Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

National Post, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun

for the sake of everyone's sanity, moving the following into its own section; left collapsed in original thread for attribution

offtopic but apparently needed discussion moved here from Catholic Register thread

::When did the National Post and the Toronto Sun become unreliable?? I can't find these "archived discussions" you refer to and there's no WP:RSP listing (perhaps we need an RfC?). The best is an opinion column from the National Post accusing others of plagiarism.[1] These are two of Canada's most-circulated newspapers. [2] You can't just handwave them away as being unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The National Post put an op-ed piece by Jason Kenney on its front page. In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country, and this right after the discovery of graves in Kamloops. That was unforgivable. I didn't know questions had been raised about it, and I do not know why, but I definitely applaud the sentiment. And yes, it is one of Canada's highest-circulation newspapers. Which is terrifying. As for the Toronto Star, do you dispute it? I am not in Ontario so I don't see the print publication, but I've described their recent offerings (possibly even here) as akin to People magazine, so I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more complicated than 'on this day person x said y', and certainly not for a fraught and nuanced topic like the genocide at residential schools in Canada.Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun you shouldn't be judging Canadian newspapers. Vague claims that a publication is like People magazine is not enough to make a source unreliable.

WP:RSOPINION says you can't cite op-eds anyways. To declare the National Post as unreliable you should be showing how citing it can be used to support untrue information on-wiki, not just publishing editorials you disagree with. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs its own thread. But a) I am talking about the Star, ie the one with the star in its logo. I was until now blissfully unaware that there was a Toronto Sun, I think. And worse, you say, huh. b) I would never cite Jason Kenney except in a discussion of the problems in Canadian political discourse c) yes, op-eds are inherently unreliable, and that is why they shouldn't be on the front page. It really bothers me that I have to explain this d) I am as patriotic as the next person and probably more so, but the ostrich approach to the issue isn't solving anything. e) The National Post may need to be used for traffic news in Ontario or inside baseball on the budget bill perhaps, but in general it should be avoided imho. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Being amongst a country's most circulated newspapers does not speak in the slightest towards a publication's reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Flippantly excluding it as unreliable would affect any article on Canada. [3] Both the Toronto Sun and the National Post regularly win National Newspaper Awards (Canadian Pulitzer) because they are recognized by their peers as being of high quality. [4] [5] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

{{failed verification}} Ok the Star won for photography and the National Post for a column. About the shameful Hunka episode to boot. This is not the flex you think it is. Elinruby (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat again that the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two very different newspapers, despite being named after astronomical objects. If you look at the full awards list [6] the National Post has won 13 NNAs in its 25 year history, 11 of which were not in editorials or columns. The Toronto Sun has won 22, 5 of which were not editorial cartoons/photos.

Clearly we need a new discussion on this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Look, of course the sun is a star, but I am talking about the Toronto Star. The fact that I offtopicto your offtopic post in the offtopic spinoff from my original question does not make me the one that is confused here. I am taking your post as support for refactoring however.Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just looking at prior discussions of those sources on this noticeboard that turned up when I searched the archives, in which it looked like editors thought they were unreliable; if you read those discussions differently and/or think it's important to start an RFC on either source, feel free. I suggest starting a new section for it, as this section has already left its initial topic (Catholic Reporter) in the dust and is now even veering off even the secondary topic it had veered onto (that Blacklock's has no reputation for fact-checking, use by other RS, etc, and in general has no signs of being RS). -sche (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Catholic Register, actually, which I would like to get back to, since it is actually used in an article I am trying to clean up. Considering sorting this into three separate threads.Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR from the above: The National Post put an op-ed by a politician on the front page of its print edition. Apparently @Chess: feels this has no bearing on the newspaper's reliability. There also seems to be some disagreement about the reliability of the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. I consider that they are mostly irrelevant, but usable for simple statements of fact like "x said y on this day". This is in part due to their intense absorption with their own region, probably. Maybe they are reliable for national politics also. I avoid them because I don't care who got arrested in Hamilton. For British Columbia, which is all I am talking about right now, much better sources exist for the most part, although I may recall one or two long-form explainers from them that were pretty good. Unsure.

The third Toronto paper, The Globe and Mail, is unquestionably reliable, if a but stodgy and banker-ish. I have compared it to the New York Times; we can discuss that too if anyone wants to.

As for the Sun and the Star, meh, I would put reliability on a par with, idk, have previously said People magazine for the Star, but I admit it's a little more newsy than that. Not much, though. And to be fair, I have to say that I never see the print edition of either one, so that may be part of it too,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is that the National Post ran an op-ed? Can you explain how that has bearing on the WP:NEWSORG's reliability for news reporting? I'm struggling to see why running a labeled opinion piece is relevant to the Flagship PostMedia paper's reliability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where a paper puts its op-eds. WP:RSOPINION still applies, no matter whether we agree or disagree with the opinion. I'm getting flashbacks to the New York Times Tom Cotton editorial fracas. Offensive or controversial editorials, be they by a Premier of Alberta or a US Senator, might suggest an editorial bias, but bias in op-eds does not mean unreliable for factual reporting elsewhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

On the front page of the print edition above the fold? And yes, obviously newspapers publish opinion. It is supposed to go in the opinion section however. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not require this of sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe you don't. After all it's only the most sacred tenet in print journalism. NBD. Elinruby (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Op-Ed content masquerading as news would be a big deal. But we don’t require sources to follow any particular layout. They can put an op-ed on the front page if they want to. So can we have a look at the front page in question? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC

They can indeed do anything they want, and we can evaluate their actions on the basis of our policy in turn. But to be clear it wasn't masquerading as anything but the opinion of the then-premier of Alberta. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a link to a copy of that front page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw it on paper, which is how I know that it was above the fold, but yes, I am sure there must be one. I will find it once I get done adding diffs to the Arbcom clarification request that this got added to, which is what I am in here for right now. Do I need to explain Jason Kenney when I do that? Elinruby (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: here. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ, if that's the "unforgiveable" op-ed that single-handedly makes the National Post unreliable (no matter where it originally appeared in print), then nothing is reliable. Although online it's categorized under opinion, the article's intro and ending suggest an interview ("Asked Tuesday whether Calgary’s Sir John A. Macdonald school should be renamed... This transcript has been edited for clarity."). Kenney said: "We should learn from our achievements but also our failures. Canada is doing that, just as Prime Minister Harper made the official apology for the terrible injustice of the Indian residential school system" and concludes with "I think that’s the solution, which is to present young people and all Canadians, including new Canadians with a balanced depiction of our history, including the terrible gross injustice and tragedy of the Indian residential schools." (emphasis mine). He acknowledged horrors of the past, but simply holds the view that statues of the Macdonald needn't be toppled nationwide. Hard to conclude he wants to ignore or just get over genocide. And again, this is only a single op-ed that you apparently didn't like. That's not relevant to WP:NEWSORG. Which policy does it break? The post has an editorial team. Its journalists and columnists have been National Newspaper Award winners and nominees. Nothing is 100% accurate all the time, and bias in story selection or presentation is WP:BIASED, not unreliable. Unless solid evidence can be found that this or source lacks routinely fails fact-checking, lacks journalistic standards or other criteria of WP:GUNREL, it should be considered generally appropriate. And of course, per WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What is unforgivable is failing to maintain the firewall between reporting and opinion. Opinion goes on the opinion page. If the opinions of Jason Kenney were deemed newsworthy they should have been quoted in a news story. But of course they weren't because nobody within light-years with any familiarity with the man was surprised at what he had to say Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that you don't like that they placed it on the front page in print. But it's clearly labeled as opinion online, and the online headline Jason Kenney: Cancel John A. Macdonald and we might as well cancel all of Canadian history makes it clear that the words are Kenney's take. Was the headline different in print? I'm struggling to comprehend why running this op-ed have any bearing on the reliability of National Post, which by all accounts appears to be a standard established Canadian WP:NEWSORG that is generally reliable for news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if one finds Jason Kenney's op-ed in the National Post distasteful, did it contain misinformation? Or did it merely contain value judgements and recommendations for future behavior that one may find odious? If it's only the latter, that doesn't suggest that the National Post is unreliable. Also, we still don't know if those are graves in Kamloops. And even if those are graves of children from the school, that doesn't necessarily mean children were murdered. The crime we know happened was forcefully removing children from their families. Beaulieu's 2021 radar survey has not demonstrated crimes beyond that. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the only unreliable thing happening here is summarising that op-ed/comment/interview as In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country. That was an atrocious misrepresentation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here. Judging the the description of the Toronto Sun here it's an established and reliable media outlet. Alaexis_¿question? 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two wildly different papers and only the later is owned by the same people as the National post, I don't see any reason why we are discussing them in relation to nat post op ed! —blindlynx 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for spotting it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit sharp. It's an understandable mistake given their confused a few times in this thread—blindlynx 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is more of a tabloid paper (they still publish sexy photos of fully clothed women), they aim for the more blue collar audience. But they don't make things up. Still a RS. Biased, but not unreliable. Toronto Star has always been a middle of the road newspaper, pushing for social betterment. One is different from the other, but neither is unreliable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: National Post

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a resounding consensus that the National Post is generally reliable. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

---

National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey: National Post

• Option 1. National Post is a fairly standard national Canadian NEWSORG that has a history of excellent reporting. It regularly is nominated for and wins awards at the National Newspaper Awards, Canada's equivalent to the Pulitzer Prizes. As an established news organization with a reputation for accuracy in reporting, this appears to be a generally reliable newspaper. Its opinion content should be handled by WP:RSOPINION, just like that of other news organizations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 .... Award-winning publication used by academics for research.Moxy🍁 00:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Close: We should not open an RfC because one editor has claimed that a source is unreliable because it ran an op-ed that that editor didn't like. There's a

clear consensus in the discussion above. Everyone should move on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've seen it discounted in ways that I don't think best in other discussions, such as this one. There are also a couple of discussions way back, and I do think we benefit from an RfC in the present. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I counted at least two others that disagreed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess: One vs. three editors doesn't really chanhe my analysis. Consensus is determined by strength of argument. We don't just start RfCs because a few people spuriously disagree with everyone else. Regarding -sche, who you cite below, all they did was suggest an RfC if others thought it necessary. Not sure who your third person is. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can WP:SNOW close this in a week if the consensus is really clear. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  But it is baffling that you feel the need to do that. And no, consensus is not clear, at all. Where have you announced this RfC? Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby, @Red-tailed hawk announced it at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. There's a comment below where they advise that. TarnishedPath^talk 05:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  um. Judging by the complete lack of reaction to previous announcements there about the Western Standard, I am not certain that that amounts to publicity. I will have to give some thought to where else would be a good place. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think this is really needed given the discussion above. My only comment in that discussion was to say that being amongst a country's most widely distributed papers does not speak to its reliability. If it did then Melbourne's Herald Sun would be reliable and it's not. Beyond that I'm not sufficiently aware of the source to provide any opinion. If this RfC does proceed, I've linked previous discussions below and pinged involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. -sche and Elinruby seem to agree the National Post is something other than reliable, based on historical discussions here at WP:RSN. We should correct the record. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - for reasons given by red-tailed hawk and MOXY. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC - This was originally an off-topic discussion moved into its own section. I don't think there has been enough discussion to hold an RfC. If someone insists though, special considerations apply to the Sun and the Star for general cluelessness outside of the Ontario news bubble. Probably reliable for dates and facts when it comes to national news. Not reliable at all for Quebec. National Post sometimes does not distinguish between fact and commentary, so while I have used it, it should ideally be avoided. Neither deserves deprecation at this time since the issue is not so much accuracy as slant. Also should be avoided for Quebec. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence for your assertions? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  my assertions? This RfC was started by someone who seems to feel the need to defend the newspaper. why, I am not sure. I don't suppose anyone voting 1 realizes that the publication was founded by convicted fraudster Conrad Black for explicitly partisan purposes. Or has heard of the Telegraph or the Jerusalem Post? This thread continues to be a huge distraction from what I actually came here to talk about (Catholic Register) but I suppose I'll have to compile some stuff now, just to add some facts into this attempt to justify the Post coverage. I realize it's what we've got, God help us, but that doesn't mean we need to call it good. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. It seems to be a standard WP:NEWSORG source with standard editorial controls. I have seen no evidence of unreliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I don't particularly like the post as it has a strong editorial bias. That said it generally has a commitment to factual and reliable reporting—blindlynx 13:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as the facts suit its purpose, yes. If the Post says that Trudeau said x, odds are good that Trudeau did say those words. Pertinent facts may well be missing however. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that black is a hack and that this paper is partisan BUT it does not publish factually incorrect stuff or have wildly glareding omissions. It's fine for citing statements of fact which what policy says WP:NEWSORG are for—blindlynx 15:0a 1, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To a very limited extent I actually agree with that, and have in fact recently cited it when dealing with people claiming that something did not happen that manifestly did. But take a good look at the examples above. Is it indeed a fact that Freeland talks nonsense, that Trudeau has a blind hatred of the unvaccinated or that indigenous people oppose pipelines because they have a "handout mentality"? Only from a fairly hateful frame of reference, I submit. I am going to point out again that my question here is about the Catholic Register not the sad state of Canadian media, so I am going to restart a thread on that; but this RfC should not confuse "what we have" with "good journalism" Elinruby (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously that stuff is awful but no one should be citing opinion as fact, from the post or anywhere else—blindlynx 13:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 though a publisher of terrible opinions by awful people, it's factual reporting is not in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe you can show everyone some examples of the excellence of its factual reporting. I didn't find much, but you of course will be able to do so, being Headbomb, and I will off somewhere else using better sources than that wherever possible. It's an RfC. Let's let other people talk, hmm? Or not. Your call, but I am gone. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pick any story in the news section, e.g. https://nationalpost.com/category/news/canada/ or https://nationalpost.com/category/news/world/ Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Per Red-tailed hawk's arguments and since no examples of unreliable reporting were presented. Alaexis_¿question? 07:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. There doesn't seem to be any indication that there are problems with the accuracy of its reporting, just a complaint over where they put an opinion piece, so I'm not even sure this RFC is warranted. XeCyranium (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No issues with factual reporting, even if the opinion columns are bad. Biased, but not to an extent that a formal caution to try and find a breadth of sources, which should be SOP for general editing anyway, would be required. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 (maybe Option 2): Having an editorial bias is not a criteria for unreliability or deprecation. Even a bias in hard news story selection or interview subjects would not be a mark of unreliability (do we expect that liberal publications like The Nation are eager to cover every mistake or misdeed by liberals with the same level of detail and ferocity that they cover conservatives?). That the Post sometimes places commentary on the front page is a made up 'unforgiveable' sin in the mind of one editor: it appears to be clearly marked as commentary/analysis both online and in print (e.g. [7], [8][9]). The "founded by convicted fraudster Conrad Black" is a red-herring - he was convicted in 2007, 9 years after the Post was founded, and there is little evidence Black has played much role in the Post in the past 20 years. Having a few failed fact checks or controversies is not necessarily indicative of an unreliable, see: List of The New York Times controversies. It is true that we need not use the National Post for every topic mentioned in its archives, but the same is true of any source per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:COMMONSENSE. Deliberately and systematically downgrading conservative publications, or commentary by significant people, is the exact opposite of WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Addendum: The National Post is not only a member of the National NewsMedia Council[10], which promotes ethics in journalism, but Post editor-in-chief Rob Robertson is a council member, which lends greater evidence of reliability, professionalism, and a reputation for standard journalism. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It would be good if everyone electing for Option 1 could take another look at the huge red flag that the National Post appears to throw up in the domain of climate change reporting. See the below discussion thread on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No compelling reason for anything else. This paper happens to do a lot of opinion piece, which are as opinion pieces are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't see issues with this source that would lead to problems on WP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:NEWSORG. Climate change is irrelevant because it falls under WP:MEDPOP which says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles" (my emphasis). Climate change appears to be "scientific" and presumably needs an expert source. Something written by . . . a climate change scientist, perhaps? GREL only applies to topics that are actually within the professional competence of the source. You might as well complain that the journalists do not understand the finer points of the tensor calculus. For example, I suspect most newspapers would probably tell you that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that is not actually true (because both objects orbit their common centre of gravity, or barycentre, which happens to be deep inside the Earth at all times). If you search Google News for "moon orbits the earth" you will find many news sources that make this mistake, because they are not astronomers, and the mistake says nothing about their general reliability. James500 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per James500.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Its factual reporting is not and has never been an issue. Sure, it may be biased, but that is not relevant here. Opinion pieces should be treated like any other WP:RSOPINION. C F A 💬 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per WP:NEWSORG and arguments by Red-tailed hawk. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 They're certainly biased but aren't unreliable... They play to the left-leaning folks in Canada. They (not to my knowledge) have never made things up. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: National Post

• I've moved this RFC to its own second level header. That way the large 'before' discussion can be archived without having to wait for the RFC to finish. Please revert if you disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @Chess, Elinruby, TarnishedPath, -sche, Animalparty, Barnards.tar.gz, Jweiss11, Alaexis, and Blindlynx:, who participated in the preceding discussion immediately above. If there is someone I have missed, please ping them to alert them to this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  WikiProject Canada has been notified. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I've found the previous discussions at WP:RS/N:
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#National_Post
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#National Post Rejected as Reliable_Source
  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#National Post: Accusations of Plagriarism made in an opinion column
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 28#National Post blog
• Pinging @ATren, Metropolitan90, DGG, Stephan Schulz, Mattnad, Collect, Blueboar, PluniaZ, Simonm223, Simpsons contributor, Squidfryerchef, and Thivierr: as editors involved in previous discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why has this come up is there someone claiming otherwise that it's not reliable? Moxy🍁 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  See the preceding discussion for one example. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ohhhhh....I see....it's an ongoing problem with the ability to evaluate sources I got it. Moxy🍁 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Don't think we are going to hear from DGG. Everyone pour one out for that wiki-OG. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS says Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. I am alarmed by the fact that some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news. There is a very large one: opinion about the news is never considered reliable except for the opinion of the writer. I have done a fast survey of National Post online coverage -- nobody around here sells the print edition -- and find the problem is if anything worse that I thought. If while looking at an article that is definitely about a news event (the French election for example) the reader should click on a main menu item for "Canada" or "World", the resulting list of links seems to consistently contain more than 50% opinion pieces. Nor could I find a retraction policy, as per WP:RS at Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.

This is further discussed here; [11], here and About the Committee on Publication Ethics here and here. A lot of the publications that follow this policy are journals: Springer, Nature, British Medical Journal; however this standard is by no means limited to peer-reviewed publications. CBC has a corrections policy[12]. The Globe and Mail has a formal retraction policy [13] and the Washington Post has a form where readers can request corrections [14]. Even the very middlebrow USA Today has a corrections policy [15].

(*=labeled as comment)

I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post. It also quotes the disparaged Blacklock's Reporter (see above)[16] and published a fawning review of a book by a writer at True North, which apparently is never RS, per comments elsewhere.[17].

On specific issues, I did not find any neutral news coverage of COVID vaccines at all, although perhaps there was some at the time.[18]* ("blind hate?) [19]*,[20]* [21][22][23]*

Coverage of the trucker protests of the vaccine mandates, which it called "Freedom Convoy", was extremely sympathetic. [24]*, [25]*, [26], [27]. The current coverage of the insurrectionist truckers charged with attempted murder of a police officer in the border blockade is more neutral and mostly rewritten from Canadian Press coverage, but still framed in a sympathetic manner: [28][29][30] Indigenous protests met rants about "handout culture" however, and coverage of Gaza is lurid. [31], and not labelled as comment: “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”.

In politics, the pattern persists: the language in news stories is far from neutral, and many opinion pieces are linked from the news menu, like this one [32]*, [33]*, [34]*, [35]*. Not labelled as opinion: [36]. Yesterday's lead article on the front page of the print edition, with a headline in 72pt type or possibly higher: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older home owners?* Today it is somebody calling for a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken for introducing halal chicken. Since there isn't a KFC within a couple of hundred miles of here at least -- maybe in Vancouver -- this couldn't be more irrelevant to the concern in my community right now: the next wildfire.

On climate change, Climate change in the Arctic is often framed through the lens of Canadian national interests, which downplays climate‐related social impacts that are already occurring at subnational political and geographical scales (Cunsolo Willox et al. [ 10] ; Trainor et al. [ 39] ). As such, the climate justice dimensions of climate change in the Arctic are often not being translated to audiences through (the National Post and Globe and Mail ) while also undermining government efforts:The media is more interested in sensational and controversial stories than they are in simply supporting the status quo Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the National Post is a conservative paper. Everyone knows this. That does not make it unreliable. That makes it, at worst, biased. some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news the only person to have a problem with this is you. To everyone else, it's clear what is opinion and what is news reporting in the National Post. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, Globe and Mail and London Times are conservative publications. The National Post is more akin to Fox News.Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an insular view of conservatism that unfairly delegitimizes political ideologies that are not aligned with neoliberalism and free market economy. By this, you are basically saying an outlet is conservative only if it doesn't terribly upset you. Motjustescribe (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the casual racism and climate science denial are the bigger problems (and bad medical advice?), but fear not! – it appears to still be considered gold standard. Perhaps these things are the gold standard for a crochety old Western conservative rag, whose target audience is a very specific demographic. And clearly anyone who thinks this is a stellar source with no conceivable issues – that merely presents another valid viewpoint, and definitely doesn't allow any of the fairly psychotic material that it allows to be passed off as valid commentary in its opinion section, or be given free reign to in its interviews, to bleed into its voice and affect the overall quality as a publication – is in excellent company. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

With respect to I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post, they do appear to issue corrections, even in their opinion section. One such correction from an opinion piece can be found here, and one for a wire story can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Neither of those is a published retraction policy; see examples provided from other publications. Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I could go point-by-point through this to refute the examples, but I do not want to write a novella in doing so. Here are five clear examples of where you appear to be misreading the source, objecting to an opinion piece, or attributing something to the voice of the paper rather than to someone the paper is quoting or attributing a statement to:

• "Blind hatred" appears in an opinion piece, not a news piece. And, even it it were a news piece, the objected bit appears in a headline, and WP:RSHEADLINES notes that Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article.
• This is an opinion piece.
• This is also an opinion piece.
• Michael Higgins: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older homeowners? is an opinion piece.
• the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR does appear in this piece, and that piece indeed is a news piece. But you are misrepresenting the quote as if it were in the publication's voice when it is not—it appears in quotation marks, and the full paragraph (Still, jihadists believe that the destruction and civilian casualties are the cost necessary to destroy Israel, Kedar said. The Quaran preaches that dying for Islam is praiseworthy, he said, and therefore “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.” makes it incredibly clear that they are reporting a properly attributed quote from Mordechai Kedar.

I understand that you object to the reliability of their comment (i.e. opinion) pieces. So does our guideline on reliable sources. But that has no bearing on the reliability of the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You understand no such thing, since this is not the case. Well. I do find their polemics tiresome, but apparently I did not make it clear enough that I marked each opinion piece with an asterix (*) to indicate that once you get to the page it is tagged as an opinion piece (although not before). The more pertinent point is that most of their coverage consists of opinion pieces, which are after all easier and cheaper to produce than fact-based journalism, and that the slant and loaded language is present even in what they are calling news. This is why I avoid using them in my editing, and replace them as a source where this can be done without going down a rabbit hole. I have zero interest in arguing with people who want to defend the virtue of Conrad Black, and am now going back to what I was doing before my thread was hijacked into this RfC, which I believe is premature. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Best be honest with your usage. What it looks like to an outsiders is if you don't like what a source says ...it simply becomes unreliable, but can be used if you like what it says. Moxy🍁 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Moxy I don't know why it would look like that to you. I really don't what part of this do you think I merely dislike, rather than consider a problem. I really don't know why *you* do not consider it a problem that the most widely circulated news paper in Canada is primarily composed of opinions pieces, but then I don't know why you think that 300-page reports don't need to have page numbers, either. But I am formally requesting that you stop making fact-free accusations about something or other you think in your head about what I like. I like sources that like facts. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes sources is a problem in most of your assertions "news paper in Canada is primarily composes of opinions pieces" {fact}. Moxy🍁 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Of course it's an attributed quote. The entire article is an extended quote. Why are they giving that quote that much oxygen? Of the very few articles about events outside of Canada, that was one of them. @Iskander: says there are additional problems with the article. What makes you think I am representing it as anything but inappropropriate media coverage? I am sorry you are having so much trouble reading what I said -- this is the second time I have had to explain the post to you -- but I did my best to be clear, and I am baffled at the passion and vituperation you are putting into this. Someone started a Request for Comment because they didn't like what I said about the National Post and here, in the RfC, I commented, with multiple examples of ok and bad coverage, an attempt to cover several problem topics, and academic references even. I don't even care about this publication at the moment. Why do you? I doubt it's your first choice for a reference either. In any even making wild accusations over a nuanced and sources comment in an RfC is inappropriate. Elinruby (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One would hope that this is one of Canada's lesser sources, because if this is what passes for a good source in Canada then its entire media landscape is the lesser. That piece quoting Kedar's vitriolic and deeply prejudiced ranting is pretty vile stuff, and made yet worse by the inept framing by the author of the piece, who has either actively, or through ignorance, also populated the content outside of the quotes with more mistruth, if not utter misinformation. If there's much more material of this tone and tenor in circulation on the site then this source should be a hard pass. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of pretty good hyperlocal sources, at least in British Columbia. But yes, this is the "national newspaper", God help us. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Did The Globe and Mail stop existing in the two whopping minutes since I last went to its website? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the National papers. If you want less opiniated coverage, don't read the opinion pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that piece isn't tagged as comment or opinion, but as news, and then bragged about as an exclusive "special to NP". Also, if you were going to call it anything other than news it would be an interview, since the main voice is someone who's been interviewed by the author, not the author. But on no level does it fall into the category of opinion in any normal sense. That it reads like a trashy opinion piece, despite being news, is exactly the issue at hand. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References

National Post on climate change

Before everyone gets too excited voting that the National Post has no problems apart from its frequently vile and inappropriate comments, opinion and sometimes news, there's at least one issue where option 1 appears demonstrably inadequate: climate change. In this peer -reviewed, journal-hosted media review assessing 17 sources over 15 years across 5 countries (US, UK, AUS, CAN, NZ), the National Post came out as the hands down least objective source on climate change ... And that's with the UK's Daily Mail also in the running. The National Post was found to represent scientific consensus only 70.83% of the time, while 9.17% of the time it presented anthropogenic climate change and natural climatic variance as equally relevant (basically climate change denial-lite) and 20% of the time, in one-in-five articles, presented anthropogenic climate change as a negligible phenomena (full-throated climate change denial). So basically 30% of everything that the National Post publishes on climate change is unscientific nonsense. That alone should be worthy of Option 2 (additional considerations apply) on the count of: don't touch with a bargepole on climate change-related issues and related politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you read the report a bit closer, you will note that In addition to news articles, the analysis included letters, editorials, and other publications that contained the keywords 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These latter units of analysis may be outside the bounds of journalistic norms—for example, the author of a letter or editorial may not follow guidelines on balance or 'truth' in reporting—but these still reflect the overall content of the sources in which they are published and, thereby, impact readers. In other words, the analysis lumps together news reporting alongside opinion pieces, and concludes that the paper (when including opinion pieces) does not do great on climate change. And that's no surprise for a newspaper that existed in the first decade of the 2000s and had a conservative editorial outlook (or had a conservative audience, considering that letters to the editor are included in the analysis). But that sort of study is somewhat useless here, since it muddles news reporting (which is WP:GREL) with opinion reporting (which, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, are are rarely reliable for statements of fact), and we only care about the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: True, but from the examples further above, we also know that the publication's opinion-like content bleeds into its non-opinion material. Regardless, this report should still serve as a disturbing bellwether. The National Post came out worst. Not just in the mix. Worst. And would you treat other topics like this? Would a publication be ok if 30% of its content doubted evolution or took up some other fringe position. Labelling content as "opinion" isn't a get out of jail free card. It is still published. The paper still owns it. If a publication only spewed 30% fascistic hate, but covered local news ok, would that make for a sound source? Still 70% GREL? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor, for a very long time, was an organization that was widely subscribed to for its extremely good investigative reporting, and it won several Pulitzer Prizes for this sort of stuff. It also long-carried a column that has had several names but now is "A Christian Science Perspective". If you look through the history of that column, you will surely find tons of evidence that the magazine has promoted relying on Christian Science prayer to treat disease instead of mainstream medicine. And this goes back quite a while. If you were to run a study on it, and you'd want to identify misinformation in the realm of Medicine, it would surely have problems if that column were included. But it's an opinion column, presented as such, and it carries the perspective of Christian Science.

When we smush together opinion columns and standard news reporting, and treat them as if they are one and the same, we distract from our task at hand—evaluating the reliability of the source's news reporting. And, like The Christian Science Monitor, National Post both wins national awards for its news reporting and has topics where its opinion pages just aren't in touch with reality on a science issue. But if there is separation between the editorial structure on the news side and the opinion side, as there is at most major papers, this sort of thing is not cause for concern on the news side. And, I really don't see evidence that the news reporting is anything other than that which we would expect from a standard national WP:NEWSORG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the material that they have been publishing specifically on climate change have been so bad that it has drawn ethics complaints on the subject. This article focuses on an interview (so not op-ed) and guest column allotted to promoting a book by a climate science science denier. The column then ran beneath the headline “De-bunking climate and other varieties of alarmism.” A subhead stated that Moore’s book shows how environmental claims are “fake news and fake science.” In the interview, where the interviewee's views went unchallenged, the guy also misrepresented the research of actual climate scientists. When the newspaper was contacted to either retract the material or add a caveat to the articles promoting the book to let readers know they contained “numerous demonstrable misrepresentations of scientific sources and findings” they did neither. Very editorially responsible. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And if you look at their climate change tab, their news coverage employs quite an extraordinary degree of omission – basically, they simply avoid addressing the causes of climate change wherever possible. There's even this story about the climate minister flying around in private jets, and the only complaint is the cost; they don't even hint at private jets being high in emissions as some sort of a problem in the very specific and ironic context. The only mention of "carbon" that I could even find anywhere in there stories on the tab was in reference to "carbon tax", not emissions. Most stories, while begrudgingly dealing with the realities of policies to address climate change still act as if the subject itself is purely in the realm of some sort of mysterious natural phenomena. There's an entire story on climate change-driven wildfires that only begrudgingly admits that climate change is the cause in the form of quote by a minister more than half down the piece where it states "Climate change is an essential threat to Canadian tourism". It then proceeds to make no reference to the potential causes of climate change in this uniquely apt piece for just this type of rather key background information. If you look at the pattern, it is pretty clear that the National Post is as intentionally misleading as possible on the issue wherever it can be. In op-eds it spews outright denialism, in interviews it entertains denialism without rebuttal, and in is news it at best references climate change, but avoids any risk of dialogue on the topic by simply ignoring the matter of causation altogether. If one were going to be less sympathetic, one might call this "denial by omission". Iskandar323 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You're describing WP:BIAS in story selection and presentation, which does not mean unreliable. To be blunt, It sounds like you're imposing your own standards of what you want every newspaper to report every time it mentions climate. That is simply not realistic. This article by the way is syndicated from The Canadian Press, so you'd best start trying to deprecate that agency next. Luckily, there happens to be more than 1 newspaper in the world we can cite on most issues, plus a bevy of books and scientific papers that, together, can provide a more complete view of a topic or story. Purity crusades to purge sources that don't spend enough ink on a given topic are silly. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Ok, well the syndication is amusing. I know that North America is famously shit at covering climate change, but I guess Canada really is the worst. Little wonder that Canada has the most embarrassimg climate record of the G7 nations. With friends like Canada's media, why even bother dealing with reality? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Animalparty: What purity crusade? I began this thread by presenting peer-reviewed research on the shocking bias and denialism endemic to the National Post. You can take that or leave it, and even dismiss it as a non-issue, but the issue is a documented one. Don't make it personal or an attack. Also, please don't be misrepresent things. No one has even mentioned deprecation. I suggested that "additional considerations may apply" for a single issue. Yeah? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Opinions, even *bad* ones, appear in op-eds and letters as people seek to influence society. That's democracy, which is decidedly messy (If only people all thought the way I do! Maybe we should make wrong opinions illegal). Luckily we aren't AI robots immediately transposing every bit of text on the internet into a Wikipedia article. We look at context, relevance, and prominence of the views and facts expressed. We are in no way whatsoever beholden to use the 30% of unscientific climate content for assertion of fact (you also overlook the presumably 70% that is perfectly acceptable and in-line with science). Hell the Wall Street Journal is generally reliable at WP:RSPS, and even everyone's favorite boogeyman Fox News is marginally reliable outside of talk shows, politics & science. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the 70% merely represents content where it is admitted that anthropogenic climate change has a significant impact, as opposed to actively minimizing or outright denying it. This doesn't mean that it fairly represents the issue or makes much effort to present the facts, just that it acknowledges the issue. So this is just "not actively lying on the issue" 70% of the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Move away from opinion pieces and editorials, and you have perfectly sane and normal coverage of climate change here

Last year, the country recorded the worst fire season in its history. Drier and hotter conditions in many parts of the country caused by climate change have increased the risk of major fires in recent years, according to experts. Canada is currently battling 575 active fires with more than 400 considered out of control. Many fires have broken out in recent days, particularly in the west of the country that has experienced a heat wave.

and here

Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, noted that these heavy rain events are driven by climate change that has already happened and is irreversible, so cities and their citizens must adapt. “We are not going backwards on climate change. We can slow it down but we can’t stop it,” Feltmate said. “So yes, we should be mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the rate of change, but also recognizing that we need to adapt to the extreme weather conditions that are upon us with increasing frequency; flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, etc.”

Nowhere are these undercut, diluted, or otherwise whitewashed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The first quote does not address the causes of climate change. Most climate change denialism doesn't deny that the climate is changing, but deny that humanity has a role or major role to play. The second quote exemplifies the only form of concession that the National Post seems to make on positions that it doesn't like: it will include a brief comment from someone respectable on the matter and bury it well down the piece. What you will also notice is that nowhere in the same story does the Post even touch the word "emissions" in its own voice. This is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not every single article a source puts out on climate change needs to include something to the extent of "there is scientific consensus that climate change is largely anthropogenic and is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere". But I will note that the first piece is from Agence France-Presse rather than having been written from some Postmedia entity. (If you'd like to knock AFP down a notch because you don't like how it's covering climate change, feel free to open another discussion, but I don't think it's going anywhere).

In any case, what we're seeing here is that Postmedia and The National Post are more or less within the mainstream on how newspapers write about this stuff. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't opened it up, but yes, it's just a brief news update from AFP that's so short one wouldn't expect it to contain much context. I didn't present it as an example of anything; I merely noted that the quote presented wasn't indicate of anything as it didn't address any causes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You didn't open up the piece, and you concluded that there is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't open up that piece because the quote presented by Headbomb was irrelevant either way. Since it's AFP, it's doubly irrelevant. The clear pattern that I was referring to was with reference to the second quote and article: the couching of statements on climate change within quotes, not in its own voice, and the placement of them low down on the page. What I haven't seen is a news piece where the National Post says anything genuine about climate change whatsoever in its own voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to believe that the use of NP as a source relating to climate change would lead to problems. Notable opinions would be attributed; omissions in the NP's coverage would be filled in by other sources, if the omitted material is really notable. Unless they actually get facts wrong, I don't think we need any additional considerations for them. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: NewsClick

An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

The reliability of NewsClick is:

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

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NewsClick)

• Bad RfC. ND61F has not indicated what Wikipedia article has disputed cites, and four-way forms with blanket-ban options are always bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am counting 4 uses of this as a reference, using a very silly search. [37] I am not quite sure it is used extensively enough to warrant an RFC as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using insource is a better way, as it can see the URLs hidden inside cites.[38] Using that shows 333 pages with references using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  OHH. did not know about that. thank you! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with a note warning about bias and a lack of independence related to the Chinese government and its talking points. I can understand the concerns about the lack of prior discussion, but I think this is clear-cut enough that we don't have to waste time on it unless someone wants to argue for unreliability or deprecation (which it could still be downgraded to in a later discussion if evidence comes up or if it remains an issue.) There are sufficient reasons to believe it is biased that some sort of warning where people will see it is called for; while it isn't perennial yet, RSP is the only logical place to put such a warning, and a source like this shouldn't be used 300+ time without at least some indicator of the problems where people might see them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsClick)

• For reference the New York Times articles can be found here or in this archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Was there any WP:RFCBEFORE relevant to this RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Let's do RFCBEFORE now. The source is used quite extensively, including for topics like Right-wing politics (the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  The source is only briefly mentioned in the NYT article, with it showing bias towards China and talking points of the Chinese government. Would a note about these issues be enough? If so is a RFC even necessary. In the first example you give above the source is one of four used to support the statement, the second is used to support an attributed statement by David Golumbia who according to his obituary[39] was "an expert on cyberlibertarianism, bitcoin, blockchain". Is there any concerns with the reliability of these statements?

  To be clear my point about RFCBEFORE was that it could make the whole RFC unnecessary, not that discussion shouldn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would suggest we close the formal RFC (unanswered) … and continue to explore several of the citations that use this source and the context in which they use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  If so I would suggest a note be added about the validity of the concern of Chinese bias, lest the closure of this RFC become a way to brush those off. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought that, and that it probably shouldn't be used for reporting on the Chinese government or Chinese history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that at the very least noting its biases is worth doing, and that even in the absence of previous disputes over it it's worth adding something like that to RSP (or somewhere) in situations, like this one, where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious. The problem is that AFAIK we can't actually add something to RSP without a designation, or at least it would be fairly awkward to do so. Would it just default to a yellow "unclear" entry, if we don't discuss it in any context except its bias? At the bare minimum concerns over its biases appear serious enough to be an "other stuff applies" situation even if the rest were reliable (which we haven't really examined.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a point I would love clarity on; I was considering for some weeks now starting a discussion about the related question of: where and how do we discuss that a source is biased? Because WP:RSP records when sources are biased, but the "standard options" for RSN RFCs are only about reliability (not bias, which editors have to decide on their own to mention); if someone doesn't dispute the overall reliability of a source (let's even say, one that's already present on RSP, so how to colour-code its reliability isn't an issue), but wants to discuss adding that it's biased, where do they do that? Here? How, a custom RFC which people will complain doesn't have the "standard options"? And then, yes, as you ask, how do we note the outcome / bias in RSP if all we want to note is "unexpectedly, this source is biased about X" and not "this source is reliable/unreliable"? Should there be a separate page—or section of WP:RSP—WP:RSPOVP, where this is noted? -sche (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, nothing prevents us from adding a new record to the RSP table with blank status and a note about the bias in the summary field. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bias is even more contextual than reliability. I think that it's valuable to note it down precisely because of sources like this one (where the bias is clear-cut but may not be obvious at a casual glance); to me, part of the value of RSP is to give people an at-a-glance sense of a source in order to provide a starting point for local discussions. I don't think we need an entire column for it or more details than that - it's the kind of thing where if there's a dispute or problem related to it you really want to read the entire entry and think about how it applies to using that specific source in that specific context anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the evaluation and documentation of source bias. Your observation highlights a significant gap in our current processes for assessing source reliability and identifying potential biases. The current system, while effective for determining overall source reliability, does not adequately address the nuanced issue of bias. As you correctly point out, the absence of a dedicated platform for discusing source bias creates challenges for editors seeking to address this critical aspect of source evaluation.

I agree that clarifying the appropriate forum for discussing source bias is essential. A dedicated page or selction within WP:RSP, as you suggest, could provide a structued approach to these discussions. Addtionally, developing standardized criteria for assessing bias and documanting finding would enhance consistency and transparency in process. I propose we initiate a formal discussion to explore potential solutions for this issue. This could involve creating a task force in order to develop recommendation for addresing the evaluation and documantation of source bias. I look forward to collaboratng with you and other interested editors to find a satisfactory resolution.

Please let me know if you would like to proceed with creating a task force. ND61F (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that RFC is not necessary. The fact that NewsClick is heavly influenced by Chinese gov propaganda is a serious allegation that requires detail investigation and talk. It can't be dismissed with a simple note. 333 unchecked citations of NewsClick are alarming. It is imperative that we review these instances to analyze impact of this potentialy biased source on our articls. I understand your concern about the length of the RFC proces, but in this case, it's essential to ensure accuracy and neutrality of our content. A well structred RFC can expedte the process by focusing the discussion and gatherings. The NYT article provides imp evidence of NewsClick bias, but it' is not enough. We need a comprehensive analysis of the source, including its editoril policies, funding, connection to the Chinese government. RFC will allow to collect evidence, check the source content, and reach a consensus on its reliability . ND61F (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?

Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.

However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.

Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.

The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:

1. "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" by James Paulose. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd DIvision.
2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. There are a number of passages stating the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but the majority lack citations for where this information came from. One page cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169" which is from the same English-language essay mentioned above which states only pages later the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred).
3. Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network. Web article with no citations.
4. C. Peter Chen (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database. Web article with no citations.

Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article.

These sources conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division albeit nearby, was outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.

Given the English sources I presented above are in direct conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, I feel it is safe to conclude they are not reliable.

However if it is solely my opinion on this matter presented, editors on the contested articles are likely going to keep reverting my changes. I would really appreciate some comments or any input from others regarding these sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press famous birthdays lists

The only prior discussion I could find regarding this on one of the main talk pages was here, but I feel like a discussion regarding the birthdays sourced to The Associated Press birthday lists may be relevant. There are several issues in my opinion, but the main one is that when changes are made they are not noted or marked as corrections, and The Associated Press has never stated where they obtain their birthdays from. Both Rebecca De Mornay and Doris Day have other newspapers commenting on the AP discrepencies included below, as well.

Lou Ferrigno - born 1951. AP had birthday year as 1952 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1951. 2002 (50),  2003 (51), 2004 (52), 2005 (53), 2006 (54), 2007 (55), 2008 (56), 2009 (58), 2010 (59)

Scarface (rapper) - Born 1970. AP had birthday year as 1969 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1970. 2002 (33), 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36), 2006 (37), 2007 (38), 2008 (39), 2009 (39), 2010 (40),

Pepa (rapper) - Born 1969, AP had her birthday year as 1969 from 2003 until 2020, when it was changed to 1964. 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36) 2006 (37), 2008 (39), 2009 (40), 2010 (41), 2019 (50), 2020 (56), 2023 (59)

John Leguizamo - born 1964, according to both Mr Leguizamo, the copyright.gov office, his book, etc. AP changed birthday to 1960 in 2020. 2019 (55), 2020 (60)

Doris Day - sources put birth at 1924 as well as Doris Day herself. In 2017, her birth certificate was found to have a birthday of 1922 by the AP. From 2009-2015, they had her year of birth as 1923. Their 2008 birthday was originally for 1924.

2008 (84), 2009 (86), 2010 (87) and noted here.
2012 (89), 2013 (90), 2015 (92)

Rebecca De Mornay  - Born 1959; AP had year of birth as 1962 from 2004 until 2009, then switched it to 1959. 2004 (42), 2005 (43), 2007 (45) (also noted in USA Today), 2008 (46), 2009 (50), 2010 (51)

Michael Jai White - Born 1967, according to his Facebook, being 27 in 1995, and interviews since 2001 putting his birth year as 1967. Associated Press has listed his birthday as 1964 since adding it in 2003.

According to their values and principles, When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction, we point it out both to subscriber editors (e.g. in Editor’s notes, metadata, advisories to TV newsrooms) and in ways that news consumers can see it (bottom-of-story corrections, correction notes on graphics, photo captions, etc.)
A correction must always be labeled a correction. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies,” “minor edits” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

Awshort (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see them as reliable on even a case by case basis due to their issues with corrections that aren't labeled as such or are just randomly added with no explanation, inability to respond to issues presented to them*, and lack of openess on where their information is obtained from.

I contacted both the FactCheck email address, as well as used their Contact Us form February 6, 2024 to find out where they had sourced their birthdays from and note the error on Michael jai White - I never heard back. Awshort (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• If a birth date/year is missing, use AP (latest iteration) unless something contradicts it. This seems a no-brainer -- AP is consider an independent WP:RS, and if nothing contradicts it, use it. If it is contradicted by something else, then either discuss on talkpage, or with discretion use what seems to be more reliable (knowing that other editors may contest whatever source that is). Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: I appreciate the reply. I agree with that, except AP is consider an independent WP:RS is the exact reason I brought this up here since the reliability of their birthdays section has never been discussed in depth, and most discussions brought to talk pages point back to 'The Associated Press is a reliable source'.

  To put it another way - we have disallowed WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS on BLP articles for not providing their sources of their content, or providing fact checking for it's material. In that respect I feel it warrants discussion when other well used sources do the same.

  Awshort (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• In general, the AP is reliable. It does seem that the "Today in History" section occasionally has errors in the ages reported. We should prefer sources for birthdates which explicitly say the year, but I don't see a need to WP:RSP-style deprecate this based on occasional errors. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll admit that I am not a frequent user of RSN, so my example above regarding Famous Birthdays was not to suggest I think AP should be fully deprecated; I dont. It was more to suggest that my reasons for bringing it here were similar to the reasons FB was brought up in discussion.

  Since it is often used in BLP pages and has shown to contain errors in that area, I thought it should be noted to use caution with dates pulled from it's birthdays section and prefer something more reliable similar to what Softlavender suggested above. If it's the only source and nothing suggests it is wrong, use it. If it's the only source among hundreds that list one date, it could be an error.

  Awshort (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would assume the AP probably publishes a lot more birth dates than many other outlets and is therefore going to have more errors. Newspapers in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing when compared to academic articles or research books, especially when it comes to things like lists. Birthdays should be widely found in multiple sources per WP:DOB to avoid concerns with one source getting it wrong. – notwally (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can see no evidence presented here for the proposition that "newspapers are in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing". For contrary evidence about historians, see for example: Betty Radice in the introduction to "The War with Hannibal"; and "The King's Parliament of England" by G O Sayles. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not present any evidence for my statement. It is simply a fact. WP:NEWSORG also discusses this. Just because higher quality sources also sometimes contradict themselves does not change the fact that news sources get information wrong far more than academic sources. If you think that human interest news stories have the same general quality as peer-reviewed academic articles, then you are just wrong. – notwally (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  To begin with, WP:NEWSORG only says that scholarly sources are generally better "for academic topics" and only says "for academic topics", a qualification that you are omitting. Facts such as who did or said what, and where and when they did or said it, are not necessarily "academic topics" (whereas, for example, the solution to the time dependent relativistic Shrodinger Equation does appear to be ipso facto an "academic topic"). You are glossing over that caveat in the guideline. The claim that "news sources get information wrong far more than academic sources" is a claim that should be proved with evidence, and not merely asserted, because it is not unambiguously obvious or self-evident that it is always true for all topics. If your statement is "simply a fact" you should have no difficulty producing evidence that statistically proves that "fact" in a mathematically rigorous fashion. I said nothing about "human interest" stories, nor did I claim to believe anything, and I would be grateful if you do not put words into my mouth by claiming to know that I think things that I have not said. All I said was that your claims ought to be supported by actual evidence and not advanced on the basis of faith. In theory your claims could be true, but can you actually prove that they are? To give a further counter example, suppose that news reports from 1974 write 1,000 words about what happened during a news event in 1974. Now suppose that an academic history book from 2024 summarises those news reports of that event in 50 words (and uses no other historical sources, because no other sources are available). It should be obvious that there is a potential for oversimplification or distortion in that kind of abridgment. I can point you to history books saying that narrative history always involves some oversimplification: [40]. To give another example, there is a large body of literature written by historians saying that newspapers are often particularly good historical sources and encouraging historians to use them. To put it all another way: It is obvious that the average newspaper journalist is not qualified to write about the tensor calculus (because he is not a mathematician), but that does not prove that, at the other extreme, he is less likely than a university professor to accurately report the result of a football match (which is clearly not an "academic topic"). James500 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in wikilawyering or your assumptions about me. The rest of your arguments aren't even relevant. Obviously there is a heirarchy for average reliability of different types of sources. You're initial comment showed that you were just trying to start an argument, and your follow-up didn't disappoint. – notwally (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unreliability not proved. WP:NEWSORG says that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". A small number of cherry picked errors does not indicate whether a publication is reliable. If you want to know how accurate the AP really is, you need a sample that is large enough and random enough to be statistically significant, and you need the actual percentage error rate. Seven errors is a very small number and is not enough to prove that the AP is even less than 99% accurate. What is ideally needed is commentary on the accuracy of the AP from independent sources that have studied its accuracy properly. The birthdays of celebrities are frequently extensively disputed by numerous sources. Indeed, they are frequently unknown. It is no good cherry picking celebrities such as Rebecca De Mornay whose WP article gives three different alleged years (1959, 1961 and 1962) supported by six different sources that do not agree with each other. That disputed birthday is a cherry picked and useless example. You need to use people whose birthdays you actually know for certain. Your claim to have contacted AP and not received a response is useless evidence, because we only have your unverifiable good word for that. The AP's failure to disclose their source of information is irrelevant, because that is normal for news sources. I suspect that it could be quite normal to simply ask a celebrity what their birthday is. That depends on the honesty of celebrity. Since we can probably guess that a minority of people are in the habit of pretending to be younger than they really are for vanity reasons, birthday errors are likely a poor indicator of general reliability. It is not clear that clippings from single individual newspapers are capable of proving whether the AP failed to disclose their source, or failed to disclose that they made a correction. How do we know it is not the newspaper doing that? The AP is a news agency, not a newspaper. Why would it be able to control what newspapers print? For that matter, how do we know that the "discrepencies" are not cherry picked typos from particular newspapers, rather than actual discrepencies in the AP's reporting? The point is that AP reports printed in a newspaper are being filtered through that newspaper, and the accuracy of that newspaper may be entirely dependent on that newspaper. Some newspapers have a reputation for typos, which may not even be deserved, since it might be due to the quality of the readership rather than the typesetters. There is no evidence that the AP are less reliable or accurate or contain more birthday errors than any other publication in this field, and no apparent reason to single out the AP in particular. Numbers, such as birthdays, are more vulnerable to typos than words and may therefore be a particularly poor indicator of general reliability. I am under the impression that some "journalistic" sources might regard birthdays as a weapon with which to attack the reputations of other sources they do not like. I am skeptical about the utility of using celebrity birthdays to gauge the reliability of sources. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The AP is a news agency, not a newspaper. Why would it be able to control what newspapers print?

  It wouldn't be able to control what they print, but it would still be responsible for their accuracy per WP:NEWSORG.

  For that matter, how do we know that the "discrepencies" are not cherry picked typos from particular newspapers, rather than actual discrepencies in the AP's reporting? Assuming for a second that this wasn't an attempt to Poison the well, you or any other editor could always search them up to verify the data. I used the wiki library link; exact date of the birth date in question was used for the date, keywords were set to Associated Press under 'with the exact phrase',  and 'with all the words' set to birthday.  One typo would be believable; multiple 'typos' for the same day would be an error from the newsorg rather than the paper.

  There is no evidence that the AP are less reliable or accurate or contain more birthday errors than any other publication in this field, and no apparent reason to single out the AP in particular. When it is a widely used source that people use based on the expectation that the data is correct, there is very much a reason to 'single out the AP' when the accuracy of their information supplied is incorrect and has never been discussed.

  I am under the impression that some "journalistic" sources might regard birthdays as a weapon with which to attack the reputations of other sources they do not like. ....What? A newspaper is going to intentionally mess up one birthday to get back at the news organization supplying them birthdays?

  And lastly, attempts were made to find corrections for the examples using the same search terms above and 'correction'/'corrections' in place of birthday and the dates set to be between the date of the last different birthday and the date of the change in the paper. I was unable to find any corrections.

  Awshort (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources on Jordan Peterson and Climate Change

Sources:

1. The Guardian, [41]: Canadian psychologist and darling of conservatives and the alt-right, Jordan Peterson, has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating.
2. DeSmog, [42]: ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.
3. Chapter in Open Universe book, [43]: Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message.

Content currently in the article Jordan Peterson): Peterson is a climate-change denier...

Are these sources sufficient for this content?

I think the Guardian is RS for "Peterson has attacked the science of climate change."

I think DeSmog (which has been discussed previously on RSN [44], [45]), which appears to be a group blog (formerly called "DeSmog Blog") is a biased source that would require attribution.

The Open Universe volume is non-refereed, the chapter is written by a philosopher, and the press is the source of the "pop culture and philosophy" volumes which are generally marketed to a popular audience, so I'm not inclined to think this is RS on the topic of climate change. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual way to handle this is with language closer to the language of the sources (denial as a verb or denialist attached to the content rather than to the person, see e.g. Patrick Michaels wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimizing climate change, Fred Singer was best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking). These sources would be fine for that. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the correct direction here. The Guardian is a generally RS. DeSmog is an activist organization so their views, if due, should be attributed. The book is likely good for fact but we should probably be careful regarding using it for subjective claims. That said, the claim in question, with attribution seems reasonable. The summary that Peterson is a "climate change denier" is problematic since the sources don't actually say that and, as is said above, the language of the sources are a better way to handle this. I would also note that the definition of "climate change denier" varies by source. Some, including the Wikipedia article, use the term to mean someone who either denies anthropogenic climate change or those who accept anthropogenic climate change but doubt the extent or otherwise undermine actions to address it. Peterson appears to fit into the latter category. However, the latter is not compatible with, for example, the Marriam Webster definition which only refers to not accepting anthropogenic climate change.[46] Thus I would say these sources are not sufficient to support the LABEL, "climate change denier" but they are sufficient to support the claim that Peterson's statements attack climate change since and the risks associated with global heating and that his comments deny a climate crisis while giving support to a denialist message. Springee (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, phrases I think these sources clearly support include:

• Peterson denies the scientific consensus on climate change (my first preference)
• Peterson opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (my second preference)

My ranking of these two options follows the overall tendency of sources on climate change in general, where "deny/denial" is generally preferred over "oppose/opposition".

Also, since the filer has not pointed this out, it seems relevant that the Catholic Reporter has chosen to re-publish this particular DeSmog piece as a news article, thus lending it strong WP:USEBYOTHERS support for inclusion.

And as a parenthesis, a chapter by a philosopher, with scholarly apparatus and coming from an established publisher, seems to me more than an adequate source to characterize comments Peterson, psychologist of meaning and YouTube philosopher, has offered about climate science. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems the issue is really what is written about Peterson in the wikiarticle. Perhaps rewording to something Newimpartial has proposed (I say second preference) would solve this. Are there other better sources on this? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements are logically supported by the claims in the sources. Thinking of it as a Boolean, While the group of people who have done the things provided by the sources above logically can be filled by someone who denies anthropogenic CC, it also could be filled by someone who accepts anthropogenic CC but dismisses/discounts the magnitude of the issue. For that reason it is better to stick with language that is truer to the sources. Springee (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Shinealittlelight is asking if the sources are sufficient. I would say that there should be better sources for this claim. DeSmog does not look like a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog are an advocacy organisation but known for high-quality research.[47] It has a heavyweight team. It co-publishes with The Nation and The Intercept[48] and is cited by RSs such as The Guardian.[49][50][51] Definitely usable, preferably with attribution.

The book chapter is from a book published by Carus Books, a hundred year old US-based small publisher specialising in environmental issues and philosophy. The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Tampere University. The book is edited by an associate teaching professor in philosophy at Arizona State University. I think this is a borderline scholarly source we can cite but if so should attribute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian piece appears in the opinion section of the website, "commentisfree", and would need attribution. DeSmog, as an advocacy organisation; and the book chapter likewise should be attributed. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it appears to b e misfiled. It's in the environment section, not an opinion piece, and authored by Graham Readfearn, the climate and environment reporter for Guardian Australia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Other possibly relevant sources?

• Weeks, Carly (23 August 2023). "Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 1 August 2024.

  Dr. Peterson rose to prominence in 2016, following the release of videos criticizing federal legislation designed to prevent discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression.
  Since then, he has gained a worldwide following and regularly posts anti-transgender content, climate change denial and criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau online.

  Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In context this is a weak source since the full extent of the paper's discussion of Peterson's comments on climate change is literally "regularly posts ... climate change denial, ..." Absent any explanation of what he posts that would be a poor source. I would say we are better off using the original three sources and crafting a sentence that is closer to their actual claims since those sources support the claims. Since this is a BLP we need to be careful about disparaging claims that aren't supported within the source. Springee (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional source

• Landy, D.; Lentin, R.; McCarthy, C. (2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78699-652-7. chapter "Privilege, Platforms, and Power: Uses and Abuses of Academic Freedom" p. 310 by Arianne Shahvisi: "Thus conservative controversialist Jordan Peterson’s damaging and misleading misogyny, transphobia, and climate-change denial are bolstered by the platforms and credibility his academic post affords him"

(t · c) buidhe 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to attribute, per Bobfrombrockley, on any sources used for the claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree: where there are several sources saying the same thing, attribution is often unnecessary and impractical. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:YESPOV comes into play. This looks like a case where attribution would likely have the unfortunate effect of watering-down & would smell of POV-pushing. Just WP:ASSERT as there's no doubt in RS what this guy says and does on this topic. Anyway, we're straying from the purpose here. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly cannot tell what content Bon courage or Buidhe are claiming to be reliably sourced, or to what sources they are appealing. Could either of you (or both of you) clarify content and source please? Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient sourcing to state either: 1) JP is a climate change denier or 2) JP promotes climate change denial

Since it seems to be somewhat controversial among editors you can just throw all the sources from this thread into the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, seems kind of an unexceptional claim given the sourcing. Hard to see what the fuss is about. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a fuss. Denying everything relevant to climate change makes one a climate changed denier. Stating "I do not deny climate change" and then continuing to *deny climate change* doesn't work. The attempted repackaging of "climate change skeptic" or "denies some tenets of climate change" are just obvious attempts to make any ensuing statements more palatable.

We have in this very discussion both evidence of the individual *denying climate change* and material calling him a *climate change denier*. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the source that says Peterson is denying everything relevant to climate change? When applying a contentious LABEL we need to be careful to stick with the sources. Springee (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the sources. Seem like we've already been over this. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You made the claim, please provide the quotes that support what you have specifically said, that he has "denied everything relevant to climate change". Springee (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee, the policy-compliant terrain for this discussion is what independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, not what he says in his own words (and our interpretation). Newimpartial (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is sources don't call him a denier Springee (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are trying to split the hair between "denier", "denying" and "promoting denial" - well, I don't think other editors see those as distinctions relevant either to our P&Gs or to the literature on climate change denial. This "issue" looks from the outside like some kind of language game. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We frequently do that. We say politician X's ideas are far-right vs politician X is far right. The other way to avoid this issue is focus less on the label and more on what the person said and how other people say that is wrong. For example we can find a RS that provides a summary of Peterson's complaints. We don't have to provide much detail but sufficient so the nature of the complaint is clear. We follow that with the reactions from RSs. When the section starts off with LABELs it looks like writing to persuade rather than inform. I don't recall where I read it but somewhere there was a comment about the issue with front loading the negative in this way. To the uninformed reader it comes off as editors having a bone to pick. However, when the statements of the subject are fully presented and then the reaction from experts are also presented it comes off as editors working on being impartial and trying to inform. Springee (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee: we should definitely stay close to the sources. So, to be clear, Springee is not alone here. Moreover, it's not just me and Springee. So let's try to work to a constructive comprormise that will improve this section of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The CCDH does a good job of articulating "new denial". Effectively, now that saying climate change isn't real or outright denying that humans have anything to do with it has become too unpopular or ridiculous, the new strategy for climate change denial is to challenge that humans have much to do with it, trying to undermine efforts to fix it, saying it's real but none of the solutions put forward by science actually help, etc. Kind of like the white supremacists in the US don't wear pointy hoods anymore -- they've moved on to talk about things like the Great Replacement, migrant crime, the history of slavery/the Civil War, etc. In other words, it's climate change denial intended to make it harder to use that label. According to the report, Peterson is a leading figure in this "new denial". The report itself wouldn't carry a ton of weight as a primary source, but it's been reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. In the end what we have are a bunch of sources explicitly calling him a climate change denier (see above), a bunch of sources associating him with this "new" form of climate change denial, and a bunch of sources using other language to describe the same behaviors captured by the terms "climate change denial" or "new climate change denial". I'd get the argument that "we shouldn't use the term if people describe behaviors characterized as denial but don't use the term themselves", but that's not the case here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the measured and thoughtful reply. I do have a concern regarding "new denial". The problem is not everyone reading "denial" will realize what "new denial" includes. Many may assume denial aligns with the more traditional definition [52] of someone who denies human caused climate change. The other issue is trying to assign intent. As an example, someone who opposed school bussing in the 1970s may have done it for racist reasons. However, they also may have done it for practical, non-racists reasons. Someone who is concerned about uncontrolled immigration into the US may feel that way because they are racist. However, they also might feel that way because they think immigration outside of the legal process is wrong etc. Certainly someone who is racists will be happy to use an argument, even a legitimate one, that supports their side as justification to get the outcome they want without having to provide a racist reason. The problem is how can we tell the difference? There has been a concern in academia that the system can sometimes be biased against outside ideas etc. I certainly saw people who understood how to write grant proposals to appeal to those with the purse rather than what might have been the best way to increase knowledge in the subject area. So someone arguing that politics associated with climate change may be resulting in less than idea research and public policy certainly should be a reasonable claim (assuming it's properly supported with evidence). I think it would be hard to argue that, at least at some marginal level, politics and questionable policies aren't associated with climate change even if only at the very marginal level. So if someone points this out, by the new definition they are undermining efforts to stop climate change and their arguments may be abused by those who are clearly opposed to climate change efforts. Does that mean the original concerns are invalid? When we start getting into slippery slope, political definitions we really should err on the side of not using them and instead state the facts (Peterson has argued XYZ, expert in the field says the idea is crap because of ABC). Springee (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I (newspaper)

