Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 315←Archive 317Archive 318Archive 319Archive 320Archive 321→Archive 325

Using the perennial sources page and the reliable sources archives correctly

(Moved here from my talk page). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC))

I thank you for joining the discussion. It is my opinion that ESPN should be in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. When I joined Wikipedia, I used to refer this list for every source I use, just to make sure that it is reliable. In the case of sports articles, many new editors might question the reliability of ESPN, as they could be new to the topic. In such cases, the addition of ESPN would be useful. I request to tag me in your reply, so that I am notified.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources incorrectly. Nobody is going to add ESPN to WP:RSP just so you can use RSP correctly.
Here is the right way to do it.
Example one: I needed to see if Lucien Merlet is a reliable source. I checked RSN and there is no entry. So I went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, used the Search the noticeboard archives box, and found
That entry in the archives is all you need. It tells you whether it is reliable, and you can link to it ("Reliable. See RSN discussion.") if someone questions the reliability of the source. No need for an RSN entry.)
Example two: I needed to see if Hindenburg Research is a reliable source. This time it wasn't found at RSN or in the search box. So I posted a question, got my answer, and now it is something you find in the search box:
Please note how I titled my question so that searching the archives for "Hindenburg Research" or "hindenburgresearch.com" finds the section.
Example three:
Example four:
So, as you can see, you don't need what you think you need (you think you need ESPN in RSP). You need what you actually do need (you need to change how you use the reliable sources noticeboard to check whether a source is reliable).
Example five:
In this case I found a bunch of places where it was discussed, often as an example of a reliable source. So I pulled them all together and posted a summary so you can link to one previous discussion instead of eight. See section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Atlantis77177, why not create a subpage in your userspace so that you can store links to previous discussions here? That way if anyone challenges your use of a source you can quickly refer them to said discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN ( www.espn.com )

This is a summary of past RSN discussions regarding ESPN.

Summary: Generally reliable for all information, very reliable high-quality source for sports information, often used as an example of a reliable source when discussing other sources.

Past discussions (oldest first)

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If it has been discussed multiple times, wouldn't it merit a RSP entry? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No. If it had been discussed multiple times in the sense that one editor said it was reliable and another editor said it isn't, it might merit an entry in WP:RSP, but in the case of ESPN most of the discussion has been in the sense of it being used as an example of a source that everyone agrees is reliable.
The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." Literally nobody has disputed the reliability of ESPN, much less discussed its reliability and use on Wikipedia.
A source can be left off of RSP because it is so bad that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of RSP because it is so good that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable -- https://www.nejm.org/ --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'discussed' and 'disputed', I'd interpret it as not requiring anyone to dispute it but for the question to regularly be asked. We have Reuters on WP:RSP just because it is a really common and good source despite the fact that its reliability as a whole have never been specifically discussed. That said, I don't know whether ESPN merits and RSP, and I agree with your remarks in the above section. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Guy Macon, I don't see in your OP what the request for action is? I see a list of discussions, but no context provided for why you started this discussion and what change to Wikipedia you would like to see as the outcome of this discussion? Can you clarify? What do you hope to see as the outcome of this discussion right now? --Jayron32 15:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You appears to have confused article talk pages, where discussions are supposed to be about changes to Wikipedia, with the reliable sources noticeboard, where discussions are supposed to be about the reliability of sources. (Just to be complete, there are other pages with other goals, such as ANI, where discussions are supposed to be about user behavior). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition, having all of the discussions about the reliability of ESPN summarized in one place with one link is superior to having the various discussions about the reliability of ESPN in eight places that take 15 minutes of searching to find and half a page to link to. An unintended and happy side effect is annoying the Noticeboard Police who just got out of Noticeboard Police Academy and started telling veteran editors what they are allowed to talk about and not allowed to talk about. :) -Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
An unintended ... Um, ok -- but that's a frankly assholish attitude to have towards someone who asked a simple, polite, and genuine question. --JBL (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

www.hisutton.com

[ http://www.hisutton.com ] Is this site a reliable source? I came about this site when going through Tench-class submarine. I raised question about it here[1] Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The website does not appear to have any sort of about page and the apparent author seems to have self published a few books - He does seem to have some articles publised by the United States Naval Institute -[2] and navalnews.com [3]. UNSI is a reliable source and naval News is also probably a RS, so what he writes for those sites is probably OKNigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In this case he has reached the conclusion by adding the number of torpedo tubes and torpedo racks so if reliable sources could be found for those then it could be changed to highest number of torpedo tubes and racks combined. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable And @Now wiki: I would have appreciated a Ping... Author is a subject matter expert, actually *the* subject matter expert if we’re talking about whats in the open source. In addition to USNI News they’ve written for Naval News, Real Clear Defense, Forbes, and a dozen more. He’s also been quoted as an expert or had his research reported on in National Interest, LA Times, NYT, Yahoo, and The Guardian plus more. Here he is in The Diplomat being given a feature interview [4], according to the intro to the interview "H.I. is a defense analyst and one of the world’s leading experts on underwater warfare and submarine technology.” What more do we need than a WP:RS calling someone one of the world’s leading experts in a field to consider them an expert in that field? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source

MetalReviews.com was used in part to defend the notability of Torn (Evergrey album). I would like to know if others consider it a reliable source.

Please choose one of the below:

  • Option 1 - MetalReviews is a generally reliable source.
  • Option 2 - MetalReviews is a questionable source, or should be used with considerations.
  • Option 3 - MetalReviews is a generally unreliable source.
  • Option 4 - MetalReviews needs to be deprecated due to providing false or fabricated information.


--TheSandDoctor Talk 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't know much about the site or their editorial process as they don't really explain, sooo without being able to be certain about identity of authorship and those authors expertise being independently verifiable, it would follow the same path as WP:FORBESCON. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a Heavy Metal site, not a business or politics news source. I'd be happy to say don't use for anything controversial. That aside, the reviewer in question has written just over a thousand reviews and is one of at least half a dozen regular contributors from that time. I think that the volume suggests some degree of reliability. But as per the question of whether the album is reliable or not, which is why I really ended up adding my opinion here, it's a perfect example of an album that was mentioned in multiple known RSes and was 4th place on the national album chart. El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
See WP:SPS. Reviews are opinion statements. We don't reference some random dude that runs his website unless it says who he is, and there are reliable and independent sources regarding him as expert on this matter. Otherwise, it's the same as some random dude's opinion statement on wordpress. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Assuming that the number in the URL is sequential, Alex is the 19th and therefore not the guy running the website. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but who is running the site, and what are their credentials? And what are their editorial policies? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to further add to my comment that consulting the wisdom of Wikipedian's past, several dozen articles use it as a source, on the same order of magnitude as other Heavy Metal dedicated MUSIC RSes. Further looking at this specific case it would indicate that the album is notable which would also be the verdict that we would come to even if it was deemed unreliable suggesting that for notability purposes at least it should be seen as reliable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - unreliable - I see no evidence of anything we look for in reliable sources on Wikipedia. No evidence of editorial policy or writers with any sort of professional credentials. Even it’s most basic design characteristics makes it look like an amateur fansite. I find it concerning that very little of the above addresses any of this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This website is a WP:MUSICRS, I think it's fairly conclusive that we generally don't determine what an RS is based on its design team. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That was merely one, and the least important, of my reasons. You’ve haven’t addressed the others. Any thoughts on that or no? When I say I’m concerned about the trajectory of this discussion, I’m pretty much talking about your comments. Nothing you’ve said is a valid reason within the bounds of what Wikipedia considers in reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And then place several thousand reviews on it? El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop badgering people on irrelevant points. How prolific they are has no bearing on if we consider them reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources for uncontroversial facts

[5] I have used as a source the Mail on Sunday for the names of the two daughters of an individual, nothing else. As it happens, this is the only source I have found so far where both are named. If a better source was available I'd already have used it. David Gerard simply applies a blanket ban on the MoS and removes it to add a citation needed tag.

Was the purpose of the above RFC to allow one editor carte blanche to simply remove sources and not apply even a modicum of common sense when doing so? WCMemail 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic significance of the given names of the two (apparently) non-notable children? They are not mentioned again in the article. I think it would be an improvement to remove their names. That would also eliminate the underlying problem. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
JBL, I couldn't agree more, and I removed the names. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
They're two children the subject abandoned in infancy, two children he later attempted to claim weren't his and the subject has since tried to portray himself as a man of principle. They chose to put themselves in the public domain as they wished to put on the record their feelings about what their father did. But it seems that wikipedia doesn't believe they should be quoted or mentioned, merely silenced. An outside observer could all to easily portray this as a bunch of misogynistic middle-aged men protecting another, did anyone stop to think about that for one second? WCMemail 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you stopped to consider for one second that an outside observer could all too easily portray your editing as that of an incompetent asshole? --JBL (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Having done some background reading on the guy, all of the Spanish language obituaries make no mention of his second marriage. Some even portray his second marriage as that to his Argentine mistress. It's like he tried to airbrush them out of his existence. So yes it could very easily be construed as I suggested, or I could just be an incompetent asshole. Or you failed to take into account that text is a fairly poor medium for conveying nuance and you've inferred something completed unintended into my comment. Who knows. You have a nice day now. WCMemail 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it will remain a mystery forever. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You included the names of living persons who are minor children in a Wikipedia article, sourced to an unreliable tabloid, that is now deprecated. You then edit-warred it back in repeatedly. I can confidently state that you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that they're still minor children (if I understand the context correctly, they were born before 1982). Anyhow, it's better now that they've been removed (again). There were also three more children pointlessly named, I've removed them. --JBL (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Large chunks of the article are cited to tabloids - e.g. quite a lot cited to "Free Library" is actually a single Sunday Mirror article. It looks very like Wee Curry Monster is cobbling together any old trash that mentioned the subject's name - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Minor children eh David? One is nearly 40, the other 37 now, so hardly minor children. I can confidently state that it shows how little you care about getting your facts right. And they themselves wished to be on the record about what their father did, putting themselves in the public domain. And for the record again, the "Free Library" cite was already in the article when I started to improve it, I didn't write the article but started to correct what was a bit of a dog's breakfast. I've already told you this, so it's difficult to see your comment as anything other than a deliberate smear. WCMemail 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME predates any Daily Mail related issues sufficiently to merit removal of them regardless. The inclusion of non-notable living people is sufficiently controversial that it has a specific section in one of our strongest policies to address it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

100-year-old sources for current debates

Is a source that is over 100 years old ever a reliable source for framing contemporary debates? My contention is that a source that is 100 years old cannot tell us anything about contemporary debates and using such sources would be highly misleading. The text in question is as follows: "There is some debate among interpreters as to whether this verse was originally intended to signify that the Philistines themselves were the offspring of the Casluhim or the Caphtorim. While the Casluhim or the Caphtorim origin is widely followed by biblical scholars, other scholars such as Bernhard Stade, and Cornelis Tiele argued for a Semitic origin." I think the "is" word is incompatible with 100-year-old sources.

To clarify what this discussion is about: Can a 100 year old source be a reliable source for the quoted text in green? The answer to this question ought to be either yes or no. Please advice. ImTheIP (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on is it still a standard work.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Negative, the sources are not standard works. Even if they were I don't see how they have anything to do with contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
OK a source from 1920 says that the moon in made of rock, published by the world astronomical society, the modern source says its made of a collection of small dancing midgets (published by the astronomical society of my ate bedroom). Does the modern source trump the older source? We need to know who said what to make a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how your example is relevant. The question is specifically about framing contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you go over our archives you can see plenty of attempts to use "contemporary debates" from extremist or nationalist sources to try and overturn long term accepted scholarship. My example was a rift on that, using dodgy sources that frame "A debate" as if its a real debate and not the promotion of a fringe theory. So with out seeing that you are talking about we cannot judge the veracity of your claim that this is "contemporary debate" or just the pushing of some fringe theory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, Could you give us more details? What article link to the source? Does any other sources contradict it? Shrike (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think secondary sources would take care of the the "framing" part. There is no blanket prohibition on older sources but my view is similar to Slatersteven's, they should not be used to overturn or undermine the current consensus or scholars, nor to broaden or narrow the contours of the debate beyond what framing has been done by secondary sources. Spudlace (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
In general, I would think that if a 100 year old source asserts X and that assertion is accepted by scholars, then it ought to be possible to find X referred to as part of modern day material on the subject and I would replace it with that. If modern material cannot be found, one needs to consider whether the assertion remains a part of the scholarly consensus or if it has been replaced with a different consensus. Perhaps tag it for better sources, maybe someone is au fait? Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that "is" is the wrong tense to use when referring to 100-year old scholars. Current sources would be needed to claim the present tense, especially when coupled with "widely followed by biblical scholars". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment without a LOT more specifics this is impossible. What article is involved? What's the source's link so it can be read, or at least the citation so it can be looked up? Are we discussing a 100-year source in the context of religious history, or is it something else? I tried to google the text you provided and landed on Philistines, and in the article context (scholarly works on the Torah in relation to who the "Philistines" referenced in ancient Hebrew texts are), 100 years is a relatively short timespan; scholars of the Torah and Talmud will regularly reference writers from hundreds of years ago. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add any specifics because the question is about the general principle; can 100-year-old sources be used to support statements on the form There is some debate ...? Precluding the existence of time machines, I don't see how that question can be answered in the affirmative. ImTheIP (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
General principle: the topic area matters. 100 years would be an incredible and probably absurd amount of time for the history of Hip hop music and debates about whether a specific artist qualifies. 100 years, in the span of of studies of the Hebrew Bible and associated Jewish religious texts, is an eyeblink. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
IHateAccounts, right, if we're discussing nuclear power then perhaps we should try to use modern sources, but we're talking about something that is thousands of years old, and the source in question is 100 years old. No reason to throw out sources primarily based on age in all cases. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Rabbinic Judaism is "only" about 1 800 years old, so 100 years is quite a bit more than just a blink of an eye. If 100-year-old sources are acceptable for framing current religious debates, then when is a source too old? Is a 200-year-old source fine? A 500-year-old one? What if the source describes the proper punishments for homosexuals and apostasy? ImTheIP (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help?

Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.

Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal.

In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all.

Even WP:ABOUTSELF usage should be minimised where reasonable - e.g., sufficient RS coverage.

(Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.)

As I write this:

  • The Daily Mail is down to 150 uses - a lot of these are on WP:BLPs, where the Mail, and the claim it's citing, should pretty much always just be removed. Some of what remains are WP:ABOUTSELF, but we already know we literally can't trust dailymail.co.uk as a record of what was in the Daily Mail, amazing as that statement might seem.
  • The Mail on Sunday's home URL has 11 uses - some are ABOUTSELF, some really aren't.
  • The Daily Star has 1,489 uses, and far too many of those are BLPs.
  • FrontPage Magazine has 212 uses, again many BLPs.
  • Global Times has 21 on globaltimes.cn.
  • Lenta.ru has 1,475 uses, though this source is only deprecated from 2014 on.
  • News of the World still has 154 uses.
  • Peerage websites still have thousands of uses, many of those making detailed claims about BLPs.
  • RT has 3,286 uses.
  • Sputnik has 1,387 uses.
  • The Epoch Times is at 444 uses.
  • Crunchbase has 2,814 uses, though that includes "External links" where it's allowed. This one is going up, and may need an edit filter to warn people.
  • NNDB has 1,871 uses.
  • Voltaire Network has 139 uses.

If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy (WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines (WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted by WP:DEPRECATED, any effort for this must be carefully done. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. There's been problems with flat out removal of deprecated sources and the information linked to them in bulk (eg when implemented as bot-like actions), but review and ultimate removal if no replacement source can be found by human hand is fine. --Masem (t) 17:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As I noted above, they all need human review. You've been asked repeatedly to back up your insinuations of bot-like actions, and consistently failed to do so. I know you don't like the idea of deprecation - even though you've yet to gather consensus for your views - but please stop making claims you've consistently failed to back up, unless you can in fact back them up - diffs, and so on - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
David, here is an example of what I think it a bad removal based on a source being deprecated [[6]]. The fact in question is not controversial. The fact that at one point this model was offered as a 16 gauge is a reasonably significant part of the gun's history. The fact was cited to a review of the gun published by The Daily Caller. So the question we need to ask is if the DC is reliable for the specific fact in question. I think one can be reasonably certain the 16 gauge version of the firearm existed since forum posts and various for sale listing offer 16 gauge versions of the shotgun. However, forum posts and "for sale" listings are going to be hard to use as sourcing. This may have been added before The Daily Caller was deprecated so at the time I don't see why we wouldn't consider it a RS for the uncontroversial claim in question. The the DC gets deprecated and now we have to pull this citation. Why? Do we really think this sort of claim is going to be inaccurate because it came from a review published in the DC vs if the same author had published that review in Ballistic Mag (another place the author publishes based on my web search). This is an example of why I'm generally opposed to deprecation. I'm happy to admit any source that gets deprecated is probably questionable for many claims (certainly for controversial ones) but some like this are so uncontroversial that we should accept and move on rather than seek out and remove. Springee (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: I think that's a GREAT example for removal of crappy sourcing. It wasn't really even a "Daily Caller" article, it was a "contributor" article crossposted from some guy at "Personal Defense World", which means it should have fallen under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources the same as "Contributor" articles from sites like Forbes or The Hill. Further, neither the current website version nor the archive.org version linked say anything about a supposed 16-gauge version of the gun. Maybe you should have fact-checked before complaining? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Your argument fails in one critical area, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The information does enhance the quality of the article in question. While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing and certainly it can be verified through other means that the 16 gauge model did exist. We don't need to treat every article as if we are making controversial political claims. Now, your claim that the material is not in the source (which wasn't given as the reason for removal) is valid but then the removal should have used the failed verification tag. Springee (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you can verify it in a reliable source, that'd be ideal. If all you have is a deprecated source, you don't have a source for Wikipedia. Maybe find an example that convinces people? - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since IHateAccounts rightly noted that the source failed WP:V this moves from a practical discussion to a hypothetical one. Your argument illustrates the problem with wide spread deprecation. If an uncontroversial fact appears in a deprecated source we need to ask if deprecation was appropriate. Again, it's easy to prove via pictures of old adds, listings of used models for sale etc that the 16 gauge did exist. That such a variant existed is of interest to people who come to the article looking to read about the history of this shotgun. Can you reasonably claim that the article is better for removing that fact? (and again since it turns out the source fails WP:V this is a hypothetical question). Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee:"While the sourcing isn't strong, it's not nothing" - the words "16 gauge" literally never appear in the purported source. That's not just "not strong sourcing", that's false sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I already acknowledged that. Note that the reason for removal the first time was not due to failed WP:V, rather due to the claim that the source can't be used because it was deprecated. Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
We're back to lots of words supported by zero examples that check out, and your only example being a case that doesn't check out and was literally false sourcing that absolutely needed removal. At this point, please just assume the message giving a list of deprecated sources to review is for people who understand how Wikipedia sourcing works - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you know it failed V when you removed it or did you just do a source search? How about this example. This is actually the one I was thinking of when I found the other one. This one doesn't fail V [[7]] (though it is a contributed article which is a problem IHA mentioned). Springee (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My interpretation of RS is that if information is not covered by reliable sources, it is UNDUE on wiki, regardless of whether unreliable sources mention it. I think one exemption people were discussing (in the Daily Mail RFC) was instances where sports scores (that would otherwise automatically be included in sport articles) were maybe only regularly provided by the DM, although I don't know what the consensus was for that edge case. Even so, I don't think there are very many examples of items that are essentially inherently notable enough for inclusion that are also only reported by non-RS. Or are my interpretations completely off? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have two concerns about that. First, the source may not have been considered deprecated at the time. Second, will leaving that material out make a better article? WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. WP:V is policy but WP:RS, while widely accepted isn't a policy and it also doesn't say lesser sources can't be used, only that they should be used judiciously and the nature of the claim and source need to be balanced (ie an uncontroversial claim doesn't require the same sourcing as a controversial one). When dealing with high profile topics it's pretty easy to find robust sources. However, when we start diving into more esoteric subjects it can be harder. That doesn't mean readers aren't interested in the material. In the case of the shotguns I certainly can see that a reader may want to know sales volumes or common variants. One of the big values of a site like Wikipedia is people might come here and learn about the Swift Engineering DB1 (perhaps the second most significant Formula Ford racecars of all time [[8]]). Some information is available in books and articles but other details may not be available on these sites. In the case of uncontroversial facts I don't see an issue with using sources that otherwise might be considered less robust. I understand really being careful about RS when we are dealing with current political topics. However, when dealing with more esoteric topics and uncontroversial claims I think we need to be less dogmatic. One of the values of Wikipedia is that we can have articles on less significant topics. Springee (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Your statements are incoherent. may not have been considered deprecated at the time has never meant it was ever a good source, deprecation just formalises it. WP:RS is a guideline, not policy it is, however, included directly by reference in WP:V as the definer of reliable sources. Thus, a deprecated source is, by strong general consensus, not a reliable source, and thus fails WP:V.
But you've been told this repeatedly - so either you're pretending not to hear it, or (to assume good faith) you literally don't understand it - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't throw out disrespectful claims like I'm pretending not to hear. That can be reversed just as easily. You aren't hearing the concerns of others. My arguments are just fine. The core problem is the deprecation process is being used too liberally and the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options. Editors are saying we should exclude references not because we fear the facts may be wrong (the best reason to exclude any source) but simply because we don't like the source in general terms. That is a fundamental problem. You have no reasonable argument against this so you just say, "well this is how it is" rather than saying why this makes for a better encyclopedia (ie WP:IAR... which is policy). Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If "the result is that content for articles that have more limited sourcing options" means that wikipedia isn't treating outlets that traffic in false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism, and worse as if they were somehow legitimate sources of information, I'm 100% ok with that. There are only 34 pages listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated, and based on what I am seeing in discussions here that's too FEW not too many. For the love of sanity, someone tried to nominate NEWSMAX of all things as "generally reliable" above by virtue of having rising viewership, said viewership coming specifically because it's openly trafficking in falsehoods and conspiracy theories supported by the extreme conservative fringe in the USA. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And you entirely miss a key part of the discussion while creating a straw man. If you have views on Newsmax please add them to that topic. Springee (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If you bothered to read the discussions, you would see I already have. But do, please, elaborate on what sort of "key part of the discussion" you think I missed, and the "straw man" you claim I've created, since your comment is so nonspecific as to be meaningless. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
What straw man? Their argument seems very reasonable to me, much more reasonable than your argument that deprecating a fraction of 1% of the sources used here will somehow limit sourcing options. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The strawman is IHA's suggestion that I'm arguing a controversial source could be used for controversial claims (false information, conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism etc). Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be doing just that, thats an unavoidable consequence of using deprecated sources at all for non-about self. If there is something you would like to clarify from your earlier argument please do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I specifically said uncontroversial claims. Which comments of mine made you think I was suggesting allowing deprecated sources for controversial, non-about self claims? Springee (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the claim is controversial, because it's probably false information. Just to be sure, I did some more looking. Every mention I find for a "Mossberg 500" in a 16-gauge size traces back to people either trying to make eBay sales, looking for parts to convert a different Mossberg, or posting to forums claiming they found one. Some of the postings claim they were only made from 1961-1962, some claim to have serial-numbered ones made in the 1970s. Other listings for the "Mossberg 500B" come out at 20-gauge, not 16-gauge. [9][10] Until I see ACTUAL coverage in a reliable source - or even a product catalog - I think this is an urban legend or a prank, and something that absolutely should not have gotten into Wikipedia in the first place. And that makes it a great example of why leaving deprecated sources in wikipedia is a bad idea because of the likelihood that material sourced to them was bad (as in untrue) information. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Here are pictures of the markings on the firearm and some old add copy [[11]], [[12]], [[13]]. Yes, it is possible all of these images are a hoax but that seems unlikely. Springee (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If you could locate the precise magazine information that'd be a good start on that sourcing. Something that could be put in as an actual citation. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate this non-sequitur even if I don’t entirely understand what you guys are arguing over. Mossberg did briefly make the 500 in 16 gauge, they were uncommon when new and genuine collectors items now (most were sold overseas in places where 12 was illegal due to it being a “military” round). That being said I don’t know of any internet accessible reliable sources which can corroborate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: To catch you up, Springee produced an "example" of what they claimed was a bad use of the Deprecation process, where a Daily Caller "contributor" article sourced to the claim that the 16-gauge Mossberg 500 had been a thing, was removed and replaced with a citation-needed tag. There were MASSIVE source problems, both with it being a "contributor" article (read: WP:SELFPUB) and with it not mentioning a 16-gauge anywhere in the text anyways. At that point Springee started trying to turn it into a "theoretical" argument that there was somehow harm to Wikipedia for removing a source that had so completely failed verifiability from the start and that hadn't supported the text claim in the first place. :(
But just for good faith, I continued to try to find any replacement source, and as of yet I can't find anything definitive that was remotely usable for Wikipedia's standards, which brings us to here. Those page images are at least a starting point to trying to find something but I think wikipedia would need the publishing information for the magazine, year of production, month if possible, in order to produce a citation? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we can say with confidence that the 500 existed in 16 gauge and that it is now discontinued. Here is an add in Field and Stream, 1971 for the Mossberg 500, it shows the 16 gauge as an option [[14]]. Here is a firearms blue book with references [[15]] and another book that says the 16 gauge was discontinued [[16]]. I guess we can attempt to use these sources though I hate to use Google Book references as they often don't allow citing specific pages so future verification can be difficult. Springee (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's clear that some sources should be questioned when we start getting down to details like this on lesser discussed topics I think we need to use a bit more editorial judgement. It's not like this information is unpublished, it's just that the sources are ones that we normally don't consider reliable for general use (enthusiast blogs, web forums, etc). However, this is the sort of information that is of interest to those who find the specific topic area of interest. If RSs don't cover the larger topic at all then I agree. When we are talking details that are often of interest then I think inclusion makes sense even if that means we are using lesser sources. Consider for example an automotive article where details that may be of interest to a reader are harder to come by. The general topic is notable but the interesting details may be sourced to sites that are . Readers of an article about the Sports 2000 race car class may find the article to be better if we include information that is from lesser sites but is also non-controversial (say which make won various races).

