Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 305←Archive 310Archive 311Archive 312Archive 313Archive 314Archive 315

RfC: Xinhua News Agency

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.
Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Xinhua News Agency?

Responses (Xinhua)

  • Option 4 Xinhua has promoted the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 originated in a US Army lab in Maryland. [1][2][3]. For another fine example of Xinhua "reporting", see [4]. We should not make an exception for "non-controversial" topics or the like. For example, for the critical first few weeks, Covid-19 was not considered "controversial". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn't find anything in your sources that say Xinhua News Agency reported that COVID-19 was created in a U.S. army lab, just that the Chinese government had spread this disinformation. Some of your sources are behind a paywall, so perhaps you could provide the quote. Note that the head of the U.S. government, Donald Trump has publicly stated that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese Lab. That doesn't mean that PBS and NPR shouldn't be considered reliable. As for your other example, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim that "nearly 100 people" in Hong Kong protested in favor of the government. Since Hong Kong has a population of 7.5 million, that would be about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population. There are 42 pro-China members of the legislature, the executive council has 30 members, so we're up to 72 verified supporters of the government already. TFD (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The difference is that NPR is WP:Independent of Donald Trump. It is free to, and frequently does, say that Trump is talking nonsense. By contrast, Xinhua is not WP:Independent of the CCP. NPR-style reporting would be to say something along the lines of "The CCP is promoting the theory that Covid started at a lab in Maryland, but we found no evidence to support this." But that's not what they do. Per my The Atlantic source [5], "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really." That's how Xinhua promoted the Covid conspiracy. See the article which as of yesterday was here [6] and can (as of now, but possibly not for long) be found in Google's cache here [7] and archived here [8]. Unlike what NPR does, I can't find anything from Xinhua saying that the theory is nonsense. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
You claim above that Xinhua has promoted a specific CoVID-19 conspiracy theory. Can you provide a link to a Xinhua article where they do that? If you can't, you should strike your statement. Factual accuracy matters, especially at WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
[9] does it precisely in the manner described by [10] - "We're just asking questions, really". Adoring nanny (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). To list just a few, The Sunday Times (generally reliable) had a long report that repeatedly hints that SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the WIV: [11]. The Independent then wrote its own article based on The Sunday Times' story, including new quotes from Richard Ebright, who has been promoting the WIV leak theory non-stop for months: [12]. The Independent quotes Ebright as an expert, even though his expertise is in bacteriology (not virology) and the claims he's making about mutation rates of the virus are WP:FRINGE (for example, they're completely at odds with Boni et al. 2020). The Washington Post (generally reliable) played one of the largest roles in the promotion of the WIV leak theory, with its publication of Josh Rogin's column claiming that the US State Department had uncovered severe problems at the WIV in 2018: [13]. Though this was nominally posted under "Global Opinions," it was written in the style of a news article, and was widely referenced by other news outlets (and later by the Trump administration). For example, the BBC wrote it's own "We're just asking questions" article that speculated on the lab leak theory, based on Rogin's piece: [14]. The BBC article extensively quotes Filippa Lentzos, a promoter of the WIV leak theory. Even the venerable Columbia Journalism Review (itself often used to determine reliability of news sources) wrote an article that while criticizing some of the right-wingers commenting on Rogin's story, also posed the "What if?" question about the WIV: [15]. In other words, if "We're just asking questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" is a basis for judging a news source unreliable, get ready to deprecate The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Washington Post, the BBC and Columbia Journalism Review, and possibly many more sources. Xinhua is really a very minor offender in this department. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a CCP mouthpiