Review as in WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Warren Smith, the author of the article in Tibetan Political Review, is also established as a respected and notable specialist in his field. This adds further reliability to the article that's specifically contested with edits at Nyingchi [44]. He and Tibetan Political Review are properly cited inline, and the quotation's accuracy is reinforced by an excerpt added to the citation:

Historian Warren W. Smith states in his 2015 review of the model villages, included in his "Origins of the Middle Way Policy" for Tibetan Political Review, that tourism is turning Tibet into a theme park, and used Nyingchi's "fake Tibetan 'model villages'" as an example of Chinese "fantasies about primitive Tibetan society".^[1]

• To address another aspect of the importance of the author and source, related edits on Nyingchi were also reedited, but based on other RS. Possible related informational aspects with Smith's article is that those RS and sources state Tibetan nuns forced into political re-education centers/camps in Nyingchi have been documented as forced to sing and dance on a stage in Nyingchi. Which might or might not tie into "where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies" since Nyingchi is a popular tourist destination, only more RS will tell.
• For the record, the published author Woeser is cited by BBC and other first rate news agencies, and her blog is a famous record of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet, and cited by those agencies.
• Sorry for the repetition, but the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) citation is extremely notable as to the reliability of factual information in Tibetan Political Review regarding current conditions in Tibet.
• I've provided at least six individual citations of different articles from academic settings, and there are more for Smith alone, for Smith and Tibetan Political Review together, and for the journal with its other authors. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) MarkH21, I think items reprinted in RS would probably be usable as items from that reliable source (rather than from TPR), but the one PDC has linked to is published by Courrier International as an opinion piece, so again only a reliable source for Tenzin Dorjee's/TPR's opinion, with attribution. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor MarkH21 has stated that the edit above describing editorial "support" for RFA is "a false claim". While Esyimbro and Normchou both used RFA as an editing source, MarkH21 did not, but the edit history includes 5 reedits around the RFA source as Tibetan Political Review was being challenged as a source [45]. The interpretation of "support" stemed from WP:SILENCE in this instance where numerous edits and reverts around RFA were being made, but no deletions of RFA occurred. I don't believe a "false claim" was made, although MarkH21 has clearly restated they don't feel SILENCE is applicable. Thus, this note respectfully clarifies MarkH21's position on RFA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not reliable. This is just WP:SPS op-ed material, not from a reputable publisher, and not from reknowed writers. I.e., it is low-quality WP:PRIMARY material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The seriously off-topic edits below should be refractored to the user's talk page. A request has already been made. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, it's clear we don't have consensus for TPR to be considered a reliable source (other than for its own opinions, attributed, of course; it's perfectly reliable for that.) But I think we'd need a formal close to declare it not-reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed, as that's not as immediately clear. Should we request a formal close? —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four editors have participated here, with three calling it not reliable (outside of WP:ABOUTSELF) and one calling it reliable. Another editors (plus a now-blocked editor) also called it not reliable at the original Talk:Nyingchi discussion. The consensus seems pretty clear, but a formal close doesn't hurt. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've requested one. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Still hoping for eventual formal closure. —valereee (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Requests for closure has a bit of a backlog... —valereee (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already know how this discussion's going to go, but I'd like to once again revisit Anthony Fantano's reliability as a source. At this point, given that he's been called The Only Music Critic Who Matters" by the New York Times (AKA the most reliable of reliable sources), Wikipedia's refusal to acknowledge him as an album reviewer seems to based more on respect for precedent and/or stubbornness than his actual merits as a reliable source. It is both at odds with reality and inconsistent with the way other sources are treated.

Jim Sterling is self-published and self-reviewed, yet his reliability as a source for video game reviews is not questioned. Like Fantano, Sterling's work was published under someone else's brand before he moved into self-publushing. Unlike Fantano, his current practice of self-publishing is not used as an excuse to remove his reviews from articles. Can someone please explain why Jim Sterling is an acceptable opinion to cite for video game reviews when the same is not true for Fantano and music reviews? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call NYT "the most reliable of reliable sources". We tend to rate scholarly sources higher than journalism. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this and was thinking about opening a thread about this (Its worth noting that the "The Only Music Critic Who Matters" was subtitled "If you are under 25"). This isn't really a source reliability question, but more a discussion about whether Fantano's stature is equivalent to those of mainstream media outlets like Pitchfork for album reviews, and whether his opinions are due for inclusion in the reception section, but as we are discussing a particular source this is the appropriate noticeboard. The fact that he is a self-published source is irrelevant for his opinions on albums. Fantano's status as an independent music critic is Sui generis, that is to say, totally unique, there simply aren't any other contemporary independent music critics with anywhere near his stature, which rivals that in audience and reach of mainstream music publications. I don't think that Fantano's opinion should be mass edited into every album he has ever reviewed, but I don't think he should be banned either as he effectively is now. I think his reviews should also count towards the notability of any album he covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agreed with this. The problem with his reviews that he post them on YouTube, which is a self-published website and self-published websites are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano. I'm a fan of the guy but I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia, if it supported by a third party source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, Music reviews are subjective, Fantano isn't being cited to support statements of fact, but his opinion on music, ergo this isn't a reliability issue. In the 2020 RfC there was clear concensus against adding an edit filter to YouTube links because youtube is a platform, not a publisher and has no effect on source reliability. The question is a due weight one, namely, does Fantano have the same prominence as critics in professional publications that he deserves to be placed in the reception section, and does he qualify as a subject-matter expert? Arguably, he does. "Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano" yeah but how many of those have recieved multiple profiles in high-profile publications? Fantanos status as an independent music critic is unique, and to just dismiss him as a "YouTuber" is silly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, we accept Robert Christgau's personal and private reviews on many album articles, and not just because it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. While NYT may not be a glowing endorsement, I tend to agree with the "marginal use" opinions offered here. We don't know if Fantano has an editor or makes retractions, or even if there may be payola involved in having Fantano offer a review, so I would not accept Fantano's word as final, but if an album has fewer than five reviews and Fantano has reviewed the work, it would benefit our project to include the review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, accepting Robert Christgau's self published reviews but not Fantano's is hypocritical. Fantano covers many less popular albums by smaller musicians and his views would enhance the reception sections of those articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: That's not the same and it's not hypocritical. The thing is Robert Christgau has written his reviews on his website in this fashion and now on Substack. That's different then posting a video on a website that can be considered as unreliable. So are you saying we should use Anthony Fantano's videos as a reliable sources instead of an article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's some sort of "official" YT-account or whatever, they seem about equally WP:SPS, with the possible subject-matter expert exception. See also WP:RSPYT. CNN on YT is as WP:RS as CNN elsewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantano has his own website, which functions as direct youtube links. I don't see why there is an issue citing Fantano when theres no issue citing say a CNN report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These comparisons don’t make any sense. CNN isn’t applicable — CNN (or whatever news source of your liking) is a massive publication with editorial oversight and review. Needle Drop is a person - Fantano - a person uploading his content straight to YouTube. Entirely different. The problem is no editorial oversight, no policy, nothinh, just a guy recording his thoughts and throwing it on YouTube. That is absolutely not what happens when a news reporter uploads content to a publications YouTube channel. Completely different. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I completely agreed. Using a video review is not the same then using a text review, these comparisons are dumb and don't make any sense. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is he an acknowledged expert (by more then one RS) ?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also against this. This has been discussed to death at the musical WikiProjects. It’s straightforward - hes a self-publishing Youtuber. It’s extremely rare that such a sourc is deemed usable on Wikipedia. If anything, we should be re-looking at why we deem someone like Jim Sterling as usable, not the other way around. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: And yet Christgau's self-published reviews are just fine eh? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia Why would you put words in my mouth like that? When have I ever said that? If you’re going to respond to me, please at least address the comments I’m actually making. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: You were a participant to the 2014 discussion on Wikiproject Albums on Christgau in which you stated that "I would consider [Christgau] generally reliable regardless of genre, unless a consensus at a given article deems the source not to be used" for his non-self published work. Do you agree or disagree that Christgau's self published reviews are usable? I'm not addressing your arguments because its pretty clear from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#The_Needle_Drop that your actual reasoning is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and that you think that he's "just some guy on YouTube", describing him as "mak[ing] boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation" and criticising him for making joke reviews even though Pitchfork does the exact same thing, and not addressing the evidence presented from reliable sources that Fantano is indeed a notable critic. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Apologies for me not realizing you were responding to something I said six years ago to someone else? My sentiment from 6 years ago was that Christgau was usable but not compulsory and that he should be used sparingly. I personally dont use him at all, but I’ve learned to pick my battles because older editors in the music WikiProjects appreciate his work. Believe it or not, opinions can change over the course of 6 years, and if someone put forth an effort to not use Christgau anymore, I’d probably support it. Anyways, regardless, My problem with Fantano is that he’s self-published. Please assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the attention and endorsements that Fantano has received from RS makes a strong case for his expertise and relevance on a USEBYOTHERS basis. In addition to the NYTimes coverage linked above, here's two more examples attesting his relevance: [77], [78]. His use of the video format is annoying for us since text sources are so much easier to work with, but that's not a reason to consider him unreliable or irrelevant. Concerns about a lack of editorial oversight or fact checking are less germane for assessing his relevance because ultimately he is primarily being used for his opinion, and the question is whether his opinion is relevant, not whether it is "accurate". With that in mind, I wouldn't use him for controversial factual claims, but I think it's valid to cite his opinion as part of critical reception sections for music. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that RSes have praised Fantano's reviews enough that his opinion "matters" enough to be included in the review section of album articles --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note - the opening comments are also misleading. To say WP:VG full-heartedly supports Jim Sterling’s use as a source is not accurate. If you look at their source list - WP:VG/S - you’ll see Sterling listed as “situational” with caveats and restrictions on his use. As someone who also edits in music and game content areas, I can verify that we often treat Sterling the same way we do Fantano - limiting the use of his content to when it’s been published by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Christgau is based on fully recognizing his body of work in reliable sources, with editorial oversight. He has been recognized as an expert and has written several books on albums. None of these books were self-published. There are reliable, sources that believe he is a qualified music journalist. There are discussions that have reached consensus that he is a RS when he writes on his own as well as when he has been published in other sources.

I have not seen any sources that support this same standard for Fantano. I have seen editors claim that sources exist. Please provide them so we can see what the sources say about Fantano. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: The Needle Drop

Can Anthony Fantano (The Needle Drop) be used for his reviews of music in the reception section of articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (The Needle Drop)