WP:FAIT is the relevant information page. And all I'm cautioning is that this is not "run through and just delete the references" job as there is no DEADLINE given per DEPRECATION, though yes, the sooner we've stripped these, the better WP comes across. Editors that want to undertake this should make a good faith effort to see if the information can be sourced otherwise - probably a whole minute or two check - and then proceed to delete if nothing comes up. Removing refs at a pace of one every 5 or 10 seconds is definitely going to trigger bot-like concerns as that's disruptive. As DEPRECATION says, these are not blacklisted sources so some use may be appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You keep invoking this, and it keeps not convincing people. Perhaps if you supplied diffs that you considered clear and convincing evidence - that is, that would convince others - of bot-like actions.
I note you haven't backed up your claim of bot-like actions. Do you have anything to back this claim? Diffs, for example? - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That recently issue over the two China-state papers and their mass remove was clearly where FAIT would be applied, if it were taken to an AN/AE-type action (it didn't) The actions were rapid - too fast to be reasonably human checking each for a replacement or alternative action - and they were considered disruptive by a number of editors.
I'm mentioning this because its criteria that fixing this issue (removing deprecated sources) should not be disruptive and thus human care needs to be in place rather than a bot-like removal process. --Masem (t) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus wasn't with you in your example case either. You're back to casting aspersions on other editors, and consistently being unwilling, unable or both to make a convincing case against them, when consensus has repeatedly been against you on the issue of removing deprecated sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This seems to come across as what is popular vs what stands on principle. Masem's views are very principled but often opposed because they go against what is popular. How often have these removals done anything to objectively improve the article other than "getting rid bad sources"? Springee (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your own argument betrays you, the objective improvement of removing a deprecated source is enough (it is after all as you say an objective improvement). Anything else is just a bonus. I also don’t think you and Masem are on the right side of this argument vis-a-vis principles, improving wikipedia is the highest principle per WP:IAR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your argument takes on faith that any and all content that is sourced to a source that has been voted down is somehow a negative to any article. It seems like would be better to treat that on a more case by case basis rather than assume we are always right. Springee (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
A case by case evaluation of deprecated sources is what you’re disagreeing with, thats what the OP is asking for help doing. 99% of case by case evaluations of deprecated sources are going to end in the removal of the source, there are almost no cases in which a page is better off with a deprecated source and *none* that fall outside about self. Also the content itself generally won't be removed unless theres a BLP concern it will just be tagged with CN, a wholesale removal of non-BLP content isn't occurring and appears to be a straw man of your own devising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
There are the 5 guiding principles and while IAR to improve WP follows WP:5P5, avoiding disruption and editing collaboratively is in WP:5P4, so they are equally highest principles. I'm arguing there needs to be a balance between improving the encyclopedia by removing deprecated sources, and avoiding disruption by trying to find replacements or other solutions for those removals so that articles are not suddenly gutted of information (though sometimes outright removal of information sourceable only to a deprecate source may be required). All this means here is that editors should spend just a few minutes to search Google for possible replacements for each deprecated source use, and if a replacement can be found, swap it out, otherwise, remove the deprecated source and determine if leaving behind a cn tag or removal of the info tied to it is necessary. It may take a bit longer but that minimizes any disruption. --Masem (t) 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I dont know if asking editors without specific knowledge in a certain field to search for replacements is always the best option. For instance I’ve removed The Epoch Times from a number of BLPs of Cantopop stars and had exactly zero success finding a replacement because I dont know which of the niche english language publications that cover Cantopop are reliable and often there is no english language coverage at all (often why the Epoch Times was used in the first place). I think in a non-BLP situation where an editor is outside the areas they feel comfortable editing in tagging so someone more comfortable in that area can check for sources is preferable. Obviously disruption is in the eye of the beholder, I cant deny that some people see removing these sources as disruptive and this is a good opportunity to craft best practices going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't expect editors that seek to remove deprecated sources to have expert field knowledge on the topic they are removing the sources from. Just enough competency to know how to do a quick 2 minute search for info via Google and to make a judgement call of removing a unsourced statement or leaving a CN behind. If I were removing the Chinese-state owned media sources for current systems, this would be two-three minutes in Google News to see if something came up. If it were a topic related to the first half of the 20th century, I'd be over at Google Books as well. If a quick search showed nothing close, then removal would be correct and then its just determining how controversial the unsourced statement is for its removal or flagging as needing a CN.
And yes, what is disruptive is of subjective question, but we know from FAIT and past AE that when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed (one edit every few seconds) when there is a need for human review is clearly bot-like (the case of BetaCommand is the big one here). Is one edit to remove a deprecate source every minute disruptive? I don't know, and it may be appropriate in some cases and not in others, but clearly a minute is enough time for some possible human review to take place so the timing is less likely to trigger concerns of disruptive editing , but other factors may contribute. We just don't want editors blindly removing these on sight without thought, because that is against the spirit of what WP:DEPRECATION means. --Masem (t) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I dont think that happening, at most I see one edit ever few tens of seconds. What editor’s edits are you referring to specifically? Also can we not use the phrase bot-like user? Tbh I think is over the line WP:NPA when used to describe a specific editor. Also technically inaccurate as bots do their work in fractions of a second so saying someone with an edit rate orders of magnitude slower than a bot is bot-like was always stretching reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk)
In my experience its also more like an average of 10 minutes to find and add a proper source (which of course is onerous to require of anyone, wikipedia is a volunteer organization and as such the bare minimum is always acceptable... Simply replacing with a CN tag would appear to be the bare minimum and an efficient use of time), obviously you have to actually read the source before you use it. Do you mean two minutes seriously or figuratively? Actually I guess this isnt our first issue with you and time, do you mean the measures of time you use literately or figuratively? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
We have used "bot-like" in the past at AN/ANI to evaluate whether an editor's actions show any type of human check or not. Its describing behavior, not the editor themselves so it is definitely not a personal attack. (unless of course it has been shown after discussion that the editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner but other editors still keep applying the term, then that borders on harassment). And yes, I feel even 2 minutes in real time is a reasonable minimum, though obviously one can take longer if they have a more vested interest to try to retain information. I can usually tell if a claim is legit or not within 2 minutes with appropriate Google-fu, and if its legit, it may take a bit more time to find the best source to replace. Some may take longer. But I can tell if someone is removing 100s of deprecated sources with 15 seconds between each that I question if they have put any human thought into that; in contrast, having 2 minutes between each of those edits is something in good-faith I would say had some human check before each was done. --Masem (t) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You might want to watch it then "when one is making such changes with a bot-like speed” is a critique of "one" while "when one is making such bot-like speedy changes” would be a critique of the changes. Likewise "editor is not doing their actions in a bot-like manner” would need to be "editor is not doing their bot-like actions.” Back to the main point: while requiring people to do the best possible job is desirable in some ways its not how wikipedia works, I know of no way to compel editors to do more than the bare minimum. By definition a human doing anything on wikipedia requires human thought, perhaps you meant something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAIT states: "Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate." In most cases, deprecated sources should never have been added to articles in the first place, because they are questionable sources. It would be inappropriate to make it difficult for editors to reverse the addition of deprecated sources, especially since all deprecated sources have undergone an RfC confirming that the community considers them unreliable in nearly all circumstances. As explained in the WP:ONUS policy, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." — Newslinger talk 11:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I argue this that "deprecated sources should have never been added in the first place" is a poor starting proposition. There are some, DM being the big one, that probably since the start of WP's existence should not have been used, and thus where there is true. But we have sources like Newsweek which has changed over time, and thus we have had to re-evaluate the source over time. We should not be talking of the addition of sources before a deprecation RFC as "bad", because editors were likely adding those in good faith, and in the case of something like Newsweek, we have to be careful around the period of transition since before 2013, it was a high quality RS that would still be valid sourcing per the RS/P table. Same with Fox News from its recent decision related to politics. So a rush to wipe out all deprecated sources may actually be wiping out valid uses of those sources. Coming from the computer way deprecation is handled, it just means that we have decided from this point forward, these aren't good sources anymore (not necessarily beforehand), we don't want people adding them, and thus we want to replace and/or remove existing uses with human review, but there is no DEADLINE to meet outside of "sooner the better to make WP look good" (an appropriate goal). So FAIT would absolutely apply if this was being done blindly or in a rush. The caution I'm saying here is that this is not a task to turn over to a bot, or to 100% automate with AWB or the like. --Masem (t) 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Your overly wordy argument is pretty much eviscerated by the fact that Newsweek's entry is split into two distinct time periods, because the change in quality could be traced to a single event (the sale from The Newsweek Daily Beast Company to IBT Media). For sources like Fox News or Newsmax there is no one "single event"; they have simply demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics, standards, and reliability over time. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that deprecation - or handling deprecation - is more than saying "Oh this source is on RS/P, it needs to go." as per WP:DEPRECATION each case needs a bit of human review: is it actually a case deprecated per RS/P? Can I replace the source easily and avoid removal? If I can't, what do I do with the remaining text - is it contestable or is it a fact that someone may be able to find if I leave a CN behind (obviously not on a BLP page)? This takes some time - a few minutes per instance - and so all I am saying as key is there is nothing that requires us to rush and remove these deprecated sources in a sloppy, disruptive manner as per FAIT. --Masem (t) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Neither Fox News (RSP entry) nor Newsweek (RSP entry) is deprecated. It is possible to make good-faith edits that are contrary to policy: many editors who add deprecated sources are not aware that they are unreliable, but lack of awareness is not a good reason for keeping policy-violating content. No editor is obligated to remove deprecated sources because Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but editors who choose to do so are supported by the verifiability policy, which states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 17:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And especially on BLPs, yes, those removals should be of high priority. But as I point out above, we're talking balancing several of the WP:5P here, verifyability and IAR to improve the work balanced against collaborative editing. Keeping in mind that there are only a limited number of cases that we allow for blowing past 3RR rules (WP:3RRNO), removing deprecated sources is not among them (outside of BLP pages) so these edits must be assumed to be within a consensus-based process and thus should be done with minimal disruption. --Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that until we actually RFC + add a source as deprecated to the RS/P table, all prior insertions of those sources should be assumed to have been done in good faith (though there have been cases of bad faith spamming of bad sources in the past). Not that there were rumblings about getting DM onto the deprecated list earlier than the RFC, and most editors did avoid it, and I'm sure similar cases with RT and the Chinese state-owned media can be said to be similar to this (that some editors knew before the specific deprecation RFC that these were bad). Others are more that the community has now decided these sources aren't good, and thus we should not be rushing to punish prior additions that had been made in good faith when there was no written guidance on that, outside of being a well-versed WPian able to read the tea-leaves on the direction these sources were going.
The one rule that WP:IAR is unable to bypass is consensus. A violation of the verifiability policy without the backing of consensus is just a plain policy violation. All deprecated sources, by definition, have consensus for removal in almost all cases because they have undergone a request for comment confirming that they are unreliable in nearly all circumstances. Whether a policy-violating edit was done in good faith does not change the fact that the edit violated policy, and that is precisely the type of edit WP:FAIT describes as "actions [that] are justified by virtue of being already carried out". — Newslinger talk 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this thought approach is claiming that the addition of a deprecated source prior to its formal deprecation RFC is a policy-violating edit. That is simply not true in part of WP:AGF that at the time the edit was made, editors would not have known they would be deprecated, and that per WP:DEPRECATION that even one deprecated, these are not immediately WP:V-violating sources save for their use on BLPs. Yes, deprecation is retroactive to prior edits, but it has to be remembered that deprecation is not the same as blacklisting (where we would remove the sources with expediency). The FAIT actions I'm cautioning is the rush to remove these without attempts to find alternatives, which is the actions already carried out and overwhelming those that want to try to fix them. There needs to be some onus on those removing to avoid the disruption in their removal and simply asking for a quick human check of possible source replacement is not that much of an onus prior to removal. --Masem (t) 18:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I am not assigning any blame to editors who add deprecated sources before they are deprecated. However, the process of deprecation identifies the content within almost all of the edits that added the deprecated sources as policy-violating. I agree that it would be ideal to search for replacement sources before removing a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Does removal of a deprecated source also imply that the content sourced with that deprecated source should be removed? Or can a deprecated source be replaced by a source request? The Banner talk 21:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If the content is not supported by any cited reliable sources, then it can be removed under the verifiability policy. If no reliable sources are available for the content, then it should be removed. But if an alternative reliable source is available, then it would be preferable to cite the reliable source instead, and ensure that the wording of the content is consistent with the reliable source. — Newslinger talk 02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
So what happened here was not okay, in your words? One editor bluntly removing text with the claim "source deprecated" and started editwarring to keep the text out when I started adding first source requests and then sources. The Banner talk 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Banner: Thats a WP:BLP case so the criteria for removing it is much more solid, no sourced information was removed either. If you want to work on sourcing unsourced text in a BLP use the history instead of edit warring unsourced contentious information into a BLP. From BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” (emphasis mine) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The process for deprecating sources is broken. Consider the following. A source is deprecated. Editors remove all references to this source and also the content these sources are supporting. The next year the political majority changes and the source is undeprecated. Thus, a lot of valuable content has been deleted for no good reason whatsoever. In theory, that shouldn't happen because only sources that are so awful that they shouldn't ever be used for anything are deprecated (think Breitbart news). The policy says: "A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. ... It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues." But the regulars on this noticeboard doesn't adhere to policy, leading to a lot of sources being deprecated that shouldn't be.

Replacing "bad" sources with better ones (such as books and scientific articles) is of course great, but replacing "bad" sources with citation needed tags probably isn't. It is much easier to replace a bad source with a good one than it is to find a good source for a statement with no source at all. ImTheIP (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: Regarding "The next year the political majority changes and the source is undeprecated.” Can you give a few examples of this happening? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This comment is based on the false premise that sources are deprecated for "political" reasons and not because they habitually publish incorrect information and fall far short of WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Long Beach Post News

I ran into this edit, and am almost automatically inclined to revert it since the content is not really excessive and seems well-verified...I thought. But I'm not sure about that Long Beach Post News. The linked article doesn't strike me as the kind of writing I'd expect from a news publication, since it seems to me that the one activist singled out in the article is celebrated a bit much--but then, it might all be correct, and their About Us pages seems pretty real. Does anyone have any experience with the publication? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

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.
This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because this RfC was not concluded and a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC. It is very clear from the discussion below that the participants overwhelmingly feel that the South China Morning Post is in one of the first two options as there were almost no voices in favor of Options #3 or #4. The only question is which of Option #1 or Option #2 applies and this is slightly complicated because some !voted for an "either/or" and some for an "in between" approach. There are few outright "irrelevant opinions" per WP:NHC so the consensus is evaluated based on the arguments presented instead of the simple !vote totals. Looked at in this manner, Option #1 is preferred by discussion participants over some form of Option#1/Option#2 hybrid or medial position which is preferred over Option #2. The clear consensus is therefore in favor of Option #1 but there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply at some higher level of scrutiny than "normal". Particular concerns mentioned include SCMP coverage of the mainland China government, the Chinese Communist Party. or Alibaba. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Responses (SCMP)