I have a question about i (newspaper)'s reliabilty. I looked for John Anderson (TV personality) sources and came across this I article that appeared to cite from our Wikipedia article about him. Per WP:WINARS and WP:CIRC, does that mean we need to have a discussion about the reliabilty of the i newspaper? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the explicit citation to Wikipedia, or is there more than that? Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: It was originally just that one but I have done a deeper dive and it does appear they have done it for a while (see here and here). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a reliability issue. Copying from Wikipedia articles would be an issue. But an article having a single sentence saying "Wikipedia says..." is very different to that. Silverseren^C 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Silverseren here. I could see it being a problem if the article were largely based on Wikipedia, but a properly attributed aside like the one in the first article doesn't strike me as a problem. As ever, though, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• No. I doubt it is worth having a discussion over three articles, of which one is an opinion piece. WP:NEWSORG says "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains" content we do not want to use as a source on Wikipedia. If you think that a source has copied Wikipedia, you could find another source. There are numerous obituaries for John Anderson. There are books and newspaper articles from the pre-wikipedia and indeed pre-internet 1980s and 1990s, such as Adrianne Blue, "Queen of the Track" (1992), and Jane Wyatt, "Anderson handed a key role", The Times, 15 January 1992, p 32. I get the impression that CIRC is meant to primarily apply to sources that use a computer program to scrape Wikipedia, or journalists who indiscriminately copy content they do not know to be true, which they have not verified elsewhere. How do you know they are relying on the Wikipedia article and not on the sources cited in the article such as "anentscottishrunning"? I can see, in particular, that the i has used the identical wording to the first paragraph in the body of the WP article (from "Plaudits included" to "Maryhill Ladies AC in Glasgow"), but the facts appear to be verified by "anentscottishrunning" (assuming that site is reliable). Indeed some of the wording in enWP comes from "anentscottishrunning". And if "anentscottishrunning" is reliable (and I make no comment about its reliability), why do we need to use the i to reference the same claims? As for the other paragraph (from "He was coach" to "Field event"), both Wikipedia and the i use effectively the same wording as "ucoach", so you cannot claim that is copied from Wikipedia instead of "ucoach", and CIRC does not apply at all. The fact that two documents are identical does not prove that one was copied from the other: It may prove that both are copied from an earlier source. James500 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Given that the Daily Mail has been excommunicated here so thoroughly, it seems odd that its housemate is even considered as reliable. It's not the paper it was back in 2016. It's not targeting the same Sidebar of Shame subjects, but the writing and research quality has tanked. And like the Mail, the online version is even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've only used i newspaper once that I can remember, in The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes, but the article from it was very much the exact opposite of the bigoted trash one sees in the Daily Mail. And the article I used was from 2021. Silverseren^C 22:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• It is not apparent to me that ownership is conclusive. The last time I looked at it, the Mail was a tabloid and it was written like a tabloid for an audience of tabloid readers. If a broadsheet or quality newspaper and a tabloid newspaper are owned by the same company, I am not prepared to simply assume that the tabloid automatically "taints" the other. They are written for different audiences and they are presumably not going to be the same because their purpose is to make money and they have to satisfy their audience to make money. Are there any reliable sources that say that the i is no longer a "quality" newspaper or that it has accuracy problems? Can anyone here produce any actual evidence of any actual factually inaccurate claims in the i? James500 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• @James500: It's not the factual accuracy I am questioning, its the fact that they appear to be using Wikipedia as a source and publishing it. For example on the Anderson article, they mention his wife but that was unsourced in the Wikipedia article at the time. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• The problem is not that the i is bigoted as a matter of policy (as the Mail is), but that it's unreliable. I would refer the interested to Private Eye, who are perhaps the best catalogue of such things. When they bother to write a decent article, written by a real journalist, then it's fine and as good as ever. But this isn't guaranteed. Just as with Reach publications and seemingly every local newspaper website, there's an air of penny-pinching about it all. Too many pieces written sloppily by juniors, without adequate subediting, without the fact-checking that was always the hallmark of UK journalism amongst our litigious court system. So one article might be good, but another not so - and it's hard for us to rely on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a comment, Private Eye itself shows up as generally unreliable on the cite script. Is that not an accurate assessment of it, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• What do you mean by that? Private Eye is not shown as unreliable at WP:RSP? Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Headbomb's cite script (which mostly reflects RSP, but also includes stuff from this board that hasn't been "perennial") which highlights cite reliability shows it as generally unreliable. AFAIK this only gets added if there was some discussion somewhere where people questioned its reliability. So why would that be? PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• PE is a satirical magazine but it does have strong editorial oversight and has a reputation for unearthing scandals that aren't reported on elsewhere. The only discussions I can find are this from 2009 and this from 2011, neither of which appear to show much consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Private Eye does not exactly have a reputation for 100% accuracy. For example, in the famous case of Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd [1977] QB 83 [1977] 2 All ER 557 at 563, they admitted that allegations they had published were false. The editor is said to be "the most sued man in English legal history" and he does not "require as much evidence as legal teams on newspapers" because they are frightened of libel proceedings and he is not: [53]. And I could go on in this fashion for some time. Even if I was accept that Private Eye is useful for "intelligence gathering": It would be helpful for you to provide citations to specific articles in Private Eye, and an explanation of what, and how many, errors in the i they have actually found. It would be even more helpful for you to provide links to i articles that contain errors and an explanation of what the errors are. When I run a Google search for "the i" over private-eye.co.uk, I find nothing. If you want me to look at physical copies of Private Eye, it would be helpful for you to tell me which ones. I have managed to look at Private Eye 1587 and I cannot find anything about errors in the i in the "Street of Shame" section. If you want me to look behind the paywall on private-eye.co.uk, it would be helpful for you to actually say that is what you want. What is not helpful is vaguely waving at a paywalled publication without telling me exactly which parts of it you want me to look at and presumably purchase. James500 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought they have court-ordered editorial independence separate from the Mail, so they're run in a different way? VintageVernacular (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would personally consider the I generally reliable. While they may be owned by the DMGT, they have much higher editorial standards and don't engage in the tabloid coverage that Wikipedia editors find so problematic about the Mail. If there are suspicions that this particular article is a circular ref then I would avoid citing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Blabbermouth

https://blabbermouth.net/news/james-hetfield-is-honored-metallica-music-was-used-by-us-military-to-help-us-stay-safe

I was planning to pull the following quotation for the James Hetfield article: "I'm honored my country is using something to help us stay safe, if they are. But then again, once the music is out, I don't have control over that. Just like how someone's giving it away online. They're using it to do what they do." However, the site it pulls the interview, Thrasher, accepts user submissions with an unclear level of scrutiny given. Is it OK to include the quotation given above? Based5290 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Accepting freelance journalists' submissions is not the same as accepting user submissions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was bit unclear. It appears that you just need to email your article to get it in the magazine. Its possible that there's some more comprehensive requirements or review behind the scene, but the fact that no extra requirements beyond formatting are listed seems to be suspicious (for me, at least). Is this type of thing common among reputable publications that take freelance journalists' submissions? Based5290 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have explained a bit more. That page looks like a standard submission page for a small magazine; there's nothing suspicious about it. Nothing indicates that they're just publishing everything that they receive by email and not reviewing or fact-checking them. Submissions, int his context, generally means just that: you can submit, and we will review and tell you if we want to buy the story. To be sure, there's no published editorial standards on the website, but it looks like pretty legit music journalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As both a freelance writer and a publisher, I'm going to echo what voorts says here. "Accepting submissions" merely means that you just look at and consider material sent in from outside the staff. It in no way implies that you're going to run everything (or even anything) submitted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSMUSIC classifies it as reliable, but to exercise caution with WP:BLP related issues. I'd say that sounds about right here too. Sometimes reliable sources pull information from lesser ones. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Many metalheads appreciate Blabbermouth's coverage, while some completely despise and disagree with the publication's music review process. Some call it a tabloid. But this is a source reliable for music facts at the least. ato—mic 05:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Locus Mag

This source was added to Taral Wayne citing the subject's death. I am not certain if it is a reliable source for birth or death dates, given that it has submission guidelines indicating they accept articles from people without journalistic merit. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am missing where they say they "accept articles from people without journalistic merit." They do say "We have a staff of writers and rarely take pitched articles or interviews, with the exception of international reports, obituaries, and the occasional convention report", but that does not say that they take those from people without "journalistic merit", whatever that may mean. The item is an obituary, so it may or may not have been written by the staff, as there is no writing credit, but there's no visible reason to assume it was not subject to an editorial process. They do accept press releases, is that what you mean? Most journalistic endeavors will at least take a look at press releases. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Locus (magazine) is an old, well-established, and widely known and respected trade magazine. I have no reason to doubt its reliability and this post does not supply any such reason. There is another obituary on File 770, which appears to be more of a one-man operation (the one man being Mike Glyer, both the site operator and the listed author of the obituary) but still maybe also usable (File 770 is mentioned, often as a reference for various awards, in some 280 of our articles). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Novinite

This news site seems to be publishing for more than 20 years and has been used in over 800 articles. I could not find any discussion on it. Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Any particular concerns you can present in accord with the instructions at the top of this page? Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking if we can do RfC? Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't do RfCs unless there is a reason to. Which requires somebody to explain what the issue is regarding the source in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You should only come to RSN if you have particular questions about a source, per the instructions at the top of this page:

• Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

If there's a particular article where you think this source is a problem, then we can have a discussion about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is about this article. https://www.novinite.com/articles/84477/Japan+Plans+to+Build+World%27s+Tallest+Building

I wanted ask abou reliabiliy of Novinite. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a no. the X-Seed building was a concept and never intended to be built, and no one ever planned to do so. It was supposed to be an engineering challenge to come up with ways of solving future problems not an actual building. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I wanted to add his wikipedia article as a citation. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you know it is wrong about the building, why are you proposing to cite it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

FilmDaze

I used this for an anime-related article. The author seems aware of the creator's interviews and POV about the anti-otaku theme; I can't see something wrong in this essay. This is their policy and staff: they proundly state to have high-quality essays with no clickbait and spam. What's your opinion? Is reliable enough to use for entertainment articles? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Which article and what content? Rotary Engine ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hedgehog's Dilemma (Neon Genesis Evangelion). TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Federalist

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

---

In the light of the controversy at the Olympics, I want to let you know about this news site.

http://thefederalist.com/2024/07/29/anti-christian-olympic-opening-ceremony-heralds-the-rise-of-a-neopagan-west

This news site is known to promote conspiracy theories especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Echovita

Echovita is an obituary website that steals obits from funeral homes and AI-rejiggles them into innacurate messes. See [54] and [55] for details.

We currently have 114 articles citing them. Help cleaning this up would be appreciated. I've added the site to WP:UPSD to facilitate cleanup.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Republishing obituaries without permission and selling products unwanted by the families off the back of those obituaries, sounds like a scam site. Certain not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, definitely unreliable. Also note the quote from Echovita "I would like to add the information we share was not private as stated, since the original obituary was posted publicly on the internet", which would seem to be a flawed understanding of copyright and makes linking to the site problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Tinkoff Journal

Can some articles published on https://journal.tinkoff.ru (Tinkoff Journal; ru:Тинькофф Журнал) be considered reliable sources as long as the author of the article can be proven to be a professional writer in the relevant domain, seeing how Tinkoff Journal has editorial oversight and an editor-in-chief (https://journal.tinkoff.ru/about/ – Sergey Antonov as of my leaving this comment) and an editorial policy of sorts including the rule that articles must not include false information (rule no. 5).

In specific context: Can this article be used as a source for content about Amogus, seeing how its author appears to be a professional internet writer who was the editor and (briefly) also the editor-in-chief of another Russian online media outlet, TJ (Tjournal.ru), now defunct, which former outlet does not appear to be a non-reliable source to me, and is frequently cited on the Russian Wikipedia which has an "authoritative sources" guideline which is generally compatible with our WP:RS? (TJ is also cited 93 times in the English Wikipedia)

My assessment is: the author is an internet journalist who has been covering internet topics + the outlet has editorial oversight + the material does not exhibit obvious problems = the specific published article is not WP:SPS and not WP:UGC and can be used for a particular internet topic. Would you agree? —Alalch E. 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Example of a Dasha Leizarenko (Лейзаренко, Даша) article in TJ currently used as a source (#21) in a different article: Special:PermanentLink/1236454334: link —Alalch E. 21:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Google Search results

I just want to confirm that Google Search is not a reliable source, since there has been very little discussion (I could only find one discussion here), links to Google searches are very common (currently in over 5000 articles), and the citations almost always seem inappropriate except when the material is about Google Search itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Search engines aren't a source period. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

This is regarding the deletion [[56]]

@Amigao's concern is that a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:GLOBALTIMES

However, as discussed on Amigao's talk page, I believe this is reliable sourcing as the content is a primary source for an opinion, and WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL apply. It is not factual content of a kind where WP:GLOBALTIMES prohibition should apply. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Editorial commentary is a reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated after a RFC in 2020. In general deprecation means the source shouldn't be used for anything other than statements about the source itself. I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Is https://www.science-advance.com/en-1/ the Wiley Journal?