• Yes There is no disagreement on the fact that Anthony Fantano is a self-published source, and therefore should be not used for independent claims about living persons. However, Fantano's opinion on music is not a question about whether Fantano is a reliable source, but whether or not he is a prominent critic. Coverage by reliable sources such as a profile in the NYTimes indicates that he is, and that he has a substantial following, far more so than any other independent music critic aside from Robert Christgau. Some editors have dismissed Fantano because he uses YouTube as the medium of his content, and that because YouTube is an "unreliable source" we should exclude him. However in the 2020 RfC on YouTube, it was determined that YouTube is a platform, not a publisher, and has no effect on source reliability. I don't think Anthony Fantano is more important than more mainstream music review outlets or that his opinion should be on every album that he has ever reviewed, but I see no reason to exclude him entirely as the current WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:ALBUM does (Technically the rule is that his views must be mentioned by a separate reliable source, in practice this functions as an almost total exclusion) and his reviews of less popular albums would help flesh out coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having a think about this and doing some additional research, I have come to some conclusions. Fantano and Pitchfork have a lot of overlap in what they cover in terms of more obscure albums, while Fantano's reviews of lobsterfight - pink, black, and orange in the corners and Dope Body - Crack a Light are the only reviews of these particular albums I can find. I agree with other commenters that there's not much reason to use Fantano for mainstream popular music where there is likely to be extensive coverage by other sources, unless reliable sources consider his opinion on them significant. I also agree that the inclusion of Fantano's reviews should vary on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Only when no other sources can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Only when no other sources can be found. At the end of the day, he is a YouTuber. His Wikipedia page uses {{Infobox YouTuber}}, his page says "YouTuber", so he’s a YouTuber. No one can tell me otherwise, for obvious reasons. YouTube as a platform is not reliable. It has no one to review videos, no one to fact check. That is left entirely to the content creators. Even if someone is a verified creator, in my eyes, they aren’t any more reliable then a verified Twitter account as Twitter is the same amount of unreliable. Having NYT recognize their person doesn’t make their videos more reliable. The platform is still YouTube. I’ve seen all sides of the argument from reading the above discussion, and I’m suggesting he is questionable as a source and should not be used when not needed, but can be used under dire circumstances (i.e. when there are minimal (0-2) reviews other than him and it is safe to assume no other sources will review the album). D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revote: No. After careful consideration, I have changed my vote to "No" per comments made by ImaginesTigers and Ojorojo, as well as about 60% of my original comment (arguments about Fantano being a YouTuber, the whole bit about YouTube being unreliable and the Twitter analogy). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No (Unreliable unless published/mentioned by a separate reliable source) - per my prior comments and WP:SPS. The issue is less about YouTube being the medium, and more about how he’s just a self-publisher without the things we look for in a professional publication. (No editorial oversight, editorial policy, anything like that.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, usable for music review content per my comment above. There is evidence of multiple RS treating him as a significant voice in music criticism. The weight of his opinions obviously is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis, although like other editors I doubt there will be much of a reason to cite him on articles where there's extensive mainstream critical coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (for music reviews), after reading the comments here and the article on him, I concur with Rosguill. Clearly RS treat him as a prominent critic, so he should be considered one by us per that conference of credibility; the platform he is on shouldn't matter, though I also agree that the weight his opinions are given should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Usable for music reviews per the RSes treating him as an important voice of music criticism. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, per Hemiauchenia. As a self-published source, Fantano is not a reliable source for factual claims. But given his notability, I see no reason why his opinions cannot be cited. Obviously he should not be the sole or even primary source of a Reception article except in special cases, e.g. Angelic 2 the Core but a few sentences mentioning his review would be fine. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No: While I do enjoy Fantano's reviews myself, they should not be cited directly because they either come from YouTube or his website, which is self published. However, if a non contested reliable source publishes one or more of them, then that is fine to be cited. --K. Peake 06:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No: I agreed with Doggy54321 and Sergecross73. Fantano's reviews would be reliable if they published by an reliable source. We should not ignore the fact that his reviews are still self-published. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes: After thinking about it, I have change my vote from no to yes, due to what Binksternet and JG66 has said. While I still think YouTube should be avoided for obvious reasons (per WP:SELFPUB), but Anthony Fantano is a well-known music critic and his reviews should not be ignored. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes except for BLP material. WP:SELFPUB appears to be directly relevant here and the material cited in the discussion above convinces me that this person meets the criteria in that policy. ElKevbo (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we can and should use the Needle Drop for recent releases. My opinion has changed on this; I first thought Fantano was a flash in the pan, but he has proved his staying power, and his reviews are much discussed. We are here to summarize for the Wikipedia readers all the relevant literature, and whether we like it or not, Fantano has become part of the literature of music released since 2009. It matters less that he is right or correct in his reviews (Christgau famously went against the grain many times) and more that his reviews get tons of eyeballs, and attract strong reactions. Fantano is the subject of a few in-depth pieces about his career as a music critic, and none of them say he cannot be trusted. Australian entertainment news outlet Junkee said Fantano was praised by Christgau.[79] Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was definitely acknowledged by Christgagu, but to call it praise is questionable, the full quote (rather than the snippet in the article) seemed pretty dismissive to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No - He's popular, perhaps he's the "wave of the future," but he's also, as the NYT article mentions, as much an entertainer as a critic. The article also mentions a managing editor, without describing what this editor actually does. The comparisons with Christgau are bizarre; Christgau has written for dozens of prestigious publications for over five decades, and has served as an editor himself; he is also an acknowledged expert on popular music. Mr. Fantano worked at a college radio station, and then Connecticut Public Radio. That would seem to be about it? He can be hugely popular, and even a harbinger, without actually meeting Wikipedia's standards for integrity and oversight. But, like Pitchfork, he will most likely continue to professionalize and mainstream himself and his platform, and may yet meet these outdated notions of editorial oversight. Caro7200 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes on critical opinion, No for factual claims - The New York Times piece demonstrates that Fantano's critical opinion matters in today's new wave of journalism, whether we like it or not. I think some of the "No" votes are taking a black and white approach to WP:SELFPUB when the guideline is actually a bit more grey. The purpose of the guideline is to deter editors from sourcing material that clearly has no ground to stand on, like blogs and forum posts. It offers consideration for self-published authors who are deemed "subject-matter experts". While the guideline looks to works published in reliable sources to support this, I think this Times piece is an acceptable substitute. I think everyone should read it before voting. Now, music opinions are cheap :), but facts are not. Since the inner workings of The Needle Drop and its editorial process are still an enigma to me, I can't say there is strong enough editorial oversight that he can be used for factual claims. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes for music reviews, per Rosguill and TheSandDoctor. He's treated as a significant critic in reliable sources, so while obviously his reviews shouldn't be given undue weight, they do merit inclusion. --Drevolt (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but only for music reviews, and even then sparingly; his opinion is not a must-have in any given section on critical reception. Surprises me big time that I've come around to this way of thinking, but I'm swayed by some of the arguments put forward above. Binksternet's especially. I work pretty exclusively on music articles from the 1960s and early '70s, so I'd be surprised if there was ever a need for Fantano's opinions in those articles (he'd have to get in line behind dozens of critics and journalists – several dozen perhaps – going back decades). But Fantano's standing, at least as I understand it from this RfC, reminds of what I've read about Paul Williams when he founded Crawdaddy in the mid '60s. Williams had zero in the way of professional experience and for some time his (SPS) publication was just a fanzine, but it was immediately popular and highly influential; some music historians credit the Williams–Crawdaddy combination as the start of genuine rock/pop criticism. Fantano appears to have spearheaded a similarly revolutionary approach to how we view professional music reviews. I still think inclusion via secondary sources is preferred over directly citing his YouTube pieces, but then that's the approach I generally adhere to anyway – eg, by letting artist biographies, books on music history, etc, serve as the guide to what we include from contemporaneous (1960s) album and song reviews even if the entire review is now available online. JG66 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I don't understand why other editors are ignoring the self-published requirement. You cannot, in my view, argue that he meets the expert criteria; that's a wilful misunderstanding of what its actual purpose, which is beyond even citing journalism—it’s for academics. An article in The New York Times about him is not the publication reproducing his work or his analysis. The NYT is actually kind of disparaging about his videos, calling them long-winded (maybe that's because he's self-published, and has no editorial oversight). Neither does it imbue him with any authority; the only person calling Fantano "an authority" in the article is a musician and college student whose [TWITTER] account does bite-size criticism. The NYT saying that he is a music critic that matters to people under 25 does not make him an expert; it makes him notable. Allowing YouTubers to be cited, selectively, is absolutely buck-wild. He's a notable, self-published source, who shouldn't be cited. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No The bar for critics should be fairly high. Many viewers may like him, but his reviews don't appear to be quoted or otherwise used in artist bios, music reference works, etc.[80] He may be popular, but otherwise doesn't seem to be an established expert, as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No – I agree with Ojorojo here. Even though Fantano can be considered influential on listeners of today, he's still self-published. – zmbro _(talk) 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No – I've read the NYT piece and, if I had reservations from voting one way or another before, I don't now. Maybe I'm getting old :/ isento (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – Keep in mind that self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: "A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source" Perhaps revisit this source in the future, which is what the handful of reliable sources covering Fantano claim he represents. Apparently, he studied journalism, which is a plus. But allowing him as a source right now would be too much too soon. I think we should give it some more time, allow for some more coverage to develop around him to establish his credibility as an expert source, beyond the cultists who see him as one. isento (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No As many have identified this source as WP:SPS, I would like to add that he is not a music journalist to have enough credibility. And please don't compare him to Robert Christgau--the latter is a true journalist, and the former is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight. The NYT piece is rather disparaging than complementing his views. HĐ (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Christgau ... is a true journalist, and [Fantano] is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight" is a silly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Fantanos opinions clearly do hold weight, otherwise Daughter's tour wouldn't have sold out as mentioned in the nytimes piece. The NYTimes piece is pretty even-handed, only jabbing that his album reviews are "long winded" as they can be over 10 minutes, which is't really that long and by my account many of his reviews are substantially under that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Christgau is a journalist (at least perceived to be so), but I have yet to see any source regard Fantano as a journalist. If there is any source that says otherwise, I am happy to reconsider, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christgau is now on Substack partly--or mostly--due to ageism (he's in his mid-70s, I think). He served for a time as an editor at the Village Voice; I have no doubt that he is paying close attention to whatever factual claims he makes in his criticism. I have no problem with Fantano using YouTube as a platform; I definitely don't have a problem with whether I "agree" with him, or anyone, about an album. I read many but not all of the references in his article--if anyone has more information about what his "managing" editor actually does, I could change my opinion. And, as an aside, RSs are always going to screw up--I remember a Too Short album where three or four RSs listed different release years--not different specific release dates, but years... Caro7200 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I see no issue with adding his reviews, as multiple RS have noted him as a prominent critic. YouTube being his outlet is irrelevant. It is a publisher, not a source. SK2242 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, for music reviews in agreement with SK2242. VERSACESPACE 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - As a prominent music critic, I don't see any problem with citing his opinions on Wikipedia with attribution. Self-published sources can certainly be used to cite an author's basic opinions.Eliteplus (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is obviously notable, if not notorious, as demonstrated by independent news coverage. But WP:ALBUM/SOURCE currently says sources should be professional. And given he has no professional oversight of his work, he is given (practically) free reign to behave in a way even Robert Christgau -- at his most contrarian and offensive back in the day -- would probably have been fired for doing so, as in this unconstrained expletive rant just several months ago. This is why the matter of being self-published is not just a superficial rule. isento (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No - WP:RS clearly states that 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications ' (emphasis mine). This has been Wikipedia policy since 2006 at least. And Fantano, contrary to Robert Christgau, does not fit this specific criteria. In my personal ideal world, Fantano scores would be cited on Wikipedia, as he is the most influential music critic in the world, but that would require amending WP:RS beforehand.--JBchrch (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - And I literally subscribe to his Patreon to the tune of $5 per month. Cheers --JBchrch (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, for reviews. Regardless of whether you think he's a proper music critic, he is most definitely at least a professional music reviewer. We do not have a requirement that a review be written by a trained critic, as ideal as real criticism might be. We want professionals. Fantano doesn't work for a newspaper, but he's a professional. The requirement that someone be employed by a publisher is a good guideline, but this is one of those exceptional cases. I don't think we need to change the guideline in order to see that Fantano is a better source than many of the reviewers and critics that happen to work for a newspaper/magazine/website. Some local newspaper might have a couple paid reporters with no knowledge of film or music writing superficial film and music reviews in between the politics and sports, and because they technically work for a paper, we consider them reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Should probably have posted this a few days ago, when there were a few comments about the NYT article and Christgau's opinions in the latter. There have been other articles published about Fantano's rise, of course, eg Jeremy Gordon's 2016 article for Spin. Gordon writes that "A new era of music critics has mostly given up writing about the art form to put their faces front and center on YouTube"; he says Fantano is not only the best known of this new breed but that TND "[nets] enough ad revenues to support his family". So Fantano is unquestionably a professional reviewer. Also, the scepticism in the NYT article shouldn't be a surprise, and there's mention in the Spin piece too of areas where Fantano's approach has attracted disapproval from the more traditional type of music critic. Again, to go back in time (further to comments I made above): Paul Williams at Crawdaddy! and Richard Goldstein at The Village Voice were both the subject of profiles in Newsweek in 1966 yet, so I gather from secondary sources, there was still a suspicion among the old guard that they weren't the real deal, partly because rock music wasn't yet deemed worthy of sophisticated criticism and appreciation by the culturally elite. A year later, it was, and Goldstein was lambasted by establishment sophisticates like Richard Poirier and Ned Rorem for his unfavourable response to the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album. (These middle-aged writers said that Goldstein and any other dissenting young "rock critic" lacked the ability to understand the Beatles' achievement.) ... As I say, this post's probably a day or two too late to be relevant. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No He is not only self-published, but a NYT article about him doesn't make him reliable. I do enjoy some of his pieces and his notability is well known. However, until I see some proof there is an oversight review of his material and content I will stand my ground on this. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No I tend to agree with MarioSoulTruthFan and quite a few others. He's self-published per WP:SPS, and doesn't seem to be reliable and verifiable per WP:RS and WP:VER. I don't think there's much to discuss for self-published sources.Magnus Dominus (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No: no editorial oversight. I'm sure the man is more diligent, thoughtful and informative than many traditionally published critics but it's not right for Wikipedia without being published in a reliable news source. I think it takes a huge weight of information for someone to be such a significant critic that anything they say as self-published opinion is good for our reception sections—Roger Ebert springs to mind but there's not many people in this category. NYT is just a profile; if someone sees sources of this quality quoting or referencing Fantano's reviews in their music reviews or coverage then that's different. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bilorv: Rodger Ebert always published his reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times and was never an independent critic, these reviews were also republished on RodgerEbert.com. How much oversight is actually expected of review content generally? I think the comparison to an influential fanzine made above are apt. From what I understand of reviews in professional publications work, there is generally little oversight even in high-profile outlets, because the views presented are largely subjective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No per much of the above. In short, WP:SPS and interviews and such don't make him notable. Being notable isn't a sufficient standard, anyway. We only use SPS (for other than WP:ABOUTSELF purposes) for commentators who are renowned experts in their field; some vlogger kid with some opinions to share doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (The Needle Drop)

Pinging previous participants to the discussion:@PDMagazineCoverUploading: @TheAmazingPeanuts: @Sergecross73: @Guerillero: @Rosguill:. Sorry for the repetition, but I think this is best resolved by having a well attended RfC. Feel free to simply re-add your thoughts, as I didn't feel comfortable altering peoples text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I've been busy updating our 1925 book covers for Public Domain Day and haven't payed as close attention to this discussion as I should. I agree with the idea that Fantano is acceptable to cite as a reviewer, but not as a reliable source for factual information. In other words: It should be acceptable to mention Fantano's review on Angelic 2 The Core, but he should not be cited on the Corey Feldman article as a source for information about Feldman. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk)