  • Option 1/2 The SCMP is the major English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. I would consider it a reliable source without exemption prior to 2016. However, after the 2016 purchase by the Alibaba Group and the continually deteriorating political situation in Hong Kong. I think caution is necessary for contentious topics like the Hong Kong protests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have changed by vote to a 1/2 to make my opinion more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: I have not changed my opinion on the reliability of SCMP. It would be common sense to attribute any claims it makes around its reporting of the Hong Kong disturbances. I haven't seen any change in the nature of SCMP's general reporting. The statement in the Atlantic article that "the use of terms like riot and rampage that often made it into the final versions of stories recounting protests" reminded me of similar statement that FAIR has made about the New York Times and Washington Post reporting on the various US protests. Regarding Lin Nguyen, which seems to have been the starting point for this discussion, the SCMP admitted its mistake and removed the five articles which had been located in the Opinion section of the paper. It said it had "reviewed and strengthened its verification process for submissions in response to the Daily Beast revelations". Seems like a sensible response. Burrobert (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert: I brought up Lin Nguyen since the entry for Der Spiegel does say it's generally notable but to avoid articles by Claas Relotius specifically. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Right-o. Yes a similar note for SCMP would be fine. Burrobert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. ~ HAL333 00:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 more or less along the lines of what Hemiauchenia argued. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5 (reliable with caveats) per The New York Times' March 2018 article which says that In effect, Alibaba has taken Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record since the days of British rule and put it on the leading edge of China’s efforts to project soft power abroad. Every day, The Post churns out dozens of articles about China, many of which seek to present a more positive view of the country. As it does, critics say it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of propaganda. It also notes that there have been acts of self-censorship to avoid annoying the CCP. Still, from what I gather, it has many of the best journalists in HK. I have noted that some, possibly undue pro-China views, have been sourced to SCMP, such as a curious chapter detailing "Hong Kong's hatred of mainlanders" and xenophobia as an undercurrent for the protests. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Bigotry against people from the mainland and Mandarin-speakers is a well-known issue in Hong Kong. SCMP writing about it doesn't undermine their reliability as a source. Are we going to start deprecating sources because they cover issues that some editors perceive as being "pro-China"? In case anyone needs reminding, this is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia, or a European encyclopedia, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Tricky, this. Pre-2016 is OK, of course, but post 2016 it's also reliable for a lot of things, just nothing related to China or politics. I guess that's a 2? Guy (help!) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, more or less, per above. feminist (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for post-2016 articles, per above. There isn't evidence that the paper literally makes things up, however, we should also avoid sources that are turning into state propaganda outlets, "soft" or otherwise. Lack of press freedom in Hong Kong will also impact the reliability of other Hong Kong based media. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Cynistrategus (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 — one of the most important newspapers for any editor or educated person trying to stay informed about global events and opinions. So far, criticism presented here amounts to an Atlantic article [17] from a journalist who complains SCMP editors toned down pro-protestor language in his submission to the paper (what a surprise), and one more article [18] from a NYT reporter who was reciprocally thrown out of China [19][20], and who has pushed the conspiratorial view of the Trump administration that the WHO is too close to China [21]. More broadly, bringing up the SCMP at the RSP is yet one more example of the list's mission creep. At this rate Wikipedia will end up treating all domestic and international news sources that fall outside of the center of the quite narrow Anglo-American political spectrum as suspect, or unusable. That's a devastating development for what is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pinging Blueboar since they've had valuable commentary on this issue in the past. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know the source at all, so I can not comment on specifics. In general, deprecation should be reserved for clear cut, “worst of the worst” situations. Even “we could do better” level sources should not be deprecated. That said, if we CAN do better, we should. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a high opinion of the SCMP and labelling it option 2 for "additional considerations apply" is more a reflection of the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong than the SCMP itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 SCMP is a well regarded international newspaper. Being owned by a mainland company means that of course there is going to be a bias towards the Chinese government, but as of now no sources seriously dispute that the paper is "generally factual." Maybe in a few years if Beijing continues to tighten its grip on Hong Kong and its press outlets in a demonstrable way the SCMP should be downgraded, but as of now a bias towards the Chinese government doesn't change that fact that it is generally reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I feel that the SCMP is a trustworthy source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: I have worked quite extensively on the protests articles and I don't think I have seen cases where SCMP is outrageously inaccurate or biased. Their factual reporting is generally reliable. Their opinion articles, however, are mostly written by biased, unreliable, blantantly lying pro-Beijing columnists. OceanHok (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Wait, perennial sources tells us what opinions can be referenced? Who has the audacity to prescribe acceptable opinion here? It's one thing to rate the factual reliability of sources, but saying which opinions are acceptable is something else entirely. Some editors may like the opinion columns of their favorite newspaper of record, some editors may think those columns are complete garbage. WP:RSN really has no business declaring some opinions good and others bad. What matters for opinion is WP:WEIGHT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: This came up in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1 where I had suggested including an opinion from a columnist of RT but other editors rejected the idea because RT was unconsidered unreliable for controversial topics, straight reporting and opinion pieces alike. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of examples. Some of their views and thoughts are hugely troubling to me. In many cases, they were following the rheotic of the HKSAR government. Not saying it is not ok to support the government, but in most cases, they were just discrediting the opposition without solid proof, or they intentionally discussed only one side of the problem.
  • [22][23]: These two shows a completely ignorant columnist condemning the idea of "lam chau", without even understanding what it means.
  • [24]: This one states that the "rioters" "lies" but didn't address the issues behind the police's lack of credibility or discussed why the police's claims were not accepted.
  • [25]: the title itself is ridiculous enough already. They also followed the rhetoic that the voting stations will be vandalised by the protesters (which obviously didn't happened on that day).
  • [26]: calling opposition lawmakers clowns without recognising that the pro-Beijing bloc is exercising tyranny of the majority as there is no universal suffrage for the LegCo election.
  • [27]: Supporting Carrie Lam to delay the election because it gives time for people to "cool off". The way to "take a break from politics" is to postpone an election?
  • [28]: And what happened on the next day was that the protesters and the ethnic minorities were offering support to each other when the protesters passed through Chungking Mansions.
  • Therefore, with so many problematic statements, I find it is really hard to consider these opinion pieces as usable. OceanHok (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The issues raised above should be kept in mind when using the SCMP for claims about the protests and other sensitive political issues. But for factual reporting it's generally reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 This RfC is ridiculous. Most newspapers have political biases and reliability issues. The only cases which are worth recording are those where they routinely engage in parody and fantasy : The Onion; National Inquirer; The Southport Times and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 as a general reader I've found their articles informative and fair, but fully accept the need for caution. A bit better than other [former?] papers of record, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. . .dave souza, talk 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: As I mentioned in the pre-RfC discussion, the SCMP has been and is the newspaper of among the most reliable sources in Asia. It is still Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record. The factual accuracy (as opposed to its tone/bias) of its news reporting hasn’t been directly challenged by other RSes.
    The NYT and Atlantic articles discuss a change in bias towards Beijing. However, a change in bias itself doesn’t mean that the factual reporting is less reliable (cf. WP:BIASED). Whether its fact-checking and accuracy deteriorates as the situation in HK press freedom changes is speculation about the future. If/when that does happen, then the SCMP should be revisited as an RS. — MarkH21talk 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Even if there may be bias on a small subset of topics and cases of problematic opinion pieces, it would require quite a stretch to argue that SCMP is anything other than "generally reliable for factual reporting." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Additional considerations apply. Most of the time SCMP is a reliable source, but the impact of the direction management is pushing and the new Hong Kong security law need to be taken into account when using it. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 The South China Morning Post is used as way for newspapers such as The Washington Post to know what is going on in Hong Kong. I have found that [29] a search in the WP's articles yields many citations of the SCMP. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is limited freedom of speech in Hong Kong right now and the newspaper has been called "increasingly pro-Beijing" by the NYT [30]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I don't want to call this discussion a waste of time, but this certainly comes to close to being one. Remember per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." That guidance is already enough to go on in this instance. -- Calidum 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with all usual cavaets on a case-by-case basis. No indication that there's enough problems of China's interference in the paper's reporting to be concerned that it makes them unreliable, in fact when I have to use them (this in the article of technology and video games) they certainly aren't speaking in a manner I'd consider as a mouthpiece for China. Obviously if an article feels fishy, use caution but that's true for all RSes even to the NYTimes, so I don't think option 2 is appropriate here. --Masem (t) 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2, possibly split into 2 entries like Fox News and The Guardian on the main WP:RSP list. SCMP is a reputable newspaper with strict editorial control - educators on all sides of the HK political debate trust them as the written standard of Hong Kong English). However, it is also known in HK that SCMP has always had a pro-government bias, whether that government was British Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong. The Alibaba takeover has exacerbated their pro-Beijing bias but so far I don't see much of SCMP twisting facts to suit their agenda. I think we should put SCMP in the "reliable" category for factual reporting, but caveat all opinion sections in the same way we split Fox, Guardian, and other broadsheets with a known editorial bias. Deryck C. 19:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, because they have done good factual reporting of current events in Hong Kong. Félix An (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 with the caveat that we aren’t yet able to judge the impact the new situation (national security law etc) will have on SCMP’s ability to produce high quality journalism (especially investigative journalism). I think that this discussion is premature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Update over the last two weeks I've watched SCMP closely, the only major difference I can detect is a large shift in their tone when covering Taiwan. This makes sense given that Taiwan is the core national security concern of the PRC/CCP. As a result of this shift I would consider them a less reliable source when it comes to Taiwan but the unreliability is coming from the language they choose to use and the facts they choose to disclose rather than active disinformation or anything truly disqualifying like that. Obviously this effects stories about politics, defense, and the like more than a story about a new restaurant or something like that. However I would say additional considerations apply to coverage of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for their factual reporting, seems to be reasonable accurate. Any opinion columns are subject to WP:RSOPINION. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, it's a good source and it is almost reliable.--RuiyuShen 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per OceanHok on news articles. Op-eds should be treated in the same manner as those of WaPo, etc. per WP:RSOPINION. We have not allowed Jeff Bezo's acquisition of the WaPo to affect our assessment of its reliability, there should be no difference vis-a-vis Alibaba and the SCMP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    That's not a fair comparison, because RS say that Bezos has not interfered with the operations of WaPo, whereas reliable sources say that Alibaba has affected the reporting of this source. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per MarkH21 and Bzweebl. The publication's (supposed) new pro-Beijing position has not affected the reliability of its factual reporting. KyleJoantalk 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: The SCMP is one of the most reliable sources there is on China. Its reporting typically reflects a much deeper level of understanding about Chinese politics and society than reporting in major Western new sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: I used SCMP frequently in a professional capacity related to coverage of the Hong Kong protests; I was admittedly frustrated with their tone at some points, as someone who supported the protests, but I would be lying if I said I noticed or suspected any glaring revisions or omissions of facts when it came down to it. A good editor should be able to strip away any latent editorializing tone when present and be fine using SCMP for reference. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - No evidence has even been presented that there are any issues with reliability. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 I agree with Hemiauchenia. wikitigresito (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Despite what I would have guessed, SCMP has been fairly accurate on their reporting and fairly neutral. I don't think the National Security Law will affect it because they can just move legal headquarters somewhere else; Alibaba's ownership is worrying but it still is the best non-biased source on China out there, at least for now. TheKaloo (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2020
  • Comment This is a bit of an odd discussion. For the SCMP to be ruled unreliable, we'd need to be guided by experts' views on the topic - e.g. expert media commentators who state that the SCMP is no longer reliable, etc. I can't see any such sources being provided above. From what I've seen in following Hong Kong from afar, there are long running concerns that the SCMP sometimes self-censors itself and has a long running history (including during British rule) of leaning towards the government line. But I haven't seen recent sources stating it's no longer reliable. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - From among the publications on Asian-specific topics covered by various outlets, the SCMP's coverage is usually some of the best. They tend to separate personal positions and facts fairly well, and I'd go as far to say that there are plenty of publications that ought to learn a thing or two from that. Goodposts (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Horse Eye Jack. I note that SCMP pretty much has been the newspaper of record in Hong Kong. From 2016 to 2020, after Alibaba acquired SCMP, there was little to no change in the general reliability of SCMP. (I note that in its news articles, if Alibaba is mentioned anywhere in its news articles, SCMP goes out of its way to point out that Alibaba is the owner of SCMP.) However, given the recent passage of the new security law in Hong Kong, it is currently not possible to assess whether SCMP's reliability will be affected following the law being passed; I opine that SCMP will continue to maintain its reliability (unless evidence to the contrary is discovered); however, SCMP is likely to shift (or at least face much more greater pressure to move) to a more pro-China stance, but not to the point where its reliability is affected (unless again opposing evidence is found). JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Option 1|2 (so far) 1 until 2016 for news stories, more caution required after that. Opinions, as always, should be attributed. Jayjg (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 before the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong. Option 1.5 until the 2016 purchase by Alibaba. Option 3 from 1 July 2020 due to the new Hong Kong "Security" law, which is in fact more about ending free expression[31]. This[32] is a sufficiently major change in their environment that it would be unwise to assume they will be able to continue their past practices. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (SCMP)

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

I agree that we should treat newspapers of record (and all newspapers) with serious scrutiny: the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War is an extraordinary demonstration of the importance of that principle. However, as I note above, what we've actually been doing at the perennial sources list is casting doubt or prohibiting the use of newspapers in the United States (e.g. the Grayzone) or internationally (e.g. Xinhua, RT, the Times of India) whose political or national orientations fall outside the narrow center of Anglo-American politics. Sometimes it's unclear whether consensus was even achieved for a given outlet [34]. Furthermore it's bizarre to watch national outlets come under attack here, at an international encyclopedia, as respective governments find themselves in increased geopolitical conflict with the United States. It's both within our mandate and power as editors to be able to understand these conflicts, not participate in them ourselves. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem with The Grayzone is that it has this strange "anti-imperialist" worldview where everything that western governments do is bad and anything that Maduro / Assad / Putin / Xi does is good. Of course neither of these perspectives is true, and nor is their reverse. I would support calling a RfC on Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Televisión Martí and Alhurra as these are directly controlled by the US govt, and I am unsure about their editorial independence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I'd be happy with an RFC of all of those US government-controlled publications WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Given Grayzone responded to being depreciated with a "You can't handle the truth!" meltdown that included calling Katherine Maher a "veteran regime-change operative" it is pretty obvious they operate in a different reality to the rest of us. Compared to the platonic ideal of a Reliable Source everything is going to fall short. That doesn't mean every source is equally (un)reliable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We deprecated the newspaper without consensus on the basis of a few flimsy articles from much weaker sources, and flimsy reasoning from editors who didn't demonstrate even a modicum of the competence of the journalists they were criticizing. The close was particularly egregious. As for their reaction to being deprecated, much found in their two articles on the topic is excellent [35][36]. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? You’re going to lay it all on the line for TGZ? Please tell me this guy is pulling my leg and isnt going nuclear over a shit-tier source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The deprecation close [37] was a farce, and relied upon opinion pieces or bizarre links like these [38][39][40][41][42][43]. The closest things we find to real sources arguing for deprecation in that discussion include a complaint from a "professor of geography" [44], another from The Daily Beast [45] (which our own list calls "a biased or opinionated source"), and lastly an article about the contents of a conversation that Max Blumenthal had with Karen Greenberg on the politically sensitive topic of torture in the US and Israel [46]. Importantly, from the perspective of our own governance, the close did not conform to any consensus that emerged from the deprecation discussion. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
So you agree that TGZ is a shit-tier source and you're just quibbling about procedure? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that and I wouldn't be caught dead using such language here. In agreement with the rough consensus of the RfC discussion [47], the Grayzone is an opinionated source that is usable on Wikipedia, and in certain instances, where its views or reporting have been contested, it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not one person has voted option 4, therefore your contention that anyone is trying to deprecate the SCMP is preposterous. Please make arguments about reality rather than constructing fanciful straw men to tilt at. Also whats with the sic? I’m not seeing an error in Chinese Communist Party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
A fair number of people have voted to discourage use of the SCMP for topics related to Hong Kong. Those are precisely the topics in which the SCMP's reporting is more extensive and neutral than that of newspapers like the New York Times. I'm arguing that it is in precisely these contentious topics that usage of SCMP is important for a globally balanced, neutral view. As for the [sic], the name of the ruling party of China is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. I see that the Wikipedia article was moved a few weeks ago (which might be in line with WP:COMMONNAME, given how often Western sources get the name wrong), and that you voted for the move. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" have pretty much the same meaning, just different ways of translating it. The CCP prefers the first translation but most third party entities prefer the second. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't want the discussion about the name of the CPC to overshadow my actual point above - which is to compare reporting by the NYT and SCMP. The two articles I cite are illustrative of a trend, in which many Western news sources take strong political angles on Chinese topics. In the above NYT example, plans to offer coronavirus tests to every person in Hong Kong become primarily a story about Hong Kongers being spooked by the CPC. The SCMP covers the issue in a much saner way, as primarily a story about coronavirus testing, that also involves some protests. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Your core argument was "That's why it's important not to deprecate the SCMP for political issues and issues involving China.” despite nobody voting or arguing for WP:DEPRECATE. The SCMP and NYT might frame a story differently but they’re both reliable, can you imagine if there was no difference in framing between reliable sources? Everyone would write almost exactly the same story and we’d all be worse off for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
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.

Vanity Fair partisanship

I question if Vanity Fair is unbiased when it comes to politics. The article https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000 is a heavily used source on Bush v. Gore.

Vanity Fair is listed as "generally reliable for popular culture" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Is this legal case popular culture? Previous Noticeboard discussions were about Lindsey Lohan and model Manushi Chhillar. For politics I believe the site should be labeled as WP:PARTISAN as is Mother Jones and Vox. If relevant, here are the most popular articles on Vanity Fair's sidebar: "Joe Biden Is Closing In On the Electoral College and All Donald Trump Can Do Is Angrily Tweet About It", "Fox News Is at War With Itself Over 2020 Election Results", and "Bill Barr, Trump Henchman, Is Sending Armed Agents to Ballot-Counting Locations". In particular the Florida election Vanity Fair article makes frequent claims from unattributed law clerks which end up in the Bush v Gore article. The article is written more like an essay to push a particular political viewpoint instead of as news.