It doesn't appear to be. A new user is using it for Draft:Nucleon induced gravity Doug Weller talk 10:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that the link in that draft, science-advance.com/finite-gravity, isn't valid. There's no such article on the site. I can't find any evidence it's associated with Wiley, which particular Wiley journal where you thinking of? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thr author is a medical doctor[57], and their prior work has been in that area. I can't find any third party discussion of science-advance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The article at Science Advance (not to be confused with Science Advances) appears to be this one. Science-Advance.com calls itself an open-access peer-reviewed journal,[58]. They're not Wiley nor AAAS. Beyond that, I am not competent to evaluate their claim, the citation or the draft article. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[59] [60] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [61] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [62], [63], [64].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

profootballarchives.com

Upon a cursory glance, nothing about https://www.profootballarchives.com looks like a reliable source. There's nothing at that site about its authorial or content policies. In fact, aside from apparently originally-sourced statistical data, there's nothing there about the site itself. It's been cited in maybe 1500 articles, but I can't find any other discussions about its reliability. Does anybody have any insight or thoughts on this one? Much obliged! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that the site should be deemed unreliable by default, since there's no indication as to where the information is coming from, or who's behind the site. Are there reliable alternative sites available that offer similar information? Perhaps those can be used to replace usages of this website. Left guide (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide: I spoke more on the site's creator below, but Pro Football Reference is my personal choice for American football database related sourcing/statistics. It's run by Sports Reference, a source that's considered generally reliable. With that said, I know BeanieFan11 likes to use this site sometimes, so I'll let them speak to why they do so. I'd assume there's some minor differences as well as possibly a preference for the layout of this site, which is definitely easier on the eyes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Searching on Google shows it's a regularly used citation in books from seemingly reputable publishers, which could make it reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I find this WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be convincing (or at least promising) since a Google Books search shows that the website is cited frequently by publishers that seem reliable like Rowman & Littlefield and McFarland & Company. I've struck part of my first reply accordingly. Left guide (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The site was founded and ran by a man named Tod Maher, who may actually be considered a subject matter expert based on the number of books associated with their name. I don't agree that it should be deemed unreliable, as they've actually been cited quite a number of times, as ActivelyDisinterested mentioned, but @BeanieFan11 can probably speak more on the experience of the site owner. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And how can we verify that Tod Maher founded and runs the site? Left guide (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide: I feel dirty saying it... and I hate that this is the way to "verify" their ownership... but they actually take ownership and are recognized by members of the Professional Football Researchers Association's (PFRA) forum as such. PFRA is typically considered a reliable source among those involved in sourcing American football content. See this link, specifically posts #3 (site moderator/former executive director of the organization) and post #5 (Tod responding). They also stated here in December that they had shut down the site (which was true at the time). I've also found that Tod Maher was also the president of the organizational at one point, and is mentioned at the PFRA page as receiving a couple awards for "outstanding achievement in pro football research and historiography." Looking through archive.org, this version mentions Maher Sports Media and shows books that Maher was specifically involved in. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

From experience in using the site, I can say it should absolutely be considered reliable. It is the sole reference available when it comes to early non-NFL statistics (e.g. American Association, Dixie League, early independent football, etc.) and I've almost never found an issue with its data. The question of its reliability was previously discussed here at WT:NFL, where I provided a list of other reliable sources citing it. I can verify that Maher, an expert football historian, is the owner – having talked with him previously through email; this book also mentions that he runs the site as well, in addition to everything Josh mentioned above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The archive is reliable per USEBYOTHERS, which points to it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Maher has also been published by other independent reliable sources, so he would also qualify individually per WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This was exactly the sort of rationale-based analysis I needed. Thanks so much, everybody! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WSJ says it can't prove claims that 10% of UNWRA staff had ties to militant groups

• Tani, Max (2024-08-04). "Journal still can't confirm January story about UN agency for Palestinians". Semafor. Retrieved 2024-08-07.

“The fact that the Israeli claims haven’t been backed up by solid evidence doesn’t mean our reporting was inaccurate or misleading, that we have walked it back or that there is a correctable error here,” Elena Cherney, the chief news editor, wrote in an email earlier this year seen by Semafor. That one of the paper’s biggest and most impactful stories about the war was based on information it could not verify is a startling acknowledgement, and calls into question the validity of the claims as reported in the Journal. The piece had major reverberations internally and raised serious concerns among some staff. According to three people familiar with the situation, since the story was published earlier this year, reporters have tried and failed to corroborate the 10% claim at the center of the story.

To clarify, The Wall Street Journal has not retracted its original story and stands by it.

I'm just posting it here for the record. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly we can put it in Israeli_allegations_against_UNRWA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

AJ expose on Israeli disinfo about UNRWA, back in March "That Wall Street Journal report on UNRWA, which relied entirely on uncorroborated Israeli accusations, was co-authored by a former Israeli soldier" Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I24NEWS

This edit [65] used i24news as a source for a contentious statement in I/P . I dont think i24NEWS would be reliable as an Israeli news channel .(Also the user has made many unreliably sourced additions in other articles) AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, there appears to be some reporting not bias but bias doesn't mean unreliable WP:RSBIAS. I case would need to be made to show they're not reliable.

The specific edit has a different issue, WP:HEADLINES, the specific details added are only supported by the headline and headlines are not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think i24NEWS would be reliable as an Israeli news channel

Simply being Israeli doesn't make a source unreliable on I/P - there's plenty of respected Israeli outlets that we use frequently (such as Haaretz, Times of Israel, Ynet, etc).

i24, while certainly rather biased in my experience, isn't inherently an unreliable source on Wikipedia unless/until hard evidence is provided to the contrary. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone already removed this edit , so no problem anymore in this specific context. AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Iran International in Iran related topics

A previous discussion involving 3 editors had consensus that it is unreliable as it is funded by Saudi Arabia and is unreliable in this topic like Arab News. But Iran International is used in a lot of WP articles about Iran politics. I would like to start a new discussion. AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested the prior discussion from 2020 can be found here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#Arab News on Iran International. It highlights reports from The Guardian[66] and WSJ[67] about Saudi Arabian ownership. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

iran intl is the sole source we have and context should be taken into account even new York Times is lying 99.9% of time Baratiiman (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What ?! AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to write about that Iran International is the only source to talk about it?

The New York Times is listed as "generally reliable" in the Perennial Sources list and it's been like that for years with stellar reputation, so you better have some BIG pieces of evidence to make us accept a claim like that. Viral weirdo (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia and the Women's boxing controversy

Videos published by Sky News Australia recently, in the beginnings of August, claim that 2 Olympics competitors, namely Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, might be, or undoubtedly are, Transgender Athletes. As we can see on their YouTube Channel (6 links of videos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eo1LcoDkBs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyFHgzU0FA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxUP77Z55Oc&t=445s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdJapujYxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6hFu0a_DhA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMi6w755qSM

A specific journalist, correspondent, and talk show host, Rita Panahi, has been involved in this the most. Sky News Australia's website says a different and more corrected version of the story, and has repeated it a bunch of times. Their newsletters don't seem to make accusations, but they put the claim out there to say it exists without measures to mention the claim is false or correct. As we can see on their website:

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/sports-icons-react-after-female-athlete-drops-out-of-olympics-fight-with-boxer-who-previously-failed-gender-test/news-story/9ec0063c5f3fb8372fb919a597c330af

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/public-relations-disaster-ioc-slammed-as-womens-boxers-imane-khelif-and-lin-yuting-eye-olympic-gold-medals/news-story/29c061d5108cbe3c7c920a5dbb83d5f7

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/international-olympic-committee-under-pressure-after-female-athlete-pulls-out-of-controversial-bout-involving-boxer-previously-banned-for-elevated-testosterone/news-story/c1b1eb4c7899395c52760d7eeded19ec

Some of their articles say the story with no denial or bias and they do mention that the claim has no evidence, but they persist with a misleading video on top:

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/boxing-legend-jeff-fenech-weighs-in-on-sickening-olympics-gender-debate-after-imane-khelifs-opponent-pulled-out-of-fight/news-story/3914356077d149965c7b1f807922435c

It is distinguishable that their video content is the more hard-line and pressing part of them when it comes to this accusation. Some of their online articles give a vague report, where they don't say it for certainty, they just put it out there, and they cite the IBA tests. Their videos and talk shows, on the other hand, pass around this claim like it's a fact.

Sources that refute this claim: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There is no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex. Viral weirdo (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s the claim that these sources are being used to support? I only looked at a bit of the first video but the banner says “opinion”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, is that video content by Sky News Australia appears to double down on the unproven belief that Khelif and Lin have XY chromosomes, and that their video content is misleading. I understand that the content hosted by Rita Panahi is opinion, but it still makes false claims that I believe makes Sky News Australia a little less reliable than what it says on the Perennial Sources list. It may have been unimportant if Rita was just a random person being interviewed, but she is one of their most common hosts and probably one of their most common faces.

Basically, my point here is that maybe we should hold some of SN Australia's shows to a lower degree of reliability on transgender issues, considering how hosts like Rita Panahi just say false information with no corrections from their newsletters. And even when their newsletters publish correct things, they put misleading videos on the very top of the page, as if they want to promote their opinionated video content more than anything else. Viral weirdo (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia is coded yellow at RSP (in contrast to highly reliable Sky News): it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. Our article says Especially since the acquisition of the channel by News Corp Australia, Sky News Australia has faced scrutiny from the press over its increased focus on opinion programming. Comparisons were drawn to Rupert Murdoch's American news channel Fox News, and there have been accusations that the channel's opinion programming has promoted misinformation and untrue conspiracy theories. We should generally avoid using it for any controversial topic, and gender is certainly controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Close review - "RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues"

Following a close review at WP:AN#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues[68], the close of the Telegraph RFC on trans issues has been overturned to the preceding status quo[69]. The closer has also updated the WP:RSP entry[70]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of NewsReports

NewsReports.com is a news website and i want to know if it fits the criteria to be used in a Wikipedia article. OliDaHoli (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)