I'm disturbed at the number of editors who appear to be ignorant or completely dismissive of WP:SELFPUB, a policy that has widespread consensus. Editor who believe that a self-published source cannot be considered reliable or used under any circumstances are encouraged to raise those objections at the Talk page of that policy; it's inappropriate to ignore or undermine that policy in this RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: What part of SELFPUB do you think makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I know that they may be used about themselves, but nowhere in there does that part of the policy page suggest that it can be used about another person. The one exception I see there is if the reviewer is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Again, waiting to hear how Fantano's reviews meet the criteria listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A musical work is not a person so that doesn't seem relevant. "I don't think this person has met the bar of being a recognized expert" is a reasonable position to take but that's not what you wrote above in your !vote. What you wrote above - that this source is reliable if there aren't any other sources - doesn't actually make any sense at all. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: What I wrote above and what I am asking here are not necessarily connected. I am asking you what part of SELFPUB makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I do not see a connection and I don't think you have any justification. I suspect you're using SELFPUB in a way that it is not written to support. In short, SELFPUB does not apply to a self-published reviews—whether they be on YouTube or their own blog—and you know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a self-published review different from any other self-published source? ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer his question or not? Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "YouTube exception" to WP:SELFPUB so the burden is on those who are arguing for such an exceptional situation. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Walter Gorlitz has already answered the question himself: "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." As EK observes, one can argue about whether Fantano meets the conditions of this sentence; but if he does meet the conditions, then WP:SELFPUB is an endorsement of using his reviews. (EK is making a really simple point, I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it.) --JBL (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it. The more sources that are depreciated, the more subjects that can be found non-notable, and the more articles deleted. I wish observing Wiki behavior didn't lead me to this conclusion, but it's unavoidable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: Yeah, why most of the editors are ignoring the guidelines on self-published sources. I understand Anthony Fantano is well-known but why are we giving him a pass since he still published his reviews on YouTube. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does publication on YouTube have to do with anything? ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: YouTube is a self-published source, which is unreliable. If we considering using him as a reliable source for music reviews, I suggest we use his blog instead of direct links to his videos. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just wrong -- per WP:SELFPUB, "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." This is true regardless of the medium of publication (YouTube, blog, etc.). --JBL (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources, including YouTube videos, are not inherently unreliable. If you would like to change the project-wide consensus on this, I recommend and request that you do so at the Talk page of WP:SELFPUB.

I have no opinion on whether this person's videos or blog posts are better sources except to note that blog posts are not inherently more reliable or "better" than videos nor are videos inherently unreliable or "worse" that other media. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: @JayBeeEll: I understand what the guidelines says, but it seems like almost everybody in this discussion is given Fantano's YouTube reviews an exception, which we should not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts appears to be notifying specific users about this RfC, 1 2 3 4 5 6, many others can be seen in his edit history, in violation of WP:CANVASSING rules. Canvassing rules state that making notifications on the talkpages of users are allowed if:

• They have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• They have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• They are known for expertise in the field
• They have asked to be kept informed". I don't know enough about the opinions of users in question to know if this is an attempt at votestacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I was making editors aware of this discussion, why you making a big deal about this? Let's stay on topic here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Because you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion, and thus altering the outcome of this RfC. I don't know enough about the people you have notified to know if that it is correct, but your notifications on users talk pages should be noted in this discussion for transparency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: You are wrong, I did this before with past discussions to let editors (who work on music-related articles) know there is a discussion to avoid edit wars in the future. I don't care if they agreed with my opinion or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You directly notified 16 users, including: Drevolt, Kyle Peake, JG66, Zmbro, Binksternet, Robvanvee, MarioSoulTruthFan, Jennica, SnapSnap, Sock, BawinV, HĐ, Doggy54321, BillieLiz, Holiday56 and Isento. I'm not sure that counts as excessive under current canvassing rules, but that is a lot of users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it’s worth, I recognize most as being editors who are or have been active in the music-related content area. And the notifications I spot checked were neutrally worded. And I don’t particularly view any of these editors as "buddies" with AnazingPeanuts who are likely to automatically side with him. (Not am I - AmazingPeanuts and I have clashed on numerous occasions.) This feels like another distraction... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's simply a case of TAP being the collaborative type and wanting to ensure as many regular or semi-regular editors as possible weigh in on each issue. That way, the outcome's a convincing one, whichever way it goes. (Looking at the list of 16 people, I wouldn't say we're all of one mind on most things, anyway.) I think it's an admirable approach. It's certainly better than when editors try to push something through before too many people become aware of the discussion, even though the outcome could well affect the whole project. Anyway ... JG66 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: @JG66: This is what I trying to do. I not telling other editors to disagree with Hemiauchenia, I just letting other editors (who work mostly on album-related articles) to know there is an discussion involving a popular reviewer. This topic is unrelated and should not even be discuss. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who was pinged, I can confidently say that it is not canvassing. TheAmazingPeanuts and I have made edits to the same pages, but as far as I can recall, we have yet to have a talk conversation just the two of us. The most we’ve interacted is in RMs. While I do appreciate him bringing this to my attention, his vote/comments did not influence my vote. We literally have opposing votes. @Hemiauchenia: I’ve never been involved in a discussion like this before, so how would TAP even come to the conclusion that I would oppose this? I’m a part of WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG, so I deserve to be part of this conversation. Music is my field of interest on Wikipedia. Besides, the more opinions the better. Side note: I don’t think saying you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion is assuming good faith. As JG66 said, it was probably just because TAP wants as many editors as possible to have a comment in this discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I regret the accusation of canvassing, its just that the notification of specific users for RfC's is something that can easily be used to alter outcomes, which makes me wary. "you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion" was not accusatory, it was just a reflection on the nature on notifying specific individuals rather than Wikiprojects. TheAmazingPeanuts is a good contributor and I have nothing against them. Some of my actions during the discussions were too hasty, and I'm feeling in a strange, reflective move, and I regret the way I handled myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah look, let's just put this thing to bed. It's quite understandable that you raised concerns re WP:CANVASS, Hemiauchenia, just as it was very welcome when you subsequently withdrew the tags you'd(?) added to the relevant editors' ivotes. There's no hard feeling, and no one's acted inappropriately. Besides, as the voting shows already, there's a wide range of opinions among TAP's supposedly favoured 16. (I'm just slightly peeved that I appear to be fairly low down on TAP's list of party invites, judging by their contribs at that time ... [I'm joking – I'm JOKING!] There was a Seinfeld episode based on that theme, I think.) JG66 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia, PDMagazineCoverUploading, ElKevbo, Walter Görlitz, Sergecross73, JayBeeEll, The Bushranger, TheAmazingPeanuts, and JG66: Pinging all editors who have participated in discussion. It has been a week since anyone posted anything in the discussion part of the RfC, and votes above are slowing down. So far, it’s 16 Yes and 12 No, so we don’t have a clear consensus. Most of the yes votes have a disclaimer like No for factual claims or Only for reviews. I’m not exactly sure what to do next, since the votes are pretty close. We don’t have a clear consensus, so we can’t take any further action. Just saying Well there are four more votes for yes than no, so we can use Fantano for musical reviews won’t get us anywhere, since there’s obviously a lot of us (42% of the 28 people who voted) that would oppose this. What should we do next? (Please ping me in your replies using {{ping}} or {{reply to}}.) D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: It should be put up at WP:RFCLOSE, where an uninvolved person makes the closing decision, based on the weight of the arguments presented. I will do this now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is about. We do not vote, we discuss. And for the record, I said neither yes nor no. I indicated that the subject is not generally reliable. If an editor is looking for a source but can't find a reliable one, Fantano could be used. Of course, if that's the only source, then the subject does not merit a stand-alone article and could only be used in a larger article. Since the subject has not been cited by reliable sources, we should not even be having this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Yes we do, we !vote and then discuss below. I agree with you when you say that the subject hasn’t been cited by reliable sources. I included you in the Yes category, per my comment above: Most of the yes votes have a disclaimer. It doesn’t matter anyways, because the uninvolved editor at WP:RFCLOSE won’t base the closing decision solely off of !vote count, but rather the points we have made and the discussions we have had. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you changed terms. No we do not vote, because as we both know "the use of the words 'vote' and 'voting' might not be the best choice when describing Wikipedia processes. While technically correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule. Different terminology (e.g. 'seeking views', 'polling' and 'commenting') may be preferable." If you'd like me to change my opinion to fit your narrow view, I could change it to deprecate. Until I see proof the source is recognized by RSes as compitent reviewer I will not accept that the source is reliable for anything other curiosity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Middle East Eye articles have recently been added as sources to the Douglas Murray (author) (fixed link) article [[81]], [[82]]. Is MEE a RS and/or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject? Are their OpEd articles considered acceptable? Springee (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Douglas Murray the author. Contentious = likely to cause disagreement or argument. Any negative statement about a person is likely to be contentious to that person and her supporters. Who is doing the contending in this case? Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the author. Sorry, I didn't realize the page was Douglas Murray (author). I believe standard practice is any negative/disparaging content that is associated with a BLP subject to be contentious. The first link is being used as a reference to a book Murray wrote so if MEE is a RS and generally considered DUE then I think that would be OK. While scornful it doesn't attack Murray directly. The second link is an OpEd article and is being used to support a claim that Murray is associated with the far-right. My primary concern is the OpEd part though claiming someone is associated with far-right, alt-right, white nationalist etc are all what I would consider to be value laden labels. At an overall level is MEE reliable (it does at least report to have an editorial structure) and second is it normally DUE? My feeling is probably RS but I can't say if it should be given WEIGHT. The OpEd article is not acceptable because it's an OpEd being used to support negative associations about a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't found any editorial board on the site also it regularly publishes fake news [83] and hate [84] --Shrike (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find information about the editorial structure of MEE. I couldn’t find it on the website. We know that former Guardian journalist David Hearst is the website’s editor-in-chief. Some information about staff is contained in this (not particularly positive) article [85]. Regarding MEE’s reliability, no reliability problems are mentioned on our page for the website. The two articles provided by Shrike do not mention specific examples of unreliability. The Arabnews article says something that strengthens MEE’s claims to being GR: "many human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, use MEE’s articles as a point of reference, as do the New York Times, the Washington Post and Germany’s Deutsche Welle". The main issue raised in the Arabnews article relates to a disagreement about its focus. The JewishNews article is upset with what it believes is MEE’s connection with Hamas. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always way of MEE, which publishes some good stuff and some flawed stuff. The article about the book seems somewhere between an opinion piece and a book review and so could maybe be used with attribution if we think that its author, Ian Almond, Professor of World Literatures, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University in Qatar, is sufficiently expert or noteworthy for this to be due. The other piece is more reportage and it's by Nafeez Ahmed, who is quite a controversial journalist, so I would consider only using it in a way like this: "his work has also been linked to the alt-right by Nafeez Ahmed". I think the alt-right claim and footnotes should be moved out of the lede and into the body, and the Islamophobic claim should be summarised in the lead and detailed properly in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Ian AlmondNafeez Ahmed article says it's an Op-Ed I don't see why we would include it, especially since it is being used to support a contentious claim about Murray. Springee (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Corrected Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the Almond article is published under "opinion" but is clearly a book review. A detailed book review by a well-known Georgetown professor is hardly undue. As for the "contentious claim" you keep bringing up - in today's polarized media environment there is little that is not contentious. Noteduck (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cut-pasted the wrong name. The Ahmed article is the one I meant as it was the Op-Ed. I'm still concerned about the claims that MEE is a propaganda outfit. At this point I wouldn't be OK with citing anything to a MEE article. Is Ian Almond's opinion of the book available through other sources? Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point, let's compare Almond's review to Rod Liddle's[86], which also appears on Murray's page. Rod Liddle has a history of scandal (just read his page!) has had a complaint upheld against him by the Press Complaints Commission and has pleaded guilty to Contempt of Court in the course of his reporting. He also, quite unlike Almond, appears to have zero specific expertize in issues surrounding Islam and political Islam. Should we then exclude this passage on Murray's page:

Rod Liddle of The Times called the book "a brilliant, important and profoundly depressing book".

I think we can all agree this is silly - the claim isn't written in Wiki's voice, and Liddle is writing in The Times which is a well-established media outlet. The point I'm making is that my ongoing complaint about the Murray page is that sources perceived as unfavorable to Murray are being subject to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold. Just because the Ian Almond review is highly critical of Murray's book does not mean it has no place in the article Noteduck (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic sourcing issue. Wikipedia, like it or not, says material published in things like The New York Times, etc are generally given more weight than material published in sources with less reputation. If Ian Almond's view is highly significant is it shared by other sources? Why would it only be published in this source. I know this can be frustrating as I've been on the other side of this sort of thing. Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is it shared by other sources" - yes. The points made by Almond are shared by the other negative reviews of The Strange Death of Europe, or did you not look at them? Again, this is part of a frustrating trend of articles critical of Murray being held to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold for inclusion. Absent stronger rebuttals please do not remove this material from Murray's page Noteduck (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is shared by other sources yet deprecated. In this case Almond's review is not shared by other sources. The other article is clearly labeled opinion. Springee (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few points that summarise my views:

• What we know about MEE indicates that its editors/journalists are experienced.
• MEE seems to operate from a particular viewpoint/bias. This is what several articles linked above are saying. This does not preclude it from being a reliable source.
• There is no evidence that MEE is unreliable in the sense of publishing false information or failing to correct errors it makes.
• Both Ian Almond and Nafeez Ahmed appear to be notable enough for their opinions about a subject within their areas of expertise to be included in a Wikipedia article.
• As with other sources, opinion pieces and reviews, whether positive or negative, should be attributed to the author of the piece.