I'd love to hear the community's thoughts on this. Wqwt (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't care if it's biased, but we do care about accuracy and factuality. Extreme bias tends to affect that, but a source can be somewhat biased and still accurate, hence the difference between how we tend to rate right- and left-leaning sources. At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources. So accuracy, not bias, is how we judge sources. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"At this time in history, in the USA, left-wing sources tend not to lose their accuracy as much as right-wing sources." I have no idea where you got this from and whether it is blatantly false or not (you didn't cite anything), and I don't know who you're speaking for when you say "we" for "rating sources". Anyway my point is to ask whether the site should be considered generally reliable or biased. Rfc if necessary. Wqwt (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects, Wqwt: as you yourself point out, the previous discussions were about celebrity BLPs, which is probably why conclusions weren't reached outside of popular culture coverage.
Which stories Vanity Fair chooses to advertise on their web site sidebar, and their titles, has nothing whatsoever to do with the publication's reliability as a source. As our headline article notes even of major front-page titles, It is generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors.
The 2004 article you refer to, cited in our Bush v. Gore SCOTUS case article, is in no way written like an essay. Its author is David Margolick, a law school graduate and legal affairs reporter at The New York Times before joining Vanity Fair in the late twentieth century, where he is now a contributing editor, not just a reporter. He is also the author of multiple published books about Supreme Court cases.
So, thanks to this discussion, IMO we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”. By all means, RfC away, though I think the fact that after Valjean's explanation you still seem to regard “generally reliable” and “biased” as antonyms, or something, may indicate you're not prepared to present such a question in the context of Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"Stating that Vanity Fair is “generally reliable for popular culture” doesn't imply that they aren't reliable on other subjects" - nor does it imply it is reliable for other subjects. Thus the point of me posting here to gather consensus. "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it “generally reliable”." Again, who is 'we"? Is your view automatically editor consensus? Wqwt (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Even as far as the bulleted opinions at the bottom of this discussion, note at the top of the page it says, While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
If you go to delete cited material at this article, you can make any argument you want; but of course, since you opened up this discussion and linked to it from the article talk page, by that point an absolutely mountainous pile of evidence supporting the reliability of VF will probably have accumulated, which anyone disagreeing with you can simply cut and paste (though linking here again is probably better) if you still take the position that VF is not a reliable source. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
If the claims in the Vanity Fair article about Bush v. Gore are accurate, there probably should be other, more scholarly sources to support them. If you can find better sources, please use them; as this was one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of recent years, plenty of sources should be available. As for what interviewees may have said about the internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, please consider that if the VF article is the only source for those comments, including those comments may be undue emphasis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd certainly concur that more, better sources is always better; but if other sources have not also pursued the question of internal disputes among Supreme Court justices, that doesn't make the information reported by VF a WP:UNDUE minority viewpoint like the flat Earth concept: a majority of sources would need to be arguing the opposite, that there was great harmony among SCOTUS justices with no internal disputes, (edit: and specifically in this case, which was 5–4 in the final opinion against the remedy) for VF to be an insignificant minority viewpoint in that case.
Similarly, under the WP:PROPORTION subsection, you'd need to have an effective argument that the overall significance to the article topic, the significance of disputes among SCOTUS justices about a particular case to the article about that particular case, was so insignificant as to support exclusion, to justify a deletion of the cited facts under WP:UNDUE. “Undue emphasis” is often used in quite the underpants gnomes fashion but it has a very specific meaning in the WP:NPOV policy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's reliability depends on other factors that usually change over time such as authors, timing, source quality, independence. Although it seems reliable more often than not, I think its reliablity cannot be generalized, especially nowadays.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Generally reliable for news.Vanity Fair is the only paper magazine I subscribe to, and only for the political articles, they are that good. My wife enjoys the fashion stuff. They are like Playboy, which has always had very high quality articles on political and social justice subjects. Both magazines do not leave such topics to amateurs but use only very good authors.
How is this an argument for its reliability? Wqwt (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Struthious Bandersnatch that "we can now probably remove the “for popular culture” qualification and just call it 'generally reliable'." -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, bias is not disqualifying and never has been. Nor am I sure that Vanity Fair’s bias rises to the point of us labelling it partisan. What matters is editorial independence and a reputation for accuracy/fact checking which Vanity Fair has. On the specific issue of the Bush/Gore Florida article I agree with Struthious Bandersnatch that its not an essay in the slightest... Thats a piece of top tier journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional considerations apply, Vanity Fair is more focussed on opinions and backgrounds than news reporting and unlike at e.g. The New York Times, there is no clear distinction between the two. As such, WP:RSOPINION should apply to all content. According to Glenn Greenwald writing for The Guardian, Vanity Fair has engaged in 'journalistically corrupt practices'. In any case, attribution should be required. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    Nothing about that Greenwald opinion says that the Vanity Fair article was not accurate (rather the opposite, the actual quotes used were double checked although the approval process was problematic), and it would make no sense to make our decision on a single Greenwald opinion column. But contrary what your argument seems to imply, sources are not limited to journalism and don't have to be journalism to be incidentally accurate. Greenwald's other opinion in which he was even more critical was about Rolling Stone and he objected to a historian doing an interview Greenwald deemed soft, well what an historian does in asking questions are not necessarily going to be the same purpose as journalism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    The Greenwald article is an illustration of their partisanship and that their standards of journalistic integrity and level of independence from the topic are not as high as those of other news sources. The reason I crossed out two statements above is that, in my impression, Vanity Fair does contain quality investigative journalism that can be used for obtaining statements of fact (the article used in Bush v. Gore seems to fall into that category). But a large proportion of their content is opinion pieces that should not be used for that purpose and do fall under WP:RSOPINION. In my opinion, for a source to be labeled generally reliable, there should be a clear distinction between the two and that is not the case with Vanity Fair. Editors should evaluate this on a case-by-case basis and exercise more caution when citing Vanity Fair than when citing sources such as New York Times news articles. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    You’re citing an opinion piece from one source (notice the “commentisfree” in this URL?) to argue that we shouldn't use opinion pieces from another source? You’re confusing me ExcitedEngineer, RSOPINION applies to all reliable sources already... Its not an additional consideration. They do clearly label which pieces are opinion and which aren’t, what exactly are you arguing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    'You’re citing an opinion piece from one source (notice the “commentisfree” in this URL?) to argue that we shouldn't use opinion pieces from another source?' That is not my intention. Opinion pieces are very valuable to Wikipedia, but we have to be aware of their limitations. The essence of RSOPINION is that they should not be used for statements of fact. 'RSOPINION applies to all reliable sources already.' It doesn't apply to scholarly sources and most news articles and reports. These can be used for statements of fact. 'They do clearly label which pieces are opinion and which aren’t, what exactly are you arguing here?' That they don't, at least not online. Notice how most newspaper websites have columns and tabs that say 'opinion'? Vanity Fair doesn't, which is why it is not immediately obvious whether what you are reading is investigative journalism, which can be used for statements of fact and where attribution may not be needed, a news report, or an opinion piece. Assessment on a case-by-case basis is needed to determine this. I hope this answers your questions. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    It answers most of it, I’m still not sure why you used opinion piece to make your point but thats immaterial. Can you post an example of a Vanity Fair opinion piece that is indistinguishable from quality in-depth reporting? That would be rather troubling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    For example, I would consider this article an example of journalism that describes the current state of affairs, while this one is mostly the authors' opinion. These are not two extreme examples but simply the first two articles on the politics page right now. There is no clear difference in respect to lay-out, presentation, or labeling as there would be in most respectable news sources. Before using VF for statements of fact, be sure to determine what you're working with. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    The opinion piece says “Levin Report” across the top, thats a clear difference in labelling. In fact Lavin produces the exact same sort of content (regular opinion column) for Vanity Fair as Greenwald does for The Guardian, they are substantially equivalent. Off the top of my head I cant think of a news source that uses a different layout and presentation for its opinion pieces, what exactly are you expecting here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Didn't even notice the small print. There are also plenty of opinion pieces that don't have such a tag, like this one. As for lay-out, the Guardian opinion pages have a different background color, are presented on a specific section of their web site with a different URL, have a highlighted bar on the opinion tab and present the author's name in large print right below the title to emphasise that it is their personal work and opinion. VF does none of that. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Highly respected magazine. We mainly use it for cultural commentary, features and interviews. It isn't a daily newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    Who is "we"? Wqwt (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    We at Wikipedia. At least that's how it should normally be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, with considerations - I would add the tag Some editors believe that Vanity Fair is biased or opinionated for politics to give guidance that attribution would be nessicary.[48][49] Similar to The Daily Telegraph, Reason, or The Register. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • TTo me the source looks to be generally reliable. From what I have seen of their reporting, their articles appear to be well researched, full of details and have yet to contain a single case of fake news. Fortliberty (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the proper media bias fact checking site (Ad Fontes Media):

Valjean (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valjean. Please take a look at the Ad Fontes entry at WP:RSP. You'll see that consensus does not view it as typically useful for these discussions. Jlevi (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
That chart makes for some interesting reading. First it says any source that has an accuracy score over 32 is generally good, over 24 is acceptable. VF is about 35 so it clears the generally good line. However, Newsmax is 31.76 which all but rounds up into the "generally good" category and the Epoch Times is 37. Quillette is 36.80. The Daily Mail is interestingly 31 but just about centered in terms of bias. I can see why editors argue against following the site too closely, it certainly doesn't align with how we choose to treat sources here. Springee (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanity Fair (topics other than popular culture) is a hyperpartisan source. The main problems with using VF are that a) it does not label opinions or analysis as such (see e.g. ExcitedEngineer's explanation above) and b) it has some lapses in fact-checking and corrections. Almost every time I've seen VF cited in Wikipedia, the source has been some kind of opinion piece, news analysis, or perhaps a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]news blog], which is not so surprising; it is a magazine after all. Politrukki (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    You would need to provide some evidence and sources for your claim that it is a, quote, "hyperpartisan source". There's also a difference between "opinion pieces" and articles which are in-depth analysis of a subject (this is a common source of confusion). Volunteer Marek 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for news etc. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable The article is by David Margolick who has a law degree from Stanford and was a legal affairs reporter at the New York Times, with a weekly column "At the Bar." He's also an adjunct professor teaching journalism at NYU and the NYT has submitted his work four times for a Pulitzer Prize. His book about the 1957 school desegregation crisis was published by the Yale University Press. So indeed he is qualified to write about the Florida recount. The fact that he may have an opinion on the people involved is irrelevant. Only news reporting and textbooks are expected not to have one. TFD (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for this, and inclined towards generally reliable. As others have noted above the author of the election-2000 article in the question (David Margolick) has impressively high qualifications for such a piece. This is representative of how Vanity Fair has defied the "pop culture" stereotypes, building an international reputation as a serious magazine with high professional standards. The original question refers to several Vanity Fair articles, but significantly it doesn't identify any errors in them. Judging a source as Reliable (or unreliable) based on whether information is favorable (or unfavorable) to a particular side is a common and fundamental error. That's not how we evaluate Reliability. Alsee (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Science as Culture

I have been looking over the Andreas Eenfeldt article per a request on my talk page (User talk:Guy Macon#Andreas Eenfeldt).

One source stood out to me: [53]Food Fight! The Swedish Low-Carb/High Fat (LCHF) Movement and the Turning of Science Popularisation Against the Scientists Published in Science as Culture.

Alas, I haven't been able to find an online source with the entire paper, but the abstract set off alarms in my mind. It really reads like an editorial opinion rather than a scientific paper, and I am not familiar with the Science as Culture journal, and I could not find any previous RSN discussions on it.

Other papers in Science as Culture:[54]

Is this a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason why not, if you consider that the topic and expertise of the authors seems to be sociology / philosophy, rather than science. These types of interdisciplinary journals are often more subjective than harder topics, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they are just editorials. The journal is certainly not reliable for hard science info. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian (Nigeria)

Reading a spammy draft, I came across this reference to an article ("article") in The Guardian (Nigeria) (which has nothing to do with the UK Guardian). I was pretty shocked to find such an incredibly poorly written and promotional piece--does anyone else have experience with that paper? Is this one of those cases where the paper as a whole is acceptable, and there's just a couple of crappy sub-sections? Drmies (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've run across it a few times, and their article quality seems to vary greatly. Their lack of linking the author's name to further information about the person/source is a serious hindrance to determining the reliability of individual articles.
I'd consider the ref you link as promotional human-interest piece with little encyclopedic value alone that demonstrates little if any weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Their articles seem to vary, some are of acceptable quality in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
In 1988 The New York Times described it as "Nigeria's most respected newspaper" [55] though that was more than 3 decades ago and I don't know what the status of it is now. It's Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is a broadsheet style paper but that isn't necessarily an indication of reliability. Really this warrants attention from someone who knows more about the Nigerian media landscape than me. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Reporters Without Borders, Nigeria ranks in the lower half of countries for press freedom[56] (worse than 114 other countries), considerably worse than nearby Ghana (30). This impacts the accuracy that Nigerian journalists are able to provide. (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all. I think it's safe to say we have a consensus that this source needs to be used only with care. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've definitely looked at The Guardian (Nigeria) in many drafts as a RS, as I would for Vanguard and other Nigerian dailies. However, if there is concern about its reliability, I can definitely hold back. El komodos drago, you asked for someone who knows the Nigerian media landscape better, let me bring in Celestina007, AfC's resident Nigeria expert. I respect their opinion on this topic. Bkissin (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to this @Bkissin, I’d like to say without an iota of doubt that the Guardian Nigeria is definitely a reliable source as they possess a reputation for fact checking and possess editorial oversight and also state clearly when an article is written by a guest editor or a sponsored post. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax

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.
Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. This RfC falls very clearly into that description - there are only two voices among 41 supporting anything other than Option #3 or #4. Neither of these advances any grounds for considering Newsmax reliable other than popularity. There is a clear consensus that Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" The only question, therefore, is whether the deprecation procedure requirements are fulfilled. The arguments in favor of deprecation have a clear preponderance so the strength of the objecting arguments becomes very important. In this discussion, however, the arguments for Option #3 and/or against deprecation are mainly objections to the deprecation process itself or to the frequency of deprecation's usage. Since the deprecation process is currently community-approved, these are not barriers to the consensus position. There is therefore a moderately-clear consensus for Option # 4 - deprecation (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source, their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc. I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints as their viewership has increased post election. Here is a source that gives numbers https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/newsmax-tv-surpasses-fox-business-cnbc-key-ratings-newsreal-blog/ BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Newsmax

Which option best describes the reliability of Newsmax?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

(t · c) buidhe 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Newsmax

  • Deprecate: "High viewership" does not equate to reliability.
  1. "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
  2. "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda. [57]
  3. "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
  4. "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.
Given the sheer unreliability of Newsmax, it should probably be in the same Deprecated category as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, and The Epoch Times. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
NewsGuard's analysis is not positive. [58] Schazjmd (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
"Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards." Yikes indeed. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you have some better sources than media matters? PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Following up on Schazjmd's comment, Ad Fontes Media (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/) rates the reliability of Newsmax at 31.76. For comparison, similarly positioned sources on Wikipedia that are already deprecated include the following:
  1. RT / Russia Today: 30.65
  2. OANN: 29.91
  3. Epoch Times: 37.35
  4. Zero Hedge: 32.53
  5. Breitbart: 27.74
  6. Daily Caller: 27.73
I know that Ad Fontes is listed as "should not be used in article space" because it is self-published, but it may be valuable information for analysis here. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Right but do we have other RS calling Newsmax those things. I personally like adontes for bias reports, not so much for reliability personally. PackMecEng (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: the poster of this (who moved it over from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) does not appear to understand wikipedia policy on sourcing, but there is a larger problem in that Newsmax - despite sharing similarities in both lack of credibility and a pattern of propagating falsehoods - is sitting at "no consensus" level and looking at the last discussion [59], @JzG: made the excellent observation that this status is because "what that means is that it's a crappy source but conservatives like it, basically." Even in 2013, it was looked at as unreliable [60] and I think at this point it would serve Wikipedia well to settle this status with the other sources it is so highly similar to that are already deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is editor opinion alone is not enough to deprecate a source. We need secondary sources giving examples and backing it up or it boils down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
all I want is this to be discussed because they are the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election and they are gaining in popularity. What IHateAccounts points out is that they don’t like there coverage of current events so it must be disinformation and propaganda. The only exception that I would buy into at this time is that they are not a reliable source for anything related to vaccine because they have peddled stories with questionable claims. To blanket state that they are wrong does in fact boil down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think the other MSM gets it wrong on a lot of things but that doesn’t make them an unreliable source. BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: you may want to read The Guardian's coverage of Newsmax as part of "The misinformation media machine amplifying Trump's election lies" [61]

Also, Daily Beast: "An even more overt suggestion of a deep-state plot to infect the president, however, came from Greg Kelly, a former Fox News personality who now hosts a show on Newsmax TV, the little-watched right-wing cable network run by longtime Trump pal Chris Ruddy." [62] The issue is that Newsmax is an unreliable source, that promotes conspiracy theories and other falsehoods. The fact that it's flown under the radar with few discussions until now is probably, as JzG suggested, because it was already listed as a crappy source and most reasonable editors stayed away from it, but simply leaving it there isn't wise given what it does and its lack of journalistic integrity. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