Burrobert (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question we should be asking is whether this source is reliable, not in general, but for some particular context and proposed addition to the Murray article. That's my understanding of how RSN is supposed to work. The quote that is being appealed to from the MEE piece by Ahmed is this:

Murray’s screed against the free speech of those asking questions about the intelligence services is ironic given that in a separate Wall Street Journal comment, he laments that the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove the West is losing the war on “free speech” being waged by Islamists. But Murray’s concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism.

This is being appealed to in order to support the following claim:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academics.

So is Ahmed an academic who thinks that "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right"? I can't tell from this source. Ahmed says that Murray's view that certain attacks show something about Islamists is what he unclearly calls a "ploy for far-right entryism". There are two problems. First, Ahmed is not talking about "Murray's views" but rather one particular view he holds. So it's at best misleading to suggest that Ahmed thinks "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right" since only one of Murray's views is under discussion here. Second, I don't know what he means by the claim that the view in question is a "ploy for far-right entryism". It seems to me OR to say that he means that this view of Murray's is "proximate to the far-right". I think it's unclear what he means by "a ploy for far-right entryism", and that it is basically impossible to reliably summarize his claim in other terms. So it would have to be a direct, attributed quote if it were regarded as DUE. But it isn't DUE, because it isn't clearly written, and it's published in a non-prominent source. So I'd oppose relying on this source for the proposed content for all these reasons. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appropriate to include Almond and Ahmed’s opinions from MEE with attribution. The question of how their views should be summarised on the page is a question that would be better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this whole thread is somewhat misleading. The Ahmed source is one of THREE journalistic sources used to demonstrate Murray's "proximity" to the far right, along with FIVE academic sources. Shinealittlelight these are semantic games you are playing - clearly Ahmed is associating Murray with the far right. I would go back over your talk page and consider your biases, especially given that you have called out for bias before. Noteduck (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misleading here. The term, "proximity" is vague. Also, this isn't a question if other sources make a claim, only if this one passes BLP standards. Once again, MEE is a questionable source per discussion above and this is labeled as an opinion. Either way I think we can agree this isn't a consensus. Springee (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are provided as courtesies for readers and editors and are not in themselves sources. The source is Ahmed's article "White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall" Ahmed mentions Murray 41 times (I counted) in his article and the context, white supremacy and far-right activism, makes it clear that he thinks Murray is one of them. Ahmed's opinion is one of (at least) five others which establishes WP:DUE. Whether MEE is "reliable enough" or not is quite irrelevant because no one can seriously dispute that the article on their site is written by Ahmed and accurately reflects his opinion about Murray. BLP is meant to keep potentially libelous content out of Wikipedia, like when some rag reports that a politician has had an affair, it is not meant to stop content which is unquestionably true. ImTheIP (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am a bit confused about the quotes part. I agree that we can assume this MEE article accurately reflects Ahmed's opinion/analysis regarding the Murray book. I guess that puts me in the same boat as some other editors who ask if this is DUE based on the reputation of Ahmed. I'm not sure that it is. I agree that others say similar things. So while that suggests Ahmed's views are out of line with others I still have to ask if that makes his specific reference DUE for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSN, RSN is where we assess whether a quote from a given source adequately supports a bit of proposed text for a WP article. In this case, I have argued that the answer is "no": the quote provided from the source does not adequately support the proposed content. You're all free to disagree with me if you want, of course, but let's keep it civil. I'm not playing any games, I'm providing an analysis in line with RSN. For what it's worth, if Ahmed had written something that wasn't totally unclear, I think his reputation and credentials suggest that his opinion on matters within his expertise would be DUE. But I find what he wrote in the relevant quote to be unclear and for that reason not usable for the proposed content. If someone wants to ask about a different quote as support for more competently written content, then we can talk about that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While DUE is offtopic for this noticeboard, the point of sourcing the claim to Ahmed and five other authors is to demonstrate that the claim is corroborated by a large number of sources and is therefore DUE. No, the quote in itself isn't the source. Quotes are provided as courtesies to readers who are too lazy to click on links and in cases where the source might come under a paywall. The entirety of Ahmed's article is the source. This is of course immaterial to the question of whether an article written by Ahmed on MEE is a reliable source for Ahmed's opinion, which it clearly is. ImTheIP (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. This source belongs on Murray's page and the attempts to remove it, which have been rejected repeatedly by editors with no stake in the page, should stop Noteduck (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that Ahmed is a recognized expert, and while the venue in this case is low quality, he is clearly respected. Thus, I think that the source provided is a reliable source for the claim that Ahmed regards Murray as one of several people who "appear to be funded and embedded in a network of far-right ideologues" and he thinks that Murray's "concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism". That's what Ahmed says about Murray's relationship to the far-right in this piece. So while I have no idea what these quotes mean and would not know how to summarize them other than directly quoting them, I do think that the piece is reliable for establishing that these are direct quotes of a recognized expert. I don't see that the piece supports the proposed content, though, which is very misleadingly written. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable-- Given that Middle East Eye has documented connections to terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the fact that it is funded by the Qatari government, and the lack of a strong editorial board, demonstrates that this site is unreliable--especially for contentious claims to a BLP: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. Additionally, this site seems to engage in borderline antisemitism: Is Israel's hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?, Palestinian groups urge Labour: Don't adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Israel’s push to control global discourse has infected the medical realm, Israeli settlers' racism is not an aberration. It's part of an apartheid system etc. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEE's pro-Palestinian stance doesn't mean its antisemitic or unreliable. It just means its a WP:BIASED source. You cited a blog (not reliable) and The National (Abu Dhabi) (also problematic) against MEE. The BBC article and WSJ article you cited are both reliable but neither says anything negative about MEE.VR _talk 23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source and the WSJ article were meant to show that MEE is funded by the Qatari government, whose human rights abuses and sponsor of terrorism are too numerous to list. They have also used the media to run disinformation campaigns. Why is the National an unreliable source, but MEE is not?. Also, did you not read the AEI report by Michael Rubin, a foreign policy expert? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Some users seem to WP:LIKE this source Shrike (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike Agreed. If only that was a sufficient rationale, then we wouldn't have to spend our time explaining why using a site connected to terrorist groups might not be such a good idea. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are all sources funded by a government that is accused of terrorism considered unreliable? Well, BBC News is funded by a government accused of terrorism. NPR is also funded by a government accused of terrorism. But both of those sources are considered reliable.VR _talk 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Stop with the false equivalency. The United States and the United Kingdom rank in the top 20 on the Human Freedom Index. Qatar ranks in at 127 out of the 162 nations measured: [92]. They are not the same. And the BBC and NPR don't have ties to terrorist groups. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: out of curiosity, what would you think of state-controlled Arab News? We have State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia, Saudi Arabia isn't a free country...There's even a discussion on Arab News down below Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR _talk 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: I would have to take a closer look, but this last RfC looks fairly accurate: [93]. Basically, it should only be used for non controversial claims and nothing related to the Saudi government. It may be acceptable in some circumstances on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, but only with attribution and an in-line qualifier like "Saudi controlled-newspaper." But, still, a different, independent source would still be preferred. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d so can the MEE also be used with attribution and in-line qualifier on topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?VR _talk 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent With attribution and an in-line qualifier, in some circumstances, then yes. The reason I would exclude it from Douglas Murray is because it's a BLP. Contentious claims to a BLP should only be supported by high quality sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just add that Al Jazeera, which is controlled by the Qatari government, is considered a generally reliable news organization by Wiki[94] and believe me, there has been EXTENSIVE debate and discussion on this. I would be cautious in using MEE in an article defending Qatar's human rights record or something like that, but an argument by a renowned expert like Nafeez Ahmed with a wealth of academic and journalistic experience hardly seems unreliable. Also note that his claim that Douglas Murray represents a kind of "entryism" to the far right, putting an acceptable face on extreme ideologies, is supported by multiple other sources, eg ^[1][2][3] Noteduck (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link: [95]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [96]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source and should not be invoked in talk page discussions, it says pretty much nothing of value about the quality of a source. That said I do think a RfC on China Daily is warranted. chinadaily.com.cn   is currently cited in 5,762 articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the usual options. Which of the following best describes the reliability of China Daily?

• 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

--Sunrise (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (China Daily)

• Deprecate - My first impression on looking at it is that it's probably in the same category as RT (TV network) aka "Russia Today" which is already deprecated? Being owned by the "Propaganda Department" of the Chinese government and all... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be deprecating sources so lightly based on a first impression. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: on detailed further review it is owned, operated controlled, and so forth by the same entity that owns and controls China Global Television Network, which is already deprecated for being a propaganda outlet. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deprecation China Daily being owned by the CCP is no more a stopper for me than NBC being owned by Comcast. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that state-owned media in non-western states is somehow inherently less reliable than state- or corporate-owned media in the west (to clarify, that's a general observation I've made of others - not you, and I don't think you're doing that here). Indeed, Bennett's indexing theory - certainly the most influential theory in the last 30 years in media studies - suggests that media in the west are already more or less state-controlled on matters of importance, even if they're not state-owned, the different perception of independence only due to their need to calibrate reporting to the multiple control levers present in multi-party states. I believe China Daily is generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions where its use should be limited to WP:SELFSOURCE. Though, as with all sources, WP:DUE should be considered in every use. I draw this conclusion as follows:

-Media Bias Fact Check is unambiguously unreliable. For the purposes of RSN, I always assume it simply doesn't exist.

-The consensus of scholarship indicates that media in China can, and is, held judicially liable for defamation (e.g. this study by Benjamin L. Liebman[97], among others) and this includes state-controlled media.

-The China Daily has a gatekeeping process.

-The China Daily is sourced to RS which is, ultimately, the only standard we - as Wikipedians - can apply. Provided this is met we can't deprecate a source because we're uncomfortable with the governance or ownership structure. In just the last year its original reporting has been sourced (with attribution, but absent frightening caveats about the CCP owning it) by Science Magazine [98], the BBC [99], Barron's [100], Washington Post [101], NPR [102], and others. USA Today even used it as a corroborating source for one of their fact-checks [103]. If we deprecate China Daily while accepting sources that routinely source the China Daily for their content we're saying we know more about the China Daily than any RS. And if we know more than RS, there's no real reason to keep the WP:OR policy.

Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven’t evaluated this particular source in detail, the above comment contains a number of arguments that are largely invalid or irrelevant. (I will ignore the suggestion that many of our usual RS are effectively state-controlled, as something that shouldn’t require refutation.) Starting with the bullet points, it's true that MBFC is unreliable and should not be considered. However:

• Defamation claims being permitted by a country’s laws is a minimal standard, not an argument in favor of reliability. Furthermore, the article cited is from 2006, before the more recent increases in state control. And even at the time, as acknowledged in the same article, defamation claims were also used as tools of media control.
• Having a gatekeeping process is likewise a minimal requirement. Presumably, one of the concerns in this case includes what type of reporting that gatekeeping process will allow.
• Simply being cited by RS does not make a source reliable. Instead, we want the source to be discussed in RS and to evaluate the contents of those discussions. The Daily Mail is also sometimes cited in RS; this is a common situation in which information from an unreliable source may become usable on Wikipedia because of a better source applying its own editorial processes to the information in question.

Additionally, much of the comment is about Chinese sources in general. While this can certainly inform the evaluation, any such information will be overridden by information about the specific source in question. Checking the WP article shows e.g. China Daily#Editorial control and China Daily#Disinformation allegations, which are issues that would need to be addressed.

It's true that state ownership doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, but it’s still a relevant consideration in countries that use the press for propaganda. (I think that some editors, when they mention state ownership, are using it as a shorthand for this type of argument.) The reason that ownership structure can be overlooked in some cases is not because the owners are unbiased, but because they are more likely to have credible policies about independence in reporting. This is not a “west/east” distinction, or any other system that tries to divide people by nation or culture - it’s a result of applying sourcing guidelines that ignore such things. Furthermore, introducing such distinctions (which are largely arbitrary to begin with) only serves to frame the discussion in terms of geopolitics and makes it harder to evaluate the issue neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: just FYI Liebman appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you say he says. Also making that argument in this explicit context ignores the fact that the CCP is above regular Chinese law, it literally doesn't apply to them as party is above state unlike in those multiparty systems (your argument appears to conflate state owned and party owned media). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say it's generally reliable for non-political stuff (like the manhole story that BBC reported based on a China Daily story) and generally unreliable for everything related to politics, broadly defined (see China_Daily#Controversy). Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deprecation. First, context matters and no context is discussed here, not even one example. Second, being rated as left-biased (or right-biased) by some random organization is irrelevant to deprecation discussions. Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. And finally, as much as ownership structure is now a thing for flagging content on Twitter or Facebook, that's not yet a Wikipedia policy. Ownership is part of what we look at when evaluating sources, but not the only thing at all. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m surprised it hasn’t been deprecated already given their explicit existence as a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party and long history of disinformation peddling. We have explicit cases of them spreading disinformation which are covered on their page. They have no respect and little credibility within the traditional media, Reporters Without Borders has condemned them etc. I strongly support deprecation. Nothing I’ve seen suggests its usable outside of about self which I will add given the immense nature of the CCP thats actually a lot of contextually appropriate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation. It's a state-owned / operated / supported news service, in essence no different form the BBC or PBS. Non-political news is the product of professional reporters. Any story displaying overt political bias is stating the government's official party line — which is important to know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party not the Chinese state, it is political party-owned not state-owned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a distinction between the Communist Party and the Chinese state. I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have considered the Communist Party's Pravda a useable source for insight into Soviet thinking during the Cold War. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don’t understand your point about them being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS which are entirely independent of the political parties in their respective states. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear: In China's case, the Party is the government. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae:, since you now agree "In China's case, the Party is the government", that makes this vastly different from the BBC or PBS, which are independent of political party in their countries. It's much more a propaganda rag with little factual reliability, with the best comparisons indeed being the factually deficient Pravda, or Russia Today, or 112 Ukraine (owned by Russian proxies), or Rodong Sinmun from North Korea. There are also precedents from Wikipedia regarding papers similar in ownership structure, if not political leaning, such as An Phoblacht, Anadolu Agency, The Electronic Intifada, HispanTV, or Press TV. See their entries at WP:RSP.

It might be viewed as a source (as you proposed) for occasional insight into official talking points of the Chinese Communist Party, but I would never trust Pravda, or Rodong Sinmun, or China Global Television Network, or "China Daily" for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus, we have literature that indicate the BBC tends to adopt framing in its reporting that mirrors that used by whatever party is in power at the time. (e.g. [104], etc.) We need actual evidence of unreliability, not merely expressions of our personal discomfort with the ownership group. "They're communists" is not a policy-based argument to deprecate a source. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a better argument is conflict of interest in relation to certain topics, meaning it can be determined on a case by case basis... —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don’t understand your argument about it being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS, if you’re arguing that the entire relationship between party and state is radically different than in a multiparty state like the US or UK then what do you mean by "in essence no different” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 and Oppose Deprecation: the arguments mentioned by Chetsford, MarioGom and Tenebrae are persuasive. Appropriate attribution should be made for statements related to China Daily's area of bias. Also, this RFC hasn’t been set up in our required neutral format. “Deprecate China Daily” isn’t a suitable heading for an RfC and the introduction is supposed to be neutral. Burrobert (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate. The fact that they are owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party is reason enough. Just as we treat (say) NewsBusters and CNS News together, because both are owned by the Media Research Center, so it should be with China Daily and the deprecated Global Times. For those who don't think that is sufficient reason, please consider China_Daily#Disinformation_allegations. To take one recent example, China Daily promoted tweets saying that the Hong Kong demonstrators were sponsored by Western interests. It also claimed that they were planning terrorist attacks on September 11, 2019.[105][106]. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deprecation, however I would go with option 2 or 3, depending on the topic. Chinese state media is OK to cite as a WP:RS for non-controversial mainland news (such as China opening whatever high-speed train line or something like that), but for controversial topics such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, they should only be used with attribution to get the PRC's official opinion on such subjects. Félix An (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deprecation and treat as we treat other semi-official or official media: somewhere in between options 1 and 2, with good judgement expected from editors as usual. Thanks to Chetsford especially for their careful consideration and comments. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{u|Darouet} can you give examples of official state media (in particular in single-party non-democratic states) that we place between options 1 and 2? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4: Deprecate and put it in the same category as Global Times and CGTN/CCTV. In my opinion, Xinhua News Agency should also be deprecated. Brady (2015) wrote an excellent review^[4] on those so-called "media" as part of Beijing's global propaganda campaign. Despite the subtle and stealthy nature of China's overseas influence operations, there are numerous reports by reliable sources and countries with press freedom regarding Chinese state-controled media including China Daily disseminating false or fabricated information. For example, [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]. It is truly unbelievable that some editors could turn a blind eye and still promote the false equivalence of state-controlled propaganda organs and private media with editorial independence and well-established fact-checking processes. Normchou ^💬 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deprecation The fact that they have not failed a fact check speaks strongly in their favour, even if it is obviously the state outlet of the PRC. Certainly however, on topics where the PRC feels strongly about however, it should be used only as a last resort, or in order to back up an official position of the PRC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 or 4 I think it should be treated similar to CGTN where it should pretty much exclusively be used for statements made by the Chinese government but some other areas unrelated to Chinese interests seem to be okay. Flalf^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose depreciation for the same reasons already pointed out by others. The discussion below is straying far away from WP:RS. Mottezen (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 It should be treated as we treat other state-controlled media in authoritarian single-party states: reliable (typically with attribution) as a source on government/party statements (e.g. as a source for statements from state public health officials as in the most of the uses by other reliable sources cited by Chetsford above), possibly reliable for non-controversial facts (e.g. numbers of stolen manhole covers, as in another of Chestsford's examples), but generally unreliable for anything controversial in which the Chinese state has an interest. Nobody so far has put forward arguments for why it should be treated less cautiously than other such state-controlled media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation per MarioGom. China Daily is reliable for various topics, though of course they won't be neutral on politics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deprecation: I don't see any convincing arguments for deprecation above. China Daily is an important source for news from inside China. Deprecating it would worsen the already worrying systemic bias with regards to China, in which we increasingly rely on sources outside China that themselves often have ideological biases and questionable accuracy. A brief tangent to illustrate this:

The Wall Street Journal published a news article about Chinese economic policy last month that severely mistranslated a statement by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. The original description of his speech is as follows:

会议要求，国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体。国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值。

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

'State-owned enterprises,' he said, 'must become the competitive core of the market.'

This has a very different meaning from what Liu He said in Chinese, and in context, it's almost a direct inversion of his meaning. This is how DeepL translates his statement into English:

The meeting called for state-owned enterprises to become core competitive market players. State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value.

The point of the statement is that state-owned enterprises must become more market-oriented - something that has typically been viewed as a pro-market policy. The WSJ's mistranslation reverses that, and turns it into a statement about how state-owned enterprises should dominate the market ("core competitive market players" turns into "the competitive core of the market").

This mistranslation was pointed out by a reporter for Xinhua, Zichen Wang. The WSJ has still not issued a correction. The WSJ is considered a highly reliable source, and in most contexts it is, but like all sources, it has biases. Especially in the increasingly nationalist climate, those biases can impact accuracy in reporting about countries that are viewed as "adversaries" (in whatever country the newspaper is operating out of - the US, in the case of the WSJ). That's how we get the WSJ mistranslating a statement by a Chinese official and then failing to issue a correction.

It's important to continue using a mix of sources to cover China, including sources with a good record of factual accuracy from within China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly disagreed. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, which may only represent minority viewpoints within the community. Moreover, "systemic ABC" is usually poorly defined and unfalsifiable (see some elaboration here), and one should not invoke it when talking about specific instances of an issue, such as "the reliability of China Daily". If factual evidence still matters—which the editor above seemed to think so given that they listed an example of a purported mistranslation to illustrate their point—then the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information should actually support Option 4: Deprecate. Normchou ^💬 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "purported" mistranslation - it's a black-and-white example of a mistranslation. Anyone who reads both English and Chinese can compare the original Chinese text with the WSJ's English rendering.

I raised this example because it illustrates an important point. All sources have biases, and those biases can affect accuracy. It's no secret that tensions between the US and China have escalated dramatically over the last few years, and that public opinion towards China in the US and a number of other allied countries has become extremely negative in a very short space of time. To think that this wouldn't affect American newspapers as well would be naive. Above, we have an example of a leading American newspaper, a solid RS, blatantly mistranslating a Chinese official, in a way that completely reverses the meaning of the official's statement. Who pointed out the mistranslation? A reporter for Chinese state media - a reporter who is likely much more familiar with the policy positions of Chinese officials than the typical WSJ reporter is. The WSJ has not yet issued a correction (it's had a month to do so), and indeed, correcting this mistranslation would probably require the WSJ to significantly revise its entire article (because the actual quote in Chinese contradicts the basic thesis of the WSJ article).

overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information: This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement. In most areas, for example, I think it's clear that Xinhua is highly reliable. Like any source, we should be aware of its biases. For the most part, it will not report on issues that reflect negatively on the Chinese government. However, it will also accurately report on many issues within China that American newspapers like the NY Times and WSJ will scarcely ever report on (and if they do, their reporting is often not particularly reliable or leaves out important context). Our articles on China will not become more reliable by systematically excluding all Chinese sources. I think editors are capable enough to understand the biases that Chinese state media have, and to use them appropriately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly disagreed. False equivalence and bothsidesism neither make one's argument more convincing, nor help with reducing bias. All sources have biases by no means implies that all biases from all sources—not to mention false and fabricated information from only certain sources—should be treated in the same way when it comes to their negative effects on the Wikipedia project. Thus far, Thucydides411, the editor above, has only used a single, isolated, purported case to illustrate their point. Yet they do not bother about it while turning a blind eye and throwing out some random cliche like This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement when overwhelming evidence says otherwise: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]. By the way, as a native speaker of several Chinese languages, I disagree with that Chinese state media journalist's view that the WSJ's translation is such a big deal; 国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market—where many other players can also exist—with the additional requirement that such SOEs should have core/major competitive advantages. A basic understanding of economics—a quality that most of the readers of the WSJ should have—tells me that a "market", by definition, has more than one player, so the "core" is really just the "core player", because the qualifier "of the market" is already there. Regarding the specific structure of that market, it could be in the form of perfect competition, imperfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, etc. There is no indication in Liu He's speech that he is referring to a perfectly competitive market. Normchou ^💬 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market: That's not what it means. It's absolutely clear in the Chinese original that "core" refers to "competitiveness". Just from the way the sentence is constructed, "core" cannot possibly refer to "market", and the phrase says nothing about SOEs becoming the "core player of the market". An unambiguous English translation would be, "SOEs must become market players with their own core competitiveness". The basic meaning here is that SOEs should be subject to market forces, rather than relying on subsidies. The very next sentence makes this even more explicit: 国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值 (DeepL gives, "State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value", and I agree with DeepL's translation). The reason why this is more than just an innocuous translation error is that it makes it look like Liu He is supporting nearly the exact opposite policy - state support for SOEs. I gave this as just a recent example of inaccurate reporting on China by an otherwise high-quality RS - inaccurate reporting that came to light because it was pointed out by a reporter for Chinese state media. This case isn't isolated.

their negative effects on the Wikipedia project: I haven't seen examples where use of China Daily has harmed Wikipedia. Deprecation is a sledgehammer, and if we use it too broadly, we actually do run the risk of ending up with an encyclopedia that has strong national biases. What we need, instead, is for editors to have a bit of common sense, to understand policies around bias in sources, to know when to attribute statements, and to evaluate reliability in specific contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. 市场主体 literally means the "market's main body"(most common Chinese definition), so there is no issue with 国有企业要成为...的市场主体 being translated to "SOEs should be the core (player) of the market that ..." if one interprets the phrase this way, given the fact that there can be other "main bodies" in the market. The editor above, Thucydides411, should stop using machine translation to mislead themselves and others in this discussion. The more conducive way would be to first have a good understanding of the Chinese languages and the semantic and syntactic ambiguities specific to them. Normchou ^💬 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your confusion now. You linked to the definition of 主体, which by itself can indeed mean "main body". However, the full phrase 市场主体 is the standard way of referring to any market player, large or small, in Chinese. Even native speakers who are unfamiliar with economics can get this wrong. You can verify that what I'm saying is correct by looking at actual uses of the phrase 市场主体. For example, here's a recent usage:

“前三季度，全国共注吊销市场主体779.7万户，同比下降7.9%。其中，注吊销企业262.6万户，下降10.0%；注吊销个体工商户507.1万户，下降6.9%；注吊销农民专业合作社10.0万户，下降3.3%。”杨红灿说。

The passage refers to 7.797 million 市场主体 being written off in the first three quarters of 2020. There obviously aren't 7.797 million "main bodies" of the market in China - and this is just the number that went under in 2020! And as a second example, here's a Chinese government website with instructions on how to create a 市场主体. They're obviously giving instructions on how to create a market entity, not on how to create the "main body" of the market. For what it's worth, Baidu Baike has a page defining 市场主体, and what it describes is any sort of market player. But really, just search the internet for the exact phrase 市场主体, read what comes up, and you'll very quickly realize that this is standard terminology for any market entity.