See that is kind of what I mean here. Do we have a source that does not require an asterisk when we use them. Both the Guardian and Daily Beast have the biased or opinionated source tag. PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I’d urge someone to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual.BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: There are several issues with your claims, starting with your lack of understanding of wikipedia policy, and your continued attempts to portray reliable secondary sources as "sides". To make something perfectly clear, though: my objection to Newsmax is not because I "don't like" them, my objection is that - again, just as with Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, The Epoch Times - they are factually unreliable. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
FrontPageMag is itself a discredited source; the fact that something has a particular level of viewership or readership has nothing to do with reliability. Lots of people can all be wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I’m not making the argument that they should be considered reliable because of their viewership, merely I’m arguing that they should be reconsidered because they are becoming a bigger player in the news market. I only used frontpage as a reference because Newsmax had the same article on their site and I thought it would be wrong to post their own article, Neilsons ratings put it above those other outlets BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You might find it helpful to review WP:RS if you haven't read it in a while. "Number of people who read/view a source" is not an indicator of reliability. Instead, we focus on things such as the publisher's reputation for fact-checking, policies and practices related to correcting errors, and similar mechanisms and policies. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m not arguing that it’s is a factor in its reliability, merely pointing out that this discussion should be had because they are becoming a bigger player. WP:RSP has them listed as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: No, you're pretty transparently trying to argue that Newsmax should somehow be considered "reliable" merely because it is rising in ratings, which is an illegitimate argument. Further, Newsmax is currently (and has a history of) blatantly trying to spread falsehoods [63]. It appears that when you say "the only new source that is truly covering the “other” side of this election", the "other side" you are referring to is simply false information:
"On Newsmax, voter fraud innuendo is everywhere. Conspiracy theory chatter is constant. And perhaps most importantly, Joe Biden is not the president-elect. The channel is tapping into a real vein of rage on the right."
"Over the weekend Newsmax pointedly said it had not called the race -- which was a meaningless claim since the channel doesn't have a decision desk. But the channel's hosts keep repeating this claim anyway, and it is sticking. If Fox is merely dabbling in election denialism, Newsmax is doubling down on it. "
"Taking a big picture view, Newsmax's sudden gains are about demand meeting supply. There is a demand for content that swears Biden is not president-elect; that Trump is not a loser; that Trump might even win a second term. Al Schmidt, the Republican city commissioner of Philadelphia, touched on the demand side when he told CNN's John Berman: "One thing I can't comprehend is how hungry people are to consume lies and to consume information that is not true." Think of Newsmax as the supply side."
I think it would be an absolutely terrible thing for Wikipedia to suddenly pronounce that outlets that peddle in false information were suddenly "reliable" simply because they had seen a ratings boost. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: I guess we will have to agree to disagree because, Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect until the electoral college votes (although I’m not opposed to articles referencing him as that), the allegations of voter fraud are neither valid or invalid because they have yet to be settled in court. To be perfectly clear, I believe Joe Biden has won this election so this is not some campaign to try to change that. You cannot say that readers and viewers are consuming lies and information that is not true when the outcome of those "lies" has yet to be officially determined. My goal in all of this was to make sure that the election article can have sourced information from newsmax to cover the disputes by the Trump campaign because they are covering it in depth regardless of how one feels about them. BlackBird1008 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, you need to read wikipedia policies thoroughly. The things that Newsmax is trying to promote are all things that have been fact checked and quite thoroughly debunked by actual reliable sources. A "foot in the door" gambit, false equivalence arguments, and other attempts to try to shoehorn in Newsmax's absolutely unreliable and WP:FRINGE promotion of conspiracy theories and false information do not serve wikipedia well. Your assertion that "Joe Biden is in fact, not the president elect..." is not consistent with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and indicates that your goal is to insert factually false information into Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I am trying to do, at no time did I say I would try to include false information. Failure to document the legal challenges of this election would be considered revisionism by omission. Simply calling them false and disinformation is not accurate because nothing has been settled. After the court cases are completed, then we can say factually and with certainty that the fraud claims were false if the courts rule that way. I’m not trying to change any article, I’m trying to find a path to add to it with a source that doesn’t have a predetermined outcome already decided. And finally , regardless of a Wikipedia consensus or what any RS says, per the constitution, Joe Biden is not the president elect until the electoral college votes, that cannot be disputed, but like I said, I’m not trying to change that in any article because that has already been decided by consensus. (my last word because this discussion is going nowhere) BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: You appear still to not have read the policies regarding reliable sources. There are numerous reliable sources that document the legal challenges being launched by the trump campaign quite accurately. Those legal challenges are well documented, to reliable sources that do not engage in the promotion of conspiracy theories or fraudulent claims, at 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Controversies and List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election to name just two pages. Attempting to include FALSE information by promoting as dubious an outlet as Newsmax would do a disservice to Wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Despite certain editors' desperate attempts to paint an incomplete or misleading picture, we have more coverage today. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/fox-news-newsmax-competition/index.html
"Newsmax and One America News — which falsely claim Trump won the 2020 election — are two of the biggest beneficiaries of Trump and his supporters' ire. The channels' ratings have surged in recent days.
"Although Biden won the election — a fact Trump acknowledged Sunday — Greg Kelly, the highest-rated host on Newsmax, claims that Trump will prevail and that he will be president for another four years. The network has gone from about 100,000 viewers a day on a good day to about one million viewers per night for Kelly's show."
""Fox has never seen competition like this," CNN's chief media correspondent Brian Stelter said on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "There is demand for a fictional universe.... Reliable news sources are mostly moving on to cover President-elect Biden. There is an entire constellation of websites and talk shows that are in denial just like Trump.""
The picture is pretty clear at this point. While Newsmax is seeing increased viewership, it is gaining viewers specifically because those viewers want to hear things that are at odds with facts and reality. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think your posts might be better-received here if you cited specific policies that you thought your interlocutor was arguing in contravention of, rather than saying repeatedly that they should "read Wikipedia policies" (of which there are hundreds of thousands of words of text, most of them totally irrelevant to the issue at hand). jp×g 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate (Option 4) per IHateAccounts. They are a disinformation machine. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Depreciate. This paper lists them as a source that has repeatedly repeated false claims from another outlet (The Washington Free Beacon, which should probably also be depreciated) without fact-checking or verification, apparently for ideological reasons, and without a retraction or follow-up when it was found to be false; it was also one of several similar sources publishing false claims about ISIS trying to cross the US-Mexico border, again with no fact-checking, verification, or followup when it was debunked. This source describes it as spreading fringe ideas in an effort to make them mainstream. This paper lists them as a misinformation source. This paper lists them in its "junk news" classification, which is defined as These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information. (Also, that paper seems like it would be extremely useful in future discussions.) This source similarly lists them as one of ten sources known for pro-mulgating political disinformation in Facebook. More recently, they have hawked a dietary supplement as a means of fighting COVID-19 while advising readers to avoid any vaccine because it would "change their DNA." I'm not seeing any evidence they have changed at all. (And, as others have said, Frontpagemag is itself a depreciated source, so its endorsement is not helpful.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax is "Fox's new challenger. President Trump's fans who don't think Fox News is right-wing enough have another option on cable and satellite: Newsmax TV."

That's from Brian Stelter at CNN, who is an extremely RS. This tells us a lot. Newsmax is even more extreme right-wing than Fox News has become under Trump.

Because Fox has dared to tell the truth about this election, Trump's supporters are moving to Newsmax and other fringe platforms, such as Parler, that will keep lying to them. These supporters are moving even further away from reliable sources that can correct their delusional thinking and debunk their favorite conspiracy theories.

This placement on the media fringes, far from the facts, tells us all we need to know. Bias is irrelevant to determining reliability, but extreme bias does affect it,, and here we have an example of the deleterious effects of extreme bias.

Full deprecation is fully deserved. -- Valjean (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Option 4 (deprecate). Newsmax lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that is required of reliable sources. There is an affirmative requirement to demonstrate such a reputation, and I don't see anyone attempting to do that. More to the point, it's clear that Newsmax has a poor reputation for accuracy, which it sacrifices in favor of partisanship, and has at times gone so far as to publish false claims & misinformation, and even laundered outright propaganda. In no particular order:
    1. Aquillion presents reliable sources showing that Newsmax rushed to publish a false story without fact-checking it, "likely because the report made the Obama administration look bad" (Silverman 2015); that Newsmax was likely patient zero in terms of pushing misleading and racist claims about so-called "anchor babies" (Ignatow 2011); that Newsmax is a "junk news source" (Narayanan et al. 2018; preprint); and that Newsmax is a "hyperpartisan disinformation source" and is "known for promulgating political disinformation" (Barfar 2019).
    2. The Guardian describes Newsmax's promulgation of misinformation and lies about the 2020 US Presidential election, in part by one of their hosts who was fired from a Trump Administration job for racist, bigoted, and homophobic commentary (Guardian 2020).
    3. CNN analyst Brian Stetler, who is reasonably reputable and an expert on the media landscape, writes: "On Newsmax, voter fraud innuendo is everywhere. Conspiracy theory chatter is constant."
    4. Newsmax was among the right-wing sites that unwittingly laundered foreign propaganda from a fictitious "contributor" (Daily Beast 2020).
    5. Likewise, Newsmax launders Russian state propaganda, allowing RT (Russian state-run media) to pay to display content on its home page (Wall Street Journal 2020).
  • So the verdict of independent reliable sources seems pretty clear—Newsmax publishes partisan misinformation and falsehoods and has laundered foreign propaganda. That's a pretty steep hole to climb out of in terms of proving that it's a reliable source with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (in fact, its reputation is demonstrably quite opposite), and I don't even see people really trying to prove its reliability. More just resorting to false-equivalency fallacies and soup-spitting criticisms of the sources showing Newsmax's unreliability. The goal of this project is to to build an accurate summary of human knowledge—not to ensure that everyone's ideological whims and biases get equal time—and I'd like someone to explain how using a "hyperpartisan disinformation source" gets us closer to that goal. MastCell Talk 17:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Pay to display is a pretty audacious thing for a newspaper that was paid $20,000 a month to run propaganda for the Chinese government to complain about. Though don't think that is exclusive to the Wall Street Journal, the other two big broadsheets do the same.[64] And while we are on the subject of Russian propaganda supplements, The Daily Telegraph still seems to carry Russia: Beyond the Headlines. None of them are unreliable because of it, just the content inside. I'm not saying that NewsMax is reliable, I'm just saying that 'source X republished source Y which is unreliable' is generally a reason to have another look at source Y and is very rarely a problem with source X. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you're conflating two different things. Some major newspapers have run paid advertising inserts funded by the Chinese government, but that's different from presenting foreign propaganda in a way that makes it appear as if it might be actual site content. Otherwise we might as well say that all media are unreliable because they're paid to carry advertising, some of which is of dubious quality or accuracy. MastCell Talk 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, deprecate. Would really hope that they aren't being used now to source anything in the Wikipedia. Newsmax has a decades-long track record of false news. ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable The claim that Newsmax is unreliable has been substantiated sufficiently in my opinion. For factual information, it's simply too controversial. From a quick sample I did just now, it seems like they syndicate most content from newswires, so coverage of those events should be available elsewhere anyway. However, it may be useful for WP:RSOPINION related to politics with proper attribution. That fact that it is widely watched and read and has been endorsed by Trump and his campaign indicate that their viewpoints are not just held by tiny minorities. A blanket ban would be counter productive. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding WP:RSOPINION... It's called "RS"OPINION for a reason. It must still be from a RS, never an unreliable one. We do not balance opinions from RS with opinions from unreliable sources. "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable." Unreliable sources can only be used in articles about themselves. -- Valjean (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Whether we like it or not, unreliable people saying unreliable things in unreliable media are no longer at the fringe of political discourse. While a scientist that does not get published in a reliable source can easily be dismissed as holding an insignificant view, the underlying notion of WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE that all majority and significant minority views can be found in reliable sources seems harder and harder to maintain for politics. If we want to be able to understand and explain historical events that have been influenced by opinions such as those published in Newsmax, we have to have access to these opinions. There doesn't have to be a conflict with WP:RS, as it states that opinion pieces and the like are almost never reliable for statements of fact, regardless of its publication. That it is a workable situation that has received community consensus is evidenced by the Fox News talk shows entry in WP:RSP. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
        • But if something has not been mentioned in RS, we are supposed to ignore it completely. All our coverage of nonsense, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, lies, false allegations, etc. is predicated on mention in RS, and we then use those sources, never the unreliable sources where they originally appeared. That's how content and quotes found in obscure and fringe unreliable sources can end up in our articles. Our job here is to document the "sum of human knowledge," by using RS, and only RS. That is the foundation of all our content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, rather obviously. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, the evidence provided clearly shows they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and instead have one of publishing fabrications. There is no reason why we should risk reproducing misinformation from such low quality sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - there is nothing to gain from using Newsmax as a source in Wikipedia, and much to lose, given its extensively documented history of fabrication, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: It's trash. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 plus a WP:NOTHERE editor. Grandpallama (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - deprecate - Per above. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 deprecate because it often aggressively promotes wild, and sometimes harmful/dangerous, conspiracy theories without any real attempt to even give mainstream opinions due consideration. It is a very misleading and unreliable news source. I watched some videos by this news source and definitely agree with the reasoning by other editors, particularly MastCell, above re. why it should be deprecated. They are extremely biased to the point that they pay little attention to and have little regard for the truth or factual accuracy of what they present to their viewers. Normally I have been resistant to efforts to deprecate ‘right of centre’ news sources on WP so my strong opinion on this news source should be taken as a sign to just how terrible, extremist bias and even dangerous this news source is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (Deprecate) per above. Publishes fringe theories and outright falsehoods. Armadillopteryx 11:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (Deprecate) per the arguments above, which I won't rehash. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (deprecate). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Unreliable. I oppose the wide spread use of the deprecation process. It has gone too far and needs to be stopped. No evidence has been presented that Newsmax is being widely used by editors as a non-about self RS. Deprecation should only be used if editors would otherwise treat the source as reliable. Springee (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The fact that you see no widespread use is a tribute to the fact that we have many informed and reasonable editors. This is to make it official and prevent those who are not informed and reasonable from trying to use it. If no editors above were defending it, we would probably see no need for this step, but the embarrassing fact that it still has defenders means we need to put a stake through its heart. They need to get the message. This is not blacklisting; it can still be used on its own article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: Your comment is definitely casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax "should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" based on fallacious arguments that rising viewership stats equate to reliability and that the promotion of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and false information counts as an equally valid "different viewpoint" to the facts as reported in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
That you claim there's no evidence that Newsmax is being used or would be used, when this discussion was opened by someone demanding Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it, is facially absurd. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: Once again, you completely miss the mark on my motives, my motives are purely to give access to a source that is covering the allegations of fraud from a different perspective than what the other MSM is giving. At no time did I "demand" it be labeled as reliable nor did I say that because its gaining viewership it must be reliable. I simply thought it should be reconsidered because it is getting more popular. As I have told you before, I will accept the consensus decision even if I disagree because that's how wikipedia works. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008: "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum." Those were your words from above. I believe I have accurately represented what you said; you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) is "widely ignored". You miss (or maybe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) the part where this "perspective" (or maybe alternative facts?) is "widely ignored by other reliable sources" because REAL reliable sources have to meet at least a basic floor value for accuracy and fact checking. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You are confusing support for this source (I offer none as I think it's a poor source) with concerns regarding the entire deprecation process. I feel it should be a requirement that before any source can be deprecated those advocating deprecation need to show there is otherwise a problem with wide spread use of the source. Else we should handle things as we did for many years, on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: "The reason multiple editors are supporting deprecation is because the editor who opened this discussion opened it by demanding that Newsmax be deemed reliable so that they could use it", I at no point demanded them be considered reliable. "you desire to include Newsmax because you think that their "perspective" (read: promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and false information that is popular with certain groups) (Your opinion) is "widely ignored" (My opinion). You misrepresent my motives and claim my opinion of a "perspective being ignored" is wrong because it doesn't align with your perspective aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also will make it clear...again, I do not think Trump will succeed in overturning this election nor am I trying to put false information into any article. I only brought up newsmax because they are not universally dismissing these claims as false because all the facts will not be available until these cases are resolved. If the consensus is that this source does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, then so be it. I Suggested that they be reconsidered because its getting a bigger following, I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable. (last word in this discussion because its going nowhere and is unproductive) BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlackBird1008:, your wordings:
  1. "I did not say because they are getting a bigger following it should be deemed reliable."
  2. "I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints as their viewership has increased post election."
You DID, in fact, say what you are now denying you said. The pixels are literally still on this page. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: Ill reply only because since you have nothing better to do than make me look like something I'm not, here is the first line I wrote in this discussion "With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source". The word reconsidered is not synonymous with demand. When I say I believe or I think, that means it's my opinion which I'm still allowed to have in the United States. When I say its because they no longer represent fringe viewpoints, its because they don't, they are becoming more mainstream (aka not fringe) regardless of how you view them. I really don't see why you have the obsession with WP:BLUDGEON ing this to death, disagree and move on. BlackBird1008 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. For a procedure as serious as deprecation (which it looks like this is heading towards), it seems reasonable to allow time for evidence to come forward in the time allotted. It seems unlikely in this case, but it is possible that strong counter-arguments will emerge. Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (deprecate)- Where it is reliable there are dozens of other sources but I haven't seen anything that would even bring it close to being an RS, particularly on political matter where it has become a repository of falsehoods (if it ever had any reliability in its reporting). Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (maybe 4) Clearly a poor source. Might not be such an aggressively poor source as to require deprecation. I need to look further into the arguments provided so far, but the first I looked at--the Lies, Damn Lies, and Viral Content paper--isn't very strong. Newsmax is noted as one out of several publications that both published claims about the statement "ISIS fighters were caught trying to enter the U.S. via the U.S.-Mexico border" and published more articles after that fact had been debunked. Buzzfeed and Fox News did the same. The paper notes that this particular claim was very commonly misreported, and it seems unsure of how to interpret it:
"The explosive claim that ISIS fighters had been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border was refuted within 24 hours and yet only 20 percent of news organizations that wrote an initial story came back to it. It’s possible that the partisan element of the claim led some conservative outlets to fail to update their articles with denials from top Obama officials. However, this is an aspect that requires more research."
Given that the paper itself seems unsure what conclusion to reach regarding this issue, it seems going too far for us to deprecate this sourced based on this publishing, especially given that it's not seen as so damning for BuzzFeed or Fox News. A variety of other publications are named doing similar things regarding other false-and-debunked statements: The Week, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
To conclude, it seems likely to me that this source is pretty darn rotten--I'll check back in after I finish looking at the other references discussed. But when I look at one of the sources used to establish this claim here, it seems weaker than I expected given how vigorously folks are referencing it. So I'm not prepared to go for deprecation at this point, given that it would seem to apply deprecation of a whole range of other sources if we are to hold them to the same standard. Again, I predict that I'll switch to "deprecate" after I review other sources linked here, but looking at this first source makes it clear that I'll need to evaluate them closely.
One thing that would aid those arguing for retention of this source: does Newsmax ever produce original material? I'm not seeing that yet, so it makes me lean towards saying "deprecate: nothing lost here". Jlevi (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The New Media and the ‘Anchor Baby’ Boom paper does not itself describe the anchor baby framing as disinformation. The main purpose of the paper is to track the spread of the concept (and it's quite a cool paper). Indeed, the paper describes how the anchor baby concept appeared throughout many mainstream news sources, indicating that it is probably not 'false' from the perspective of Wikipedia. This certainly may be indication of bias of the source, but the 'anchor baby' framing device is more of an interpretive method than a direct statement of facts in any case. Aquillion describes the paper as "describ[ing] it [Newsmax] as spreading fringe ideas in an effort to make them mainstream". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the paper, but I don't think this is admissible for claims about reliability. By very virtue of these claims appearing throughout mainstream sources, this is rather complicated from that perspective, and it seems better to just interpret this paper as a discussion of bias propagation, rather than of misinformation propagation. Jlevi (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing the Facebook disinformation paper now. In general, we don't weigh social media posts of outlets in establishing their reliability. The paper notes that they are explicitly looking at social media posts and not news articles: "First, Sobieraj and Berry (2011)and Nithyanand et al. (2017) studied political discourses in media outlets (e.g., cable news) and Reddit respectively, whereas our work studied user responses to extreme conservative and liberal disinformation in Facebook." In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, the study looked primarily at user comments for sentiment analysis. I don't think this paper adds heavily to our interpretation of this source's reliability. Jlevi (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like this might be heading for a snow close. To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that. ​ Jlevi (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: I think I understand but can you please verify this is what you mean? Aquillion's provided academic sources are from 2015 [65], 2011 [66], 2018 [67], 2018 [68], and 2019 [69] respectively, all of which would definitionally have to be arguments "prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I have addressed each of these sources other than this one in my comments earlier in this thread. Having read them, I believe that these sources speak not about reliability of Newsmax articles, but rather about bias, tone, and framing devices. In addition, one of the cited sources appears to be not about Newsmax articles, but rather about Facebook comments on Newsmax posts (if I'm interpreting it correctly). Thus, though it's pretty clear that Newsmax is unreliable prior to 2020, I do not believe current arguments make a convincing case for deprecation prior to 2020. On the other hand, the arguments regarding the 2020 election coverage as grounds for deprecation are quite good. Is that clear? Jlevi (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable We should treat any source as generally unreliable until reliability is established. But I see no evidence that they publish false or fabricated information beyond what reliable sources do. PolitiFact has only one entry for them and rated a claim they made in a mailing (not a news story) as "mostly true."[70] Snopes complained about an article by Ed Klein, "Ed Klein: Hillary's Plea Bargain" In it he cites a Clinton lawyer saying a Justice Dept. official said the department was considering offering Clinton a plea deal. While they should not have published the rumor without additional confirmation, they didn't actually state that it was true. And reliable sources occasionally do the same thing. Usually what editors complain of is their emphasis on conservative opinion which frequently is based on a misrepresentation of facts. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 We have NEVER considered them reliable afaik, and they've gotten even worse over time. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Back to basics. They don't have a corrections policy. They don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. So they can't be option 1 or 2. I think we over-use deprecation. It should be reserved for sites that are controlled by dictatorships, support genocide, or the like. They don't come anywhere near that level. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Aquillion and MastCell. Anti-science is less compelling to me, as all non-science specialist news media outlets are unreliable to some degree about science, but their reputation for promoting conspiracy theories, particularly now in the context of the false claims made by Trump, is sufficient that I can think of no justified context to use the source. — Bilorv (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for NewsMax website on the principle of generally opposing deprecation, Option 4 for NewsMax TV broadcasts because it seems particularly egregious, Option 2 for NewsMax magazine, nothing here seems to cover them but pushing generally unreliable on the grounds that neither of the other sources are. Open to changing my mind as I read more of this thread. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. There are clearly many examples of NewsMax promoting falsehoods. Upon checking their website today, I click on an article at random and am immediately presented with something which has clearly not undergone any sort of rigorous fact checking or editorial scrutiny. A line from Donald Trump about 'paying for the wall through fees paid when Mexican citizens cross legally into the United States' is reported, with no context included that it is false. It is hard to imagine any context in which NewsMax would be an appropriate source for wikipedia. Awoma (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, but this should hardly be necessary: no competent Wikipedian would use Newsmax as a source, surely? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @JzG:, your query begs the obvious question: Why don't we topic ban those who repeatedly fail this most basic requirement, especially those who edit controversial articles, such as in the AP2 area? Any admin, citing DS, can do it without making a big deal of it.
This is pretty clear: "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:... the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." We waste so much time because we fail to deal with them appropriately. -- Valjean (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, no indication of any interest in fact checking or correction, not considered Reliable by other RS, and the antivax is so literally deadly that it probably warrants two-and-a-half strikes all by itself. On the bright side, if Newsmax steals away Fox's more radical audience perhaps Fox will shift back to being usable on Science&Politics. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 − as others have said, I'm not aware of a vast issue with Newsmax being used to source claims (I cannot recall ever having run across it in an article). A search shows that it's cited 1,044 times across the entire encyclopedia, and backing up claims like His retirement became official on July 1, 2013.[101] for Ben Carson (in which case the citation is to an interview he gave to Newsmax). That said, Newsmax is obviously a huge crock on several important subjects (for this we can consult their valiant coverage of the "other side" of the blue vs. orange sky color controversy etc). This much should be obvious. However, deprecating a source is a pretty extreme action to be taken (note that Wikipedia did just fine for seventeen years prior to ever doing this), and will result in lots of distended gaping holes in articles. If it were acknowledged as generally unreliable, what would prevent editors from going through those search results and individually evaluating the sourced statements (and possibly finding better sources for them)? jp×g 12:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Per Acousmana, Aquillion, MatnetteD, MastCell, Hemiauchenia and others.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (deprecate) for spreading lies and conspiracy theories about the US election. It should be illegal for these far-right hacks to call themselves “news”. Also, is it just me, or did I see a few flakes outside my window? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (reliable) − it has been accurately reporting on the latest news during the September-November 2020 period. Yurivict (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (deprecate) - many editors have made useful observations, but Aquillion and MastCell have been especially persuasive. Personally, I believe that the "Raphael Badani" affair and the things they have published about COVID-19 vaccines are sufficient to deprecate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Newsmax