Maybe the WSJ made the same mistake, assuming that 市场主体 means the "main body of the market", although that would be surprising, given that you'd expect WSJ to find a translator who's familiar with economics. But whatever the reason, the WSJ did mistranslate this passage and nearly inverted its meaning; the mistranslation came to light because of a Xinhua journalist who noticed it; and the WSJ has yet to issue a correction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm wait, since when have you been fluent in Mandarin? You’ve claimed the opposite in your interactions with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• *Oppose Deprecation and as usual CONTEXT matters. I see no compelling argument and dislike casually dismissing sources entirely. This seems a major WEIGHT source, widely used outside and in WP articles, so it would be difficult to exclude anyway. With what seems solid editorial control and generally factual content, I don’t see any reason to exclude. Context should always be considered for RS, and even in suspect cases such are potentially useable as a WP:BIASED source, just like material from advocacy groups can be used. It’s not grounds for entire deprecation. Would one use Washington Post for Amazon content ? Probably just seek another source — but that doesn’t exclude WaPo from all articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford and Thucydides411. We cannot discount the biasness of the various so-called English-language WP:RS when they describe or criticize Chinese media in the first place. NoNews! 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation per Thucydides411 and WP:GLOBAL. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2: They have been shown to fabricate information (see previous comments and the discussion below), so we should definitely indicate that. Also, clearly state that it is affiliated with a ruling political party, which needs to be taken into account. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation, support Option 2. This source is widely used both onwiki and offwiki, and fills an important niche (see Thucydides411's comment above, and WP:GLOBAL). However, given its status as party-controlled media, it should probably be treated as a WP:SELFSOURCE for content that directly discusses (for example, and off the top of my head) the CCP, geopolitics, or international relations. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deprecation - A blanket deprecation would not be fair. STSC (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It absolutely astounds me that so many editors feel they can trust a "news" outlet that is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. The idea that such an entity has the required editorial independence, fact-checking history, or reputation for accuracy required for WP:NEWSORG is absolutely laughable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 I'm finding it hard to see why we should treat this differently from China Global Television Network. One combats systemic bias by incorporating good information, not by relying upon propaganda. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[123][124]

[125]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [126][127]

In both cases, we have outrageous lies pushed by China Daily. There are more at China Daily. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are both Facebook posts, not articles published in the China Daily. I don't think we consider any newspaper's social media accounts to be reliable sources. At least, I've never seen someone try to cite the NY Times' Twitter account on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[128]

Missing in China Daily's discussion of the "autonomy" of Uighur women is any mention of the Xinjiang re-education camps. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last of these articles gained notoriety in the past day after an excerpt from the article was shared on Twitter by the Chinese Embassy in the United States. The excerpt is reproduced below:

This tweet (and accompanying China Daily article) appears to be a defense of certain elements of the Uyghur genocide, and has received coverage in Ars Technica (RSP entry) and an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Added archive link. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As morally unacceptable as that is, "moral unacceptability" is not part of WP:RS, so I think we should judge based on factual accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's look at factual accuracy. From the China Daily article:

The research center's report said safe, effective and appropriate contraceptive measures are now available to couples of childbearing age in Xinjiang, and their personal decisions on whether to use those measures — which include tubal ligation and the insertion of intrauterine devices — are fully respected.

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [129][130]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just focussing on factual accuracy almost all of it is false. This is not a study that an independent source or one with basic fact checking abilities would have used. Its almost laughable, lets for instance contrast this statement with the well known second class political status of women in modern China "In the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no long baby-making machines, it said. Women have since been striving to become healthy, confident and independent.” The CCP doesn't promote female emancipation and gender equality even for Han women... Are we really expected to believe they do it for the women of a minority which by all reports they are repressing? I’ve certainly never seen a WP:RS give these sort of bullshit propaganda reports the time of day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation should stick to source analysis, but just as a matter of historical interest, one of the major societal reforms that the Communist Party tried to carry out after coming to power in 1949 was to change the status of women in society (e.g., legalizing divorce, trying to stop forced/arranged marriages). The New Marriage Law was one of the first laws the PRC passed, and it was accompanied by massive propaganda campaigns to get people to accept it. The status of women, more generally, was one of the major issues of contention between the Communists and Nationalists (the latter taking a much more traditional view of women's roles in society). That is to say, while you say it's ridiculous to think that the CPC would ever promote female emancipation, it wouldn't actually be out of line with their history or ideology. This isn't a comment on the specific report that China Daily reported on - I haven't looked into it carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing that post-Mao the status of women within the Party and in society in general plummeted, today there are no significant female party leaders and both within and outside the party women have second class status. If you want a better understanding of the modern history may I suggest Judd’s The Chinese Women's Movement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: According to The Guardian (RSP entry), Twitter took down this tweet, having concluded that it breaks its rules. The Guardian highlights the discrepancies between the claims in the China Daily article and the results of the investigation by the Associated Press (RSP entry). Additionally, The Guardian confirms that the Xinjiang Development Research Center study is "unpublished", which makes China Daily the original published source of the claims. — Newslinger talk 11:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Daily attributes the claims to the report. Unless you're claiming that China Daily fabricated the existence of this report, what is the RS problem here? Are we going to deprecate newspapers that describe the contents of Chinese government reports that editors find objectionable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[131]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Daily is reporting the claims of a report written by a governmental group. China Daily repeatedly attributes those claims to the report, just as it should do. You're saying that China Daily is not reliable because it does not inject the types of editorial comments you would like it to make. Of course China Daily is going to write about reports created by the Chinese government, but as long as it properly attributes the claims, it's usable. On the other hand, a lot of the claims being made about Xinjiang come from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was created by the US government, and which could just as easily be viewed as a propaganda organization. That doesn't mean that the claims are wrong, but this connection is rarely explained in news articles (including by the AP) about Xinjiang that rely on claims that come from this organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point you’re missing is that a WP:RS would never have taken that report at face value as China Daily does, the claims made in it are absurd (as are most claims China makes about human rights issues within China, remember that according to themselves the Chinese government respects human rights more than literally any other government on earth). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing here that China Daily's article is inaccurate? All I can see is that you're arguing that they do not make an editorial comment that you would like them to make. If one were to note (with attribution, of course) the views of the Chinese government on this issue, then this China Daily article would be a good source, because it explains what the Chinese government report states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "research" is inaccurate. The phrase "study shows" is also false. And phrases like these frame the reader's understanding of the entire piece. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The China Daily article does not use the phrase, "study shows". The article also describes the "research report" written by Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (established by the US government). The China Daily article doesn't say that Zenz' claims are wrong, and it doesn't say that the Chinese government's claims are wrong. You're essentially demanding that the article take an editorial stand, but if we want a source that simply describes the claims made by the Chinese government report, I don't see why that's necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[132]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet comes from the Chinese Embassy in the US, not from China Daily, and we're not discussing whether tweets are reliable sources, anyways (we typically wouldn't cite tweets from any news outlet). There is an actual report by a Chinese government agency. China Daily has seen the report and is reporting on its contents. Other news outlets have also reported on the contents of the report, and even interviewed the author. a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows [...]". That would be user error. A better paraphrase would be, "A report written by a Chinese government agency stated, ...". Note the attribution, which makes it clear to readers that we are reporting the views of a third party. Inclusion would be subject to the usual considerations of weight, NPOV, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Firestar464: Could you please revise the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp) to meet WP:RFCBRIEF, which requires the RfC statement to be "neutral and brief"? Specifically, "Media Bias Fact Check classifies it ... 'state propaganda.'" cannot be in the RfC statement since it advocates for a position, but you can move it into either the survey or discussion section. The link to MBFC's rating of China Daily should also be moved or removed from the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Firestar464 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the above: Xinjiang and Tibet (along with HK, Taiwan, the South China Sea) are two controversial areas that we should probably refrain from using Chinese state media in, but for most non-controversial mainland news, it should be WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that we can't know in advance what they are going to start lying about. In general, a rule like this would require readers to keep up with a lengthy and continually changing list of areas of concern. For example, prior to December, 2019, there was no reason to suspect their information about coronaviruses. See also Censorship in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems that out of thousands of articles in hundreds of topic areas there are some CCP-sensitive pieces of concern or POV differences. But this is not showing an issue re RS attributes with all content, most content, or even a common occurrence. Got any problem with their topics today of Covid, or Plastics, or Smartphones ? Or is it just China political content ? If there was bad info on in 2019, is that not the same info all papers had at the time and a matter outside them? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese government and their media entities spreading covid related disinformation has actually been an acute problem, are you unaware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it with the unfounded Association fallacy accusation. We are specifically talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. NoNews! 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about separated entities here, such as the Washington Post being owned by the same person that owns Amazon. We're talking about multiple arms of the same cephalopod; China Daily is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it was a wrong use of the term association fallacy. This is not about "ownership" in its usual sense of being a shareholder (which is essentially the residual claimant), but about the direct command and control from the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of editorial independence by design for all Chinese state media. Normchou ^💬 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of the Zambia Daily Mail? It’s used as a source several times on Draft:Tanonga Nswana. I had previously declined the draft due to incorrectly assuming it was affiliated with the UK Daily Mail. SK2242 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about the source seems to more or less call it a government mouthpiece, and states that as of 2005 it had a circulation of 10-15k (in a country of 17 million). Still, given the relative paucity of coverage in African sources, it may be usable for relatively uncontroversial topics like musicians' biographies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:

• Option 1 - Screen Rant is a reliable source.
• Option 2 - Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source, or should only be used under circumstances.
• Option 3 - Screen Rant is an unreliable source.
• Option 4 - Screen Rant needs to be deprecated.

Responses (Screen Rant)

• Option 1 Screen Rant is owned by the same company which owns Comic Book Resources (otherwise known as CBR). I'd also like to echo the discussions of previous editors when they weighed in on this subject a few years ago, with JOEBRO64 calling it reliable as "a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got good editorial oversight. It's also been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, and other RSs, and it's used a lot on comic/film-related GAs. I've never had a problem with using it before" and Flyer22 Reborn calling it "a reliable source for film material and some other material." While they do publish trivia, as some have pointed out, Poitrus pointed out, late last year that Screen Rant seems to be "usually reliable." I would be shocked if there is anyone who believes that Screen Rant is not reliable, marginally reliable, or should be depreciated. They call themselves the "most-visited independently owned movie/TV news site in the US." Also see:

• Christian Science Monitor: "Screen Rant had a humble start back in 2003 as a place to rant about some of the dumber stuff related to the movie industry. Since then, the site has grown to cover more and more TV and movie news (and not just the dumb stuff) along with sometimes controversial movie reviews. The goal at Screen Rant is to cover stories and review movies from a middle ground/average person perspective."- https://www.csmonitor.com/About/People/Culture-Partner-Bloggers/Screen-Rant
• Variety: "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers"- https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/film-blogs-collider-screen-rant-latino-review-1201525341/

Beyond this, they have policies for fact-checking, corrections, and ethics, among others. Perhaps some of the stuff they publish is trash, but that is true of any website like theirs. Removing Screen Rant would put a LOT of Wikipedia pages in peril, impugning their ability to have reliable sources, making Wikipedia for the worse for all of us. Historyday01 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 for coverage of pop culture and entertainment. I agree fully with Historyday01's argument. In addition to this editor’s points, Screen Rant requires an application to write for them; the application requires applicants to show that they have “expert knowledge.” In other words, the website is not a content farm. Additionally, their editors have some very impressive credentials. I will note that Screen Rant routinely gives in-depth coverage to niche and trivial topics. Editors should follow requirements such as Due Weight, What Wikipedia Is Not, and GNG's multiple source requirement when relying on Screen Rant, but this is true of all sources. Basically, I don't think we should dismiss a reliable source because its focus is considered niche or low-brow.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 1/11/2021 at 12:33 AM).[reply]

There's been a influx of 2 votes arguing that Screen Rant is only marginally reliable, and I'm legitimately confused as to why given its extensive editorial policies and positive reception by other, unquestionably reliable, sources. I've seen few arguments beyond mere assertions of unreliability and do not understand how this conclusion has been reached. Clearly, Screen Rant is a niche source to which Due Weight applies. However, this is a content issue of what information ought to be used, not a reliability issue of if the information can be used at all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option1 seem to have good editorial standards and are cited by outlets such as The New York Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 is probably the best fit. It's highly questionable for any BLP info, or determination of encyclopedic value and due weight. Trivia and entertainment of this type is of questionable value in general for encyclopedia articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what Hipal is saying, but I would have to agree with others like Atlantic306 and Spirit of Eagle in their assessment of Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable starting when? It's been around since 2003 "as a place for fans to speak openly about the movies they love", was acquired by Valnet in 2015 , and its editorial polices are only as of late 2019.[133][134] The low quality of its articles were discussed by WPVG in 2017 and early 2019. They apparently still offer a contributor program. I haven't looked into its quality since before those policies were added, but at the very least, it would not be appropriate to extend a blanket reliability verdict back to its founding. Separately, I'm not sure why sharing a parent company with CBR is seen as an extension of CBR's own editorial policy (especially when they only acquired CBR in 2016, a year after acquiring Screen Rant). Valnet owns a lot of properties and their stated focus is on entertainment and clicks, not quality of journalism. Unless they share an editorial staff or procedure, there's nothing automatic/universal about reputation for accuracy that extends from the parent org. czar 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valnet’s website states that their goal is to “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith reliable and trustworthy news stories.” While the language about entertained should raise some eyebrows, they state they desire to be reliable and trustworthy (a purported desire backed up by Screen Rant’s strong editorial policies). As for past debates, there were multiple editors vouching for Screen Rant’s reliability. I do not think either discussion had a clear-cut consensus. Regarding reliability over time, I largely agree with you. This is a website that went from a guy blogging his opinion to a reasonably respected media source. They’ve had editors for many years before the Valnet purchase [135] and reference editorial practices in a 2018 archive [136]. Personally, I think post-October 2019 articles should be counted as reliable while earlier post-Valnet purchase articles should be counted as probably reliable but use caution. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Spirit of Eagle has a valid point here and would disagree with Czar but would add that like what Armadillopteryx says, I've never encountered any errors or sloppy reporting from them when citing them in the past and often use them in articles, along with other related ones like CBR. I would say that CBR and Screen Rant are both, equally, valid sources to use. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1. Exercises editorial oversight and has a reputation for fact-checking. I run into this source reasonably often and have not encountered any errors or sloppy reporting. Armadillopteryx 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1; well-established and decent WP:USEBYOTHERS per the above. While higher-quality sources exist and should be used when available, I'm not seeing any reason to be skeptical of it - the fact that it primarily covers a niche area is not itself a reason to doubt its accuracy, and in some cases may mean it is the best source available. This does mean that it should sometimes be approached with caution when considering whether stuff only covered in it WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per Czar, i.e. additional considerations apply. feminist (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 Per Hipal. Use caution when using this as a source when sourcing really matters. Otherwise, sure. If someone has a problem with this source in a specific instance, dont dig your heels in. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2—I don't know if I'd call it "marginally reliable", but I think it's one of those sources where, if the content exists somewhere else or the claim is exceptional, it really should be replaced with a stronger one. WPVG has a category of "situational sources" which I think is the category I'd throw them into. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per Czar. It should not be used contentious/contraversial claims or any claims relating to WP:BLPs but perhaps can be used for less contentious statements of fact (though if more reliable sources like IGN cover the less contentious claim it should be used instead). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Screen Rant)

The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Not required as per WP:RFC. Lazman321 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lazman321, I haven't found this requirement as of yet, but if it is there, it still says "all editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." In any case, hearing your opinion on the matter would make sense, as this RFC seems strange considering past discussions which have mentioned Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said it was not required. The reason why I set this RfC up is that the previous discussions were inconclusive. In the last discussion, one editor thought Screen Rant was reliable, two thought it was reliable in certain circumstances, though the two disagreed on the circumstances, and one editor thought it was slightly questionable due to its clickbait headlines. My opinion on Screen Rant currently is that it is generally reliable, but to watch out for click bait articles. Lazman321 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well, I think we have a general agreement, from those who have contributed up to this point, that Screen Rant is "generally reliable." --Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this under discussion? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, I have the same question. I don't even know why Lazman321 proposed this in the first place. It seems unnecessary as previous discussions have already established it is a reliable source. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of Screen Rant has come up in several recent AfDs including SCP Secret Laboratory's nomination and the ongoing AfD on Dream (YouTuber). A lot of editors are unaware of past discussions, so I think having an additional discussion and getting Screen Rant listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources will be to the benefit of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It does seem at this point that the consensus will be that Screen Rant is seen (and asserted) as a reliable source, from the comments I've seen up to this point. Historyday01 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I was thinking about how Trump was recently banned by twitter. Unfortunately we have a lot of citations on Wikipedia that go to Trump's twitter, where you can no longer view his tweets. I was thinking of the following solutions:

• Use: thetrumparchive.com in order to link to Trump's tweets (website is pretty reliable, [in terms of completeness])
• Use the Wayback Machine, which is not as reliable (in terms of completeness).

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback Machine is far preferable to the other website. It is maintained by a well-funded staff with a long track record of keeping materials accurate and available for many years.

I have to wonder, however, why we'd cite these tweets in the first place. They're primary sources. If they're important enough to include in an encyclopedia article then surely editors can cite secondary sources that establish due weight e.g., news articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say either source is reliable, but I think the Wayback Machine is better to use if possible. One day, the National Archives will have some site where his tweets will be archived and available, but of course, that is not available at the present time. Historyday01 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo:I think part of the reason for having the alternative citations to the primary sources (e.g. an archive of the original tweet) is that many news websites link the tweets themselves using cross-site linking rather than taking screenshots, which then breaks if the tweet or account is deleted later. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, you make a valid point there and having alternative citations is important without a doubt. Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If its a tweet that has caused issues (such as his various racist ones, the ones encouraging violence and so on), it will have been covered by reliable sources in the news and we would use them. That the original tweet is no longer available is irrelevant, the secondary source is enough to verify the content. If its used as a reference for something primary (the only real legitimate use of self-published social media) - well Trump isnt even a reliable source for himself due to the habit of you know, being a gigantic liar. Do you have an example of something which Trump's twitter is currently being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Only in death on this. There is no need to link directly to the tweets (a primary source). If the tweets were notable, they would have generated secondary coverage. If the recent ban created broken links, I would just remove the links, rather than use Wayback Machine or other means. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing mention of Only in death. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Only in death and K.e.coffman. In the past when I've had cited individuals who have deleted their tweets or deactivated (like was recently the case for Shadi Petosky and Dana Terrace), and I have included the references with their tweets, I've just changed the url-status from "live" to "dead". I don't know where his tweets are cited elsewhere, but considering the raft of news coverage, I'd imagine they are quoted in other media outlets, so you wouldn't even need to cite the tweets directly. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say both are usable and neither is essential, per the above. Having a link to an archive of the tweet may be useful to readers, provided there is no question as to its accuracy; the heavy WP:USEBYOTHERS for thetrumparchive.com makes it usable as a host for primary citations, and of course the Internet Archive's reputation is sufficient for that use. Between the two I tend to think that thetrumparchive is more useful to readers (more complete, easier to traverse, searchable) but that really only matters when including one as an external link rather than as a cite to a specific tweet. Either way, they're not essential but I wouldn't support removing them in places where they end up being used, provided a secondary source is also present to establish due weight, or when the cite is to something trivial and uncontroversial that falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. (Though for ABOUSTELF usage, there is honestly no reason we should ever have to do that when it comes to someone as prominent as a president, so I'd tend to view any invocations of it skeptically even if it's something we could notionally do.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to those who have responded. I think the verdict here is to mainly use secondary sources for his tweets, and if none are avaliable, use thetrumparchive.com or the Wayback Machine. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative is an extensively staffed, permanent academic project intended to discuss Islamophobia in politics and society. User:Kyohyi and User:Springee have repeatedly contended on the talk page of the political commentator Douglas Murray that Bridge is "self-published" and have repeatedly removed any references to Bridge Initiative's fact sheet on Murray[137] from the page. I maintain that the Bridge Initiative is, to all appearances, an extensively staffed academic research project led by a major university that in no way meets the criteria for "self-publication". I believe that the contentions that Bridge Initiative is "self-published" are dubious, but given that Bridge has not been directly raised on the Noticeboard I thought it was necessary to bring it up first. This is from Bridge Initiative's "about us" page:

The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University. The Bridge Initiative aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia.[138]

The Bridge team[139] to whom all the articles are credited, includes professors John Esposito Farid Hafez and Susan L. Douglass, the human rights lawyer and commentator Arsalan Iftikhar and a host of others - those are just the ones with existing Wiki pages. The project puts out publications including editorials, factsheets, interviews, reports, videos, and more.

A link to Bridge Initiative at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service - essentially their school of international relations - can be found here.[140] Here are some references to Bridge in academic literature:

• Farid Hafez, "Schools of Thought in Islamophobia Studies: Prejudice, Racism, and Decoloniality," in Islamophobia Studies Journal 4, 2 (Spring 2018): 210-225[141]

the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University, headed by John Esposito, is a permanent research project dedicated to the study of Islamophobia. The impact of the Runnymede Trust’s definition can be seen in the project called The Bridge Initiative, which was led by John Esposito at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

• Khaled A. Beydoun, "Islamophobia: Toward a Legal Definition and Framework," in Columbia Law Review Online 116 (November 2018): 108-125[142]

The Bridge Initiative is a research project, housed at Georgetown University, established to monitor, research, and analyze Islamophobia in the United States.

The Bridge Initiative is being used as a source to support a claim that is backed by several other academic sources. I personally don't understand how this could not be seen as a prima facie reliable source, even for a BLP article. If it is indeed self-published, then any university research project including something as renowned as the Innocence Project, not to mention groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and really any kind of think tank, could also be described as self-published. Any help would be appreciated Noteduck (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". I will ask again, who are the reviewers independent of the bridge project that can validate the reliability of the content. If that condition is not met it's a SPS. Also per WP: V expertise is not justification for use on a BLP "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". --Kyohyi (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy doesn't say anything about us having to establish that independent reviewers have explicitly reviewed the independent source. It specifically 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." Based on what Noteduck wrote above, this source seems to meet those criteria.

Your second point about WP:BLP, however, does appear to be relevant. I wonder if that specific part of BLP needs to be revisited, however, as it would seem to mean that we cannot cite eminently reliable expert sources (e.g., SPLC) in BLPs when no editor would raise a reasonable objection. ElKevbo (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the relevant part of the policy which is here "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] " the [9] leads to note 9 on the bottom of the page which says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. ". The subject of self published sources and blps occurs almost yearly, and almost yearly it gets re-affirmed. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the materials written by research projects and other groups such as the SPLC are self-published. That is does not mean that they cannot be considered reliable. Editors who object that a source is not reliable solely because it is self-published need to review our relevant policy and note that it does not support their position. ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is self published and should not be used to say disparaging things about a BLP subject without a RS giving the views weight. Springee (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per our WP:BLPSPS policy, we can "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." For better or worse, there is no carve-out for the number or level of educational degrees the author has. The initiative appears to be, more or less, a group blog. Its articles are not subject to independent peer review. It seems like a RS to me for non-BLPs, however, insofar as BLPs are concerned the policy doesn't give us much leeway. If there are other sources that say the same thing, though, I'm not sure what the issue is? Why can't those be used and this set aside? Chetsford (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP article, does that mean that all material from these kinds of sources must be removed from a BLP article?

• academic research projects, no matter how eminent (eg the Innocence Project
• think tanks, whether academic or not
• advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, no matter how well-researched

Let's take the example of the Innocence Project, which employs 88 people and claims to have had a hand in nearly 200 exonerations of prisoners in the last 30 years. If a prisoner is exonerated by the Innocence Project, can any material on the prisoner's Wiki page that is sourced to the Innocence Project be deleted on the basis that that person is still alive, leading to a contravention of WP:BLPSPS? If so, this is a serious hole in Wiki's policies related to source reliability and some kind of formal request for amendment should be made Noteduck (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally they are usable if a RS cites the material. So if a university institute says A, B and C about MrX and the NYT mentions B and C we can say B and C with attribution and a citation to the NYT article. Springee (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" I've never heard of that policy before. I have heard of our WP:BLPSPS policy which says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." But I'm not familiar with any policy that says "non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" so I'm not sure. Do you have a link to it? Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the specific excerpt from the Douglas Murray page, only one section of the body article has been removed:

Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia.

Everything else that has been removed are footnote references to Bridge Initiative. The claim that Murray is Islamophobic is one that I doubt Murray would accept but is well established in academic evidence - see these two sources listed in the article^[1] This must be understood in the content of an ongoing debate on the page in which the frequent characterization in academia and journalism of Murray as being ideology proximate to the "far-right",^[2] "alt-right",^[3] "white nationalist",^[4][5] linked to far-right conspiracy theories,^[6][7][8] or Islamophobic, is relentlessly contested and frequently reverted without cause. Noteduck (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Chetsford that was the point I was trying to make - I can't believe such a policy exists. However, as far as I can tell this is essentially the stance Springee is taking - Springee, please correct me if you think I'm mischaracterizing your position. If Bridge Initiative cannot be used about a BLP article because it is "self-published", I can't imagine ANY academic source that isn't in a peer-reviewed journal or published book ever meeting Wiki's WP:BLPSPS standards, notwithstanding the face that the contention Bridge makes - that Murray's work deserves to be scrutinized for Islamophobia - is extremely commonplaceNoteduck (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is extremely commonplace" So is this just an intellectual exercise or what? Why don't you just use the other sources then? Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was worth noting that an entire academic research project with multiple noted academics was willing to lend its name to a factsheet that discussed Murray's purported Islamophobia at length, rather than a pinpoint reference in an academic paper. Furthermore, this is not just a mere intellectual exercise - Springee has contested many different edits to controversial pages on the grounds that they are "self-published", especially in relation to pages on conservative public figures and organizations (note, Springee and I have an extensive history of disagreement on edits). For example, on the PragerU page Springee had this to say about this long and extensive report by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi:

The report can be found at:

• Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices," Data & Society Research Institute 2018[143]

Springee may have hit on something important. Is there a lacuna in Wiki's editorial policies that essentially means that ALL academic, think tank and advocate material on a BLP or controversial topic that is not explicitly peer-reviewed or in a published book is precluded from inclusion on Wiki? Noteduck (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, the topic of this thread is specifically Bridge, not the rest of the disputes on the related pages. Please WP:FOC, not other editors. Springee (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee,an entire team of academics and the name of an elite university have attached themselves to Bridge, so I'm just trying to understand what the relevant evidentiary standard is here. Surely the "publisher" in question is Georgetown University? Noteduck (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also, just a few mainstream journalistic sources citing Bridge as an RS[144][145][146]. See also that there are FOUR references to the Southern Poverty Law Center in the footnotes of the Milo Yiannopoulos - another BLP article.[147][148][149][150] I'm not sure how the SPLC can be distinguished from Bridge Initiative in evidentiary terms, unless Wiki has gotten it wrong on Yiannopoulos' page Noteduck (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The first cites them for a rather small claim (According to BI X said Y), not an analysis. The second only mentions BI to say the person being interviewed works there so that isn't even citing BI work. The final one is an opinion article but it actually does the critical thing. It reports on BI report. It says we should pay attention to the contents of the report. That is an example of a secondary source giving weight to a self published report. In this case that secondary source is an Op-Ed article but we can ignore that for this example. The problem in the Murray case is we don't have RSs saying the fact that Bridge did an assessment of Murray is significant nor that Murray should be described by the contents of that report. Springee (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

those are three solid journalistic sources that treat Bridge as an RS. Here are a few more media sources that treat Bridge as a reliable source[151][152][153][154]. Can you address my point about the Yiannopoulos article? I'd like to know how you distinguish Bridge from SPLC, or whether you contend that Wiki got it wrong in that case Noteduck (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear on the exact source your asking about but something like: Doe, Jane. "Islmaphobia." The Bridge Initiative. (2002). has an author and a publisher. The author is a person and is not the publisher, which is a thing, so generally not self-published, on its face. See also, Doe, John. 'The Article'. The New York Times. (2015); or Doe, A. "The Book" HaperCollins. (2020). or Staff, "Another Article." Assiciated Press (2010). none of which need to be peer reviewed to be an RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the disputed edit? I found, "Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia." That type of statement should not be in an article however reliable the source is. TFD (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what WP:SPS says, it is often not easy to distinguish self-published sources from non-self-published sources. In this case, it seems to me that the professors are the authors and the university the publisher of the content. Who would be liable if what the professors write is libelous? Georgetown University. So Georgetown University should be seen as the publishing entity. ImTheIP (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does raise a question that has come up before, does SPS only apply when the author(s) and publisher(s) are ones and the same or does it apply when the organization is in effect one and the same. A news room has writers and separate editors. If Bridge is like the academic institute I was part of the heads of the institute we essentially the editors/reviewers of all that went out but they were also authors on some of the work and as a group were involved with all publications. As another example, would we consider a report issued by GM which refuted Nightline's C/K pickup report[[155]] to be something other than self published by GM? Do we think GTU has an independent review department checking what Bridge is publishing or does the review occur within Bridge? Springee (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImtheIP Alanscottwalker. I am 100% sure the admins did not have this extremely pedantic definition of "self-published" in mind when they drafted the WP:SELFPUB page - again, I would contend that under Springee's definition, the Southern Poverty Law Center would be "self-published" despite its reputation and pedigree, which would render the page of someone like Milo Yiannopoulos in dire need of fixing (incidentally, SPLC have called Murray a "notorious Islam basher" and criticized his work before).[156][157] It may be the case that by an extremely narrow definition of "self-published", no material from any academic project or report (unless explictly peer-reviewed), think tank or advocacy group could be included in BLP pages unless it explicitly mentions an editor or publisher. However, perhaps Wiki's policy needs to be formally amended to clarify pedantic semantic arguments like this one Noteduck (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% incorrect. Admins do not write nor control policy, and there is nothing pedantic the what a self-publisher is, although it is in each case a fact based inquiry, which is one of the reasons why we have this notice board. As far as I can tell, Springee has not provided a definition. They are making an argument from personal experience and it remains institutions who publish are on the line for what is published under their auspices, so it is not a matter of guesswork based on what someone personally experiences. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ImTheIP and Alanscottwalker. This is not an SPS. It is written by academic experts in their field (a relevant field for a discussion of Islamophobia) and published by a university which would be liable if the website was accused of libel. The university may not have day to day editorial control, but it will have a whole set of guidlelines and policies in place that the scholars will have signed up to. I don't see any problem with using this, particularly as one among many footnotes to show that a range of academic experts have expressed the same opinion. I can't quite see what the particular disputed claim is, but in general I think this is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, do you have any further rebuttals? I concur with BobFromBrockley and ImtheIP Noteduck (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we have not reached a cosensus and thus per NOCON we should not treat this as reliably published. Additionally I agree with the comment made by TFD. Springee (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure there is much to rebut, my original statement is we need to demonstrate that there is fact checking that is independent of the bridge initiative. Neither of their responses address that, and my statement is based in policy. Further, this example in WP: V "Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee." shows that we cannot just assume that the university is overseeing what's being published. Since we can't assume independent oversight, and independent oversight has not been shown, we treat it as no independent oversight. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Springee, that's incorrect and not how consensus works. Please read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling: it's putting the cart before the horse to simply assert that consensus doesn't favor conclusion without substantive debate. User:Kyohyi this is a source drawn from multiple noteworthy academics which has the name of Georgetown University attached to it. As BobFromBrockley has noted, that means Georgetown is risking liability if someone from Bridge mischaracterizes someone as an Islamophobe (remember, the SPLC has been successfully sued for flippantly adding someone to a list of extremists before[158]. If you want to dispute Bridge as a RS, you'll have to differentiate Bridge from Southern Poverty Law Center or Innocence Project, or make the case that both of those are self-published sources. Otherwise, given how protracted this is, a RfC at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be the last resort Noteduck (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a source is self published has nothing to do with liability, and if you look through the archives and even at WP: RSP you can find discussions noting that the SPLC is a self-published source. Really this is becoming tendetious, and forum shopping to DRN isn't going to help. Demonstrate indpendent review as called out in WP: V or drop the stick. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, I don't think you want to go down the editorial behavior path. When half the editors here say "no", it's rather hard to claim the actual answer is "yes". Going back to an article and editing as if the answer were yes is likely to be seen as problematic. Springee (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi could you link me to said discussions? At any rate it's not the same, since Bridge is maintained by Georgetown University and is not independent like SPLC. Springee, that's no answer. Consensus isn't unanimity, and "two editors disagree with you" is not an argument. Given that the Bridge Initiative is all over Wiki[159][160][161][162] it seems your stance is quite unorthodox

Noteduck (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally brought up at WP: BLPN, Springee even announced on the talk page that it was brought up at BLPN. My edit removing the information made reference to the BLPN discussion. That discussion is in the Archive here: [[163]]. Now to make a comparison about the university being the publishing agent. Forbes is a traditional publisher, however Forbes contributors, which is a part of Forbes, is considered self-published. Forbes could very well be liable for what is on their contributors section, but the forbes contributors section is still self-published. As another example, the Wikimedia foundation is liable what is posted on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is still self-published. This is because there is no review by Wikimedia prior to hitting publish. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an answer. I agree that consensus doesn't mean unanimity but experienced editors will tell you 50/50 isn't consensus nor should one of the involved parties decide consensus exists in their favor when the other half disagrees. That sort of editing historically ends up being reviewed as a user conduct issue. Perhaps we can raise this as part of the PraguerU mediation discussion since this RSN discussion applies there as well as here. Springee (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am leaning towards Bobfrombrockley that this does not seem like a self-published source and Georgetown university would be the publishing entity. But Springee is right about our vague definition of "self-published" source and how this keeps coming up. I think this RfC by Michaelbluejay may have clarified things a bit, and its too bad it didn't succeed.VR _talk 23:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee I am not saying consensus has been reached, merely that ongoing objections by certain editors are not in of themselves a barrier to consensus. In the case of Bridge Initiative there is a clear demarcation between the people who write the articles, most of whom are academics[164] and the institution that sponsors and lends its name and reputation to the Initiative, Georgetown University. Note that at Georgetown Bridge is officially housed within a research center, the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU)[165], itself located within Georgetown's School of Foreign Service - needless to say, this is an elite university with many renowned faculty members. I contend that this is no way meets the definition of a source where the writers and the publisher are the same. That said, I don't see how it can be asserted that think tanks and advocacy groups without explicit editorship can never be RS for BLP articles. This would exclude the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Innocence Project and a multitude of other sources that are used all over Wiki, including about controversial BLP subjects, note the ADL and SPLC used here[166][167] Noteduck (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks a lot like a self-published source to me. That is, it appears to be a source in which there is no editorial control or fact-checking in place. We are allowed to use such sources when the author is an expert, but not for BLP content, per WP:SPS. So it looks like this could be RS in a non-BLP context. Several editors have argued that the university is the publisher and provides oversight of some sort based on their reputation being at stake. This is a bad argument: if it were accepted, our WP:NEWSBLOG policy, which says we must exercise caution with such sources (presumably not relying on them for contentious claims about BLPs for example) would make no sense. After all, one could argue, the Newspaper's reputation would be at stake. Obviously, based on that policy, we would want to use a source like this one only with caution, which seems to me to mean it should not be used for contentious BLP content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it would be highly unusual for university administrators to have any editorial control over faculty research publications. Faculty would scream bloody murder over that kind of perceived violation of their academic freedom. So anyone making that argument need to provide evidence that this instance is unusual in this regard. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content is published on bridge.georgetown.edu, prominently uses Georgetown University's logotype, and has "Copyright © 2018 Georgetown University. All Rights Reserved." in its footer. This must mean that Georgetown University is the publisher of the content. The authors of the content is the individual academics. Since these entities are different, the source can't be self-published. The "editorial control" ought to be the Bridge Initiative. That academics enjoy academic freedom should, in my opinion, make them more reliable sources, not less. Otherwise we have the absurd situation where a student's bachelor thesis, which is both editorially controlled and not self-published, is seen as more reliable than what tenured professors write. ImTheIP (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, GU is the publisher of the content. Similarly, a newspaper is the publisher of a given newsblog. We don't use newsblogs for contentious claims about BLPs, though, because having a newspaper as a publisher is not enough to guarantee normal processes of editorical control and fact checking. (See WP:NEWSBLOG.) For the same reason, then, we should not use Bridge for contentious claims about BLPs. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have just admitted that the material is not self-published, and second you are wrong about NEWSBLOG -- news blog exists to make sure that news blogs are treated as reliable sources, and not as blogs. So the transferable publishing lesson there would be, publishing by academic organizations is treated as publishing by academic organizations in the reliable non-self-published analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that it is similar to a newsblog. In both cases, we have a venue associated with a publisher or institution, but where there isn't (or may not be) active editorial oversight and fact checking. Thus, as with newsblogs, per WP:NEWSBLOG, we should use such sources with caution. Using with caution entails not using Bridge as a lone source for a contentious claim about a BLP. That's my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinealittlelight Even if Bridge Initiative is an SPS, it is Wikipedia orthodoxy to use advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center to establish claims about controversial BLP subjects. This includes the headers of articles. See the pages for Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer and Lauren Southern for example, which reference either the SPLC, the ADL, or both. Are you prepared to make the case that these references need to be removed from Wikipedia? It may be the case that there is a lacuna in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article, and it needs to be amended for clarity Noteduck (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about WP:NEWSBLOG, it says These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If this is analogous, then the academics are obviously professionals and experts in their field, so we exercise caution but don't exclude a priori. The project is an academic project based at a heavyweight university, following all the policies that institution will have on research integrity. The factsheets are authored collectively by "the Team", which means that there is obviously editorial oversight within the team. Here is the team: https://bridge.georgetown.edu/about-us/meet-the-team/ headed by a professor who is a leader in this field. SPS is a completely inapppropriate policy here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it a self published source is lack of oversight outside the team. The team has an inherent conflict of interest with regards to it's research, and being self published is determined by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) reviewing content. If there only reviewers are the team, and the team has a conflict of interest, then the source is self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the inherent conflict of interest? Whose interests are at stake here? The Bridge writers are independent of the subjects they are writing about. ("Self-published" does not mean "primary" or "non-independent"[168]) The idea of oversight outside the team is taking SPS to an absurd length. Many BBC articles, for instance, have a team as a byline (example), but clearly the editors within the BBC have oversight - internal, not external, oversight. The Bridge Initiative is smaller, but there is clearly editorial insight within it. At any rate, Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: Acceptable use of self-published works [includes] 2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.[169] Is this an exceptional claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any research group has a conflict of interest with regards to it's own research, it's the same as any manufacturer having a conflict of interest with regards to it's own product. The difference between an news organization (like the BBC) and a research organization is that a news organization doesn't have a specific POV to sell. In the case of the bridge initiative it has an interest in "finding" islamophobia. The BBC has no particular interest in "finding" anything in particular. Unacceptable uses for self published works are BLP content, it does not need to be an exceptional claim. --Kyohyi (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, your claim is just false. The works of these academics is not self-published, they are published by a university.

And, no. A news organization has an interest in finding news -- what one news organization thinks should be written about is often different from what another news organization should be written about -- and partisans, of course, may call one or the other 'fake news'.

Your underlying assumption (your POV) seems to be 'Islamophobia' does not exist. But go out of your POV and assume there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia' and you will see that Bridge Initiative has every interest in not finding 'Islamophobia' as it does in finding 'Islamophobia' because the only way to have a expertise in 'Islamophobia' is to be able to identify when it is and is not (as, the only way to have an expertise in publishing news, is deciding what is an is not news). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A claim that others in the university outside of this research group exercise editorial control over the group's publications is so far outside the norms how U.S. colleges and universities typically operate that it's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever claim your making, it's still false to claim the university is not the publisher, however the university decides to exercise its publishing and its publishing rights. There is nothing extraordinary about a university publishing, including the work of academics in its employ. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration for reliability here would be use by other RSs (WP:USEBYOTHERS). This particular factsheeet does not appear to have been cited, but we can see scholarly citations for other factsheets[170][171] and other publications by the initiative,[172][173][174][175] as well as citations from mainstream media.[176] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't appear to be a SPS as we define that here, but I’m confused... Even assuming that they are in fact what we call a SPS the members of this group seem to be highly qualified subject matter experts. In context its not an extraordinary claim either. Could those arguing against using this source maybe do a bit better of a job making clear and coherent arguments? I have a hard time following the above and there appears to be a number of contradictory arguments being made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, I think the arguments against Bridge's reliability have been pretty thoroughly rebutted. Noteduck (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your POV I'm not surprised you feel that way. I don't see that a consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References (Bridge Initiative)