Procedural note: deprecating or declaring a source generally unreliable requires an RFC. See the top of this noticeboard. Moreover, the general purpose of this noticeboard is dispute resolution – discussing whether a source is reliable for a specific content in specific article – not general discussion about an outlet. Politrukki (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments in reply to Valjean's comment above: (t · c) buidhe 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: You lost me at Brian Stelter as an extremely reliable source, he is just another opinionated pundit. And no offense, because I value everyone’s right to their opinion, but I find it hard for you to consider Newsmax fairly based on your essay User:Valjean/Essay/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. I understand the criteria for WP:RS and if we can’t come to a consensus based on those criteria, then so be it. That’s why we have these discussions. In my opinion, there has not been enough evidence to exclude their coverage of this election as unreliable. There may be branches of their organization, such as Newsmax Health, that should be depricated based on their coverage of vaccines. That can happen without deprecating their news section. It is also my opinion that their coverage of the election is within the bounds of the facts as we know them. The allegations they are covering have not been investigated and the facts have not been settled. It seems that conservative news organizations are automatically deemed unreliable on Wikipedia while known left leaning news organizations are given a pass with little resistance. I’d like to see that change however I also understand that consensus is key to keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. BlackBird1008 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The "basic criteria" for RS are accuracy and fact-checking. If a source disagrees with ALL the mainstream media, that's a red flag; be cautious. Newsmax pushes false narratives and supports Trump's counterfactual agenda on election results, vaccines, COVID-19, climate change, and pushes conspiracy theories (Red flags are favorable use of these words and phrases: Russiagate, Spygate, Steele dossier is fake and debunked, investigations are a Russia hoax, no collusion at all, "I'm the victim of a witchhunt," etc.).
Newsmax, along with Trump, are on the wrong side of history and facts, and what's relevant for Wikipedia and this discussion, on the wrong side of RS on these issues. (Read our articles and the RS they use. We are supposed to agree with RS and follow the evidence, including if and when they "change their minds." That is our obligation as editors. Opposition to RS is opposition to our policies here.) Newsmax and other fringe sources (Breitbart, Daily Caller, New York Post, Daily Mail, Fox News talking heads, Washington Times, American Thinker, The Federalist, etc.) provide the lying contrast (truth vs. lies) to what factual RS say, and we do not give such counterfactual, contrasting, views and sources any weight here because they are not accurate. They are false. We use better sources. That's why we only allow the use of deprecated sources, without undue self-justification, in their own articles. The mainstream view from RS always gets more weight (the last word). -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Unproductive personalized comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you are sourcing to a newsletter opinion article for all that? You used to be really good at trying to use the best RS. Now it's partisan things like this and sourcing things to Twitter.[71] PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you are starting to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. It is not necessary to reply personally to every single point you disagree with; if the arguments are flawed in the way you say, someone else will see it and say something. (And if you are the only one who does, it is likely that your points are not as strong as you believe them to be.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is true actually on the bludgeoning claim. Also yes someone else could call out bad arguments, or I could take a second and do it myself. There is nothing wrong with that. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own. That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
OMG! You know perfectly well that the tweet itself is not the RS. It contained the RS quote. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No it did not. You cannot use as unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
BS. That was a talk page comment not intended to be used as is in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
BLP applies everywhere. Using unreliable source as a source for quoting a BLP, even on a talk page is not acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There was zero BLP violation in that comment with the tweet. Look at the tweet. For article content I could have used many RS, such as this one. -- Valjean (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
How about here where you just post a bunch of twitter links. You really should stop doing that, again Twitter is not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I clearly stated in that thread that they were not the RS, but they pointed to them. (Any editor with a collaborative mindset would be able to figure out what to do, if they were so inclined.) At the time I couldn't elaborate and had to run. -- Valjean (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If you did not have time to post actual RS it probably could of waited. That is especially true since all the tweets appear to go to the same article. Finally we all have a collaborative mindset here right? Who does not? PackMecEng (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't need you to act like my babysitter. Not everyone has a collaborative mindset. Some try to understand (and stay quiet if they don't) and some just complain and criticize, without any attempt to be flexible. Their criticism is not constructive. They create more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments in reply to my comment above: --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Those are not terribly strong though. Your first source lists then in a column with other sources saying they repeated a claim that turned out to be false. The second source does give that one line then goes on to say things like stronger commitment to the bottom line than to presenting himself as an ideologue. Three not a fan of thesis in other languages but is just listing them in a table with a bunch of other sources lacking context or why. Which is again similar to the last source, they are just in a list. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Corrections: The first source says they repeated false claims multiple times, without fact-checking or verification and then failed to follow up with a retraction or correction, all of which are core principles of how we assess WP:RSes. The second source straightforwardly describes their fringe nature; the third and fourth sources show that it has been classified as junk news and misinformation in peer-reviewed literature (with the final one using a definition that is almost word-for-word our definition of an unreliable sources.) These are strong, sterling sources to support depreciation, far beyond what we usually rely on; I'm unsure what else you would want beyond peer-reviewed papers that almost point-for-point go down our requirements for a WP:RS and say that they fail nearly every one. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Mostly things that specifically deal with Newsmax instead of passing mention or lumped in a group with no specific description. Which those fail to do. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong and heck it is a source I try to avoid. That said your answer does not address my concerns. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am glad that we agree that Newsweek is a source that should be avoided, at least; that is, after all, the most important part of a depreciation discussion - beyond that it is mostly minor quibbling over how to word the discussion's summary. I don't feel you've raised any significant or policy-based concerns beyond that; I was merely correcting a few important omissions from your summary (to wit, the aspects of those sources that make them so brutal to anyone's attempts to argue Newsmax could be used as a source, given the way they focus almost laser-tight on the ways Newsmax fails our WP:RS policy and meets the standards for depreciation.) To me, the fact that numerous high-quality academic sources list it as what we would consider depreciation-worthy without further comment is actually a stronger argument, because it says that among top-quality sources Newmax's status as a source that deliberately publish[es] misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture is so well-established and clear-cut that numerous academic papers could use it as a benchmark for political disinformation without worrying that someone will object to that categorization in a way that would call their results into question. An extended essay in a news source would be someone making the argument that Newsmax is what we would call depreciation-worthy; whereas its unequivocal hard categorization as a purvayor of political misinformation in numerous academic sources using such lists establishes it as a commonly-accepted fact, at least within those academic domains. The fact that all these papers passed peer-review while using it in that fashion underlines this reality. By my reading, you don't even seem to be seriously disputing that basic fact (you haven't presented any sources of your own that I can see, and concede that it's a source you would try to avoid), you just wish we had some additional sources digging into Newsmax in more depth. By all means go an search for them; but it's not necessary to have such an in-depth analysis for depreciation when sources like the ones I listed make the general assessment of Newsmax in academia crystal-clear. We're trying to assess its general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy here; we're not trying to write an extended case-study on it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Again just looking for something on Newsmax specifically, it shouldn't be that hard for you. Passing mention and lumped into groups with little supporting the claim is just not that helpful here. Also just because I personally do not like using it, is not a reason to depreciate it. That is the kind of logic you would use to WP:RGW or pull a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of claim. PackMecEng (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Fortunately, I have provided five academic sources establishing the fact that this source is a well-known purveyor of political misinformation, all of which mention Newsmax specifically; no one has raised any policy-based objections to any of them, or presented any sources disagreeing with them, and the fact that they passed peer review establishes that they are decisive in discussions such as these. I am sorry you, personally, did not find this discussion to be helpful, but I'll direct you to WP:BLUDGEON once again: The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer you. You have adequately expressed your personal feelings about the numerous sources I've produced; now it's time to back down and let others add their own assessments. Weak arguments do not become stronger through repetition, while a strong argument only needs to be stated a single time to accomplish its goal. -Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Weak arguments do not become stronger through repetition Yet you keep repeating the same argument without addressing any of the concerns expressed about its flaws. It is really confusing and concerning why you would do that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    I have answered you thoroughly, whether you accept it or not; as I said above, I have no obligation to satisfy you specifically, and as you see above, people seem to be convinced by my arguments and the strength of the sources I produced. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Free Beacon is generally reliable. It has a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy and is used by others. According to McKay Coppins (2018), staff writer at The Atlantic,

    [Free Beacon] contains a fair amount of trolling—a running series of Kate Upton clickbait; winking headlines like "Greatest Living President Is Also Fantastic Painter"—but it has also earned a reputation for real-deal journalism. Its reporters run down leads, work their sources, call for comment, and issue corrections when necessary. If a partisan press really is the future, we could do worse than the Free Beacon."

    Politrukki (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Moreover, based on my quick reading (string search), what you say about Free Beacon making "false claims" is false. Your paper (A Tow/Knight Report) says the status is "unverified" and the Free Breacon reporting was repeated by USA Today and The Huffington Post, "to name a few larger online outlets". Would you suggest deprecating USA Today, The Huffington Post, and "larger online outlets"? What about other sources that publish unverified reports? Politrukki (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    The Free Beacon was already the subject of a previous RFC, here. It had low participation but was overwhelming in favor of depreciation. We could run another one but I suspect the results would be the same. Regarding the other outlets, we'd have to consider the overall coverage they receive, but the key for the Free Beacon in particular was that they were the source of the claim and were particularly called out for doing no fact-checking or verification whatsoever, which is a vital requirement of WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to say in regards to the opening statement:

  1. A source gaining a sizable increase in viewership is a reason to reconsider its reliability.
  2. Wikipedia should generally consider the reliability of a source in the context of other sources that share its opinions as well as in the abstract to determine whether it is reliable.
  3. It does not follow from either of these things, or from a viewership of 287,000 that a source is reliable. 30 million Americans don't believe in the moon landings[72] and yet we still report them as fact because that is what is verifiable.

Basically, I agree with BlackBird's reasons but not his reasoning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: Fair enough, all I wanted was this discussion to happen even if the majority disagree with me. BlackBird1008 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem, it's reasonable that this discussion happens even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes. I should have been around to raise these things when MintPress happened but hey 🤷‍♂️. Well, all the best, El komodos drago (talk to me) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"even if it does end up citing a news rating agency that is funded in equal parts by US government departments, big tech, and arms contractors; and a logic on pay to print Russian supplements that would leave us with no RSes" Those are some pretty weird aspersions you're casting, care to clarify? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so my apologies on the first point, NewsGuard isn't actually run by the Atlantic Council just run by ex-Atlantic Council and US government communication strategist types. For instance Richard Stengel, self-described chief propagandist [73] and Atlantic Council distinguished fellow [74], is on its advisory board. [75] While I know we have deprecated it, if you want a good rundown of some of the rest of its links backed up by references to NewsGuard's own website MintPress News did a good rundown of it. [76] Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red. As such if we are looking for an independent or neutral source for media reliability basically anyone other than NewsGuard such as either Ad Fontes or Media Bias/Fact Check would be better.
As for paid propaganda supplements, the Wall Stree Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph have all run Russia: Beyond The Headlines (paid for by the Russian government) and China Watch (paid for by the Chinese government). [77] If we applied the idea that running paid propaganda made a source automatically unreliable then we would have to deprecate a bunch of top tier RSes globally. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Basically NewsGuard is just an organisation set up to, where possible, mark news sources that support western foreign policy as green and ones that oppose it as red." Wow, that's way into conspiracy theory territory. And yes, I read the Mintpress article, but I don't find anything of substance there; it appears more to be just complaining about being held to task for publishing falsehoods.
The biggest problem I can find real, reliable sources having with Newsguard is that if anything their bar to give a website a green label is too low [78][79]; noting that they still manage to give Fox News a green label DESPITE falling to a 69.5 rating, failing to issue corrections, failing to gather and present information responsibly, and failing to handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly. [80] IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The reason the bar is set so low for Fox News and the Daily Mail is because they toe the line, report, say, that a reporter from a commercial Russian news channel with a minority Russian government stake doing a piece to camera outside the base of a... controversial British army unit is a "spy". [81] It may sound like conspiracy theorism but if you have a look at where it places the bar for different sources it seems pretty evident that they differ depending on whether the source is friendly to US interests or not. As I said, I think the view that MintPress News is unreliable is wrong. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ON the subject of paid content, there is a difference between paid content and publishing as supplement you make no claim of ownership of. So does Newsmax make it clear its Russian?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a relevant question. The ethical lines are twofold: first, is it clearly labeled as paid content and second, is it something that goes WAY over the line in terms of falsehoods?
My student newspaper's ad department got in trouble for accepting a set of "paid inserts" by the cult of scientology some years ago. The problem wasn't the inserts, it was that the cult went behind their backs and had the "Paid Advertisement" banner stripped off by the printing company. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that provided the content is clearly marked it shouldn't count. For starters, China Watch and Russia Beyond are probably not the model of accuracy. Secondly, viewing a source as unreliable because it in someway associates with another unreliable source can quickly lead to many other sources being unreliable. For instance, a while ago we decided that AlterNet was unreliable. Now I know nothing about AlterNet and can't say whether that was the right decision or not. But then when we had to decide on MintPress we deprecated that partly because it republished from AlterNet. Then when we talked about The Greyzone we decided that was unreliable partly because it cited MintPress News. If my memory serves me right we literally discussed a single story when we decided on Greyzone. Now we are using links to Greyzone to deem unreliable other sources. If AlterNet suddenly turned out to be the model of factual accuracy we'd have to reconsider 3 or 4 sources on WP:RSP. This can lead to really circular logic (Source A is unreliable because no reliable source cites it. Source B is unreliable because it cites Source A). El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing here [82] that matches your claim that "we deprecated Mintpress partly because it republished from AlterNet". I do see one mention that they republished no less than 340 articles from ZeroHedge, one of the worst disinformation sites available online and furthermore, a blog, which demonstrated that Mintpress had no reliability standards and was not bothering to fact-check what they republished? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, I got the two confused. I know nothing about ZeroHedge, and I'm glad you are confident that ZeroHedge is a "disinformation site". I'm just saying that viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish could very quickly spiral into a situation where we are deciding the fate of half a dozen sources on the back of the actions of one of them. Thank-you for correcting me, El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
El komodos drago, "viewing sources as unreliable because of what they republish..." is not what we do. Their bias is not a factor. We view sources as unreliable because they republish counterfactual content. It is facts, not bias, which we look at. (Obviously, extreme bias is noticed, because it's a red flag. Extreme bias tends to affect reliability.) Start noticing how those who get their views from unreliable sources will invariably deny the above (no matter how many times we explain this to them) and claim that their favored version and sources have been rejected because of the political bias of editors, rather than the fact that experienced editors usually reject sources because they are not factual, as our policies require us to do. There is a reason why controversial articles are often partially protected. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Valjean: I was not talking about bias there, or anywhere else in my discussions on this subject. My problem is that regardless of accuracy, clearly marked republished content should not count towards whether or not a source is reliable. I do not know the specifics of this case because they are behind the WSJ's paywall but I am making a broad point that we at this noticeboard have started employing some very circular logic about what is not a reliable source and are increasingly looking at linkages as tenuous as who they share readers with instead of what their actual publishing policies are. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
My question was does newsmax mark it, or does it claim it as its own?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The relevant details are behind the WSJ's paywall so I can't answer that. But I think this is the right question. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This article may be of interest to people participating in this RfC. Still looking for a reliable source to take a position one way or the other. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like this isn't accurate but I wouldn't swear by the reliability of any of those sources. Finding the truth about any news story in America is like swimming through treacle because the left-wing media and the right-wing media live in their own little bubbles and a large chunk of them can't be trusted to tell the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Only one of those seems to mention Newsmax, and none (as far as I can tell) say anything about it reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
NewsMax states Georgia Democrat operative Stacey Abrams effectively placed a preemptive block of signature verification on ballots in Georgia's hand recount based on a claim from Trump and a republican Representative. The above sources say that this is rubbish. As I said, I can't see anyone reputable who settles this one way or the other but a lack of coverage from reputable sources seems to indicate that it is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in the truth. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think El komodos was trying to make an oblique repetition of the OP's claim that Newsmax provides some kind of reliable "alternative perspective", and then realized they stuck their foot in it by not really checking for more reliable coverage such as this: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/trump-launches-attack-georgia-governor-counties-work-recount-votes/RVKWG2SDFBEWRID75ST4AJRGW4/ After a further review, however, the analysis is showing exactly how bad Newsmax truly is. Responsible outlets - and even some that are considered less reliable by Wikipedia, such as Newsweek - correctly note that Trump's accusations are unevidenced and place them in the context of the various conspiracy theories that Trump, his administration, and his followers have bandied about. Newsmax chooses to completely omit context and necessary information, instead just breathlessly repeating the accusations made by Trump and by his campaign employee Doug Collins. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It was actually in response to BlackBird's request to pull something off their home page that is truly not factual but I should have been clearer about it in the original post. I was hopping that there would be an RS that roundly proved or debunked the claim but unfortunately there wasn't. WSB-TV doesn't actually say that Trump's claim was wrong and it doesn't have an RSP or MB/FC. But they look reliable and their tone of doubt is distinct. (plus it sounds outlandish so there is that). El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still shaking my head because anyone can defend Newsmax, even claiming that their rapidly increasing popularity is a good argument for not deprecating them. The very reason they are becoming more popular is that they are an even worse source than Fox News, that they push even more false narratives, ignore even more facts that have debunked those false narratives, and push even wilder conspiracy theories.

They are even worse than Fox News, an already bad source for AP2, and the single biggest reason for that increased popularity is because Fox News made the mistake (in TrumpWorld) of telling the truth. That truth is anathema to so many Trump/Fox fans that their immediate allergic reaction to facts is to jump ship for another ship with a raging ©TellUsMoreLies epidemic. (Steward checking tickets: "Have you recently been exposed to the ©TellUsMoreLies #TrumpVirus (trending on Twitter)? No? Then you'll have a hard time here. Debunking of the virus is frowned upon by most passengers on this ship. They choose to be infected, and they came here just to get away from people like you. Light is not allowed to penetrate our darkness, so don't mention 'fact-checking'.")

Newsmax is a welcoming harbor for those who have no critical thinking skills, a fundamental requirement for editors here, and yet we have editors who try to defend such a source. Think about that. We already deprecate sources that rate better than Fox News. Why defend an even worse source? -- Valjean (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Some other sources came up as I was trudging through the referenced sources in this discussion, so I figured I'd describe some things that might aid future RSN discussions:

  • For the FB disinformation paper, almost all sources described as misinformation are already redboxed on RSP. The exceptions are: Addicting Info, The Blaze, the Conservative Tribune, and RedState. I think most of these are obvious enough that they don't warrant discussion/RSP entries.
  • The Anchor Baby paper does not describe things in terms of reliability. It orients discussion almost entirely in terms of partisanship, so I don't think it's a particularly useful source for these questions.
  • The list of 'junk news sources' includes a variety of sources we consider OK-ish, as well as some sources we use fairly broadly: The Federalist (unlisted, >200 articles), National Review (yellow, ~3000 articles), Mediaite (yellow, ~800 articles), The Inquisitr (unlisted, >800), Hot Air (unlisted, ~200) and American Thinker (unlisted, ~200 articles). It also lists Rasmussen Reports, which we use in >700 pages. I believe that this is because that list is based on criteria that we do not consider, including partisanship and style. I do not think this list is entirely useful for the purpose of judging reliability, as shown by its disagreement with some of our yellow-listed RSP entries.
  • The 2015 Lies, Damn Lies, And Viral Content paper does not describe sources overall as biased/unreliable. It instead evaluates on an article-by-article basis. Articles described as containing misinformation/debunked claims are discussed for sources ranging from the WSJ to the BBC to Buzzfeed to (yes) Newsmax. Interestingly, they mention Huffpost as among the best at addressing debunked claims and being transparent about this sort of thing, indicating that that source really stepped it up between 2012 and 2015.

If this is not an appropriate place for these comments, I'd be happy to have them moved somewhere else. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The American Conservative commented on the 'list of junk sources' article (link). They didn't like it very much. Jlevi (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies would seem to apply, especially for low-reliability sites such as TAC that purvey ridiculous nonsense stories like this that start out by misrepresenting a photo and get LESS factual as they go on: [83]. But this discussion isn't about TAC, which is rated "for attributed opinions" only. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sure, I agree. I include it not for review of this source, but because the article's hilarious in the context of this discussion. Probably too FORUM-y and tangential for this context, I'll admit. Jlevi (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NewsMax: Close?

This has been open 7 days and is consistently in a single direction. Shall we call for a close? - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's snowing. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder: proposed Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I second (third? fourth?) the motion. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
To help out here is a quick count:
  1. 31 responses for Option 4 (Deprecate). I don't know that I need to go through all of these but I think these highlights are indicative, if others confirm:
  1. Schazjmd linked to Newsguard's analysis which described Newsmax as ""Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards.""
  2. Numerically, Ad Fontes Media places Newsmax's reliability rating in the same general range as other, already-Deprecated sources such as RT / Russia Today, The Epoch Times, Breitbart, Zero Hedge and the Daily Caller.
  3. Aquillion provided multiple academic papers regarding Newsmax as "as a source that has repeatedly repeated false claims from another outlet (The Washington Free Beacon, which should probably also be depreciated) without fact-checking or verification, apparently for ideological reasons, and without a retraction or follow-up when it was found to be false", "a misinformation source", and ""junk news" classification, which is defined as These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information.".
  4. Mastcell provided multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources, including The Guardian, Daily Beast and Wall Street Journal, showing that Newsmax launders propaganda and promulgates misinformation.
  5. Other responses generally tracked back to these ("Option 4: Per Acousmana, Aquillion, MatnetteD, MastCell, Hemiauchenia and others." -Magnus Dominus) or indicated incredulity that someone could see Newsmax as reliable in any way ("Option 4, deprecate. Would really hope that they aren't being used now to source anything in the Wikipedia. Newsmax has a decades-long track record of false news." - ValarianB, "Option 4 We have NEVER considered them reliable afaik, and they've gotten even worse over time." - Volunteer Marek, "Option 4, but this should hardlyt be necessary: no competent Wikipedian would use Newsmax as a source, surely?" - JzG)
  1. 6 responses for Option 3 (Generally Unreliable)
  1. Springee, whose argument against Option 4 is "the wide spread use of the deprecation process. It has gone too far and needs to be stopped."
  2. Jlevi, who wrote "Option 3 (maybe 4) Clearly a poor source. Might not be such an aggressively poor source as to require deprecation. I need to look further..." but I can't find where they came to a firm conclusion one way or the other.
Updated, JLevi writes "To conclude, there is very strong evidence for unreliability about the 2020 election in particular. It seems that most arguments fail to make statements on Newsmax's reliability prior to 2020 and the 2020 US election. I support deprecation from 2020 onward and generally unreliable prior to that."
  1. TFD, who wrote that they "see no evidence that they publish false or fabricated information beyond what reliable sources do."
  2. Adoring Nanny, who wrote "I think we over-use deprecation."
  3. ExcitedEngineer, who wrote "Whether we like it or not, unreliable people saying unreliable things in unreliable media are no longer at the fringe of political discourse", arguing that a WP:RSOPINION option should preclude deprecation.
  4. El Komodos Drago, who proposed to split the baby: "Option 3 for NewsMax website on the principle of generally opposing deprecation, Option 4 for NewsMax TV broadcasts because it seems particularly egregious, Option 2 for NewsMax magazine, nothing here seems to cover them but pushing generally unreliable on the grounds that neither of the other sources are."
  1. 0 for Option 2 (Unclear)
  2. 2 for Option 1 (Generally Reliable); only commenters for this were Blackbird1008, the original proposer, and Yurivict.
Please let me know if I got something wrong in my count or if there is disagreement to my synopsis. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Close requested at WP:RFCC - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_319&oldid=1183264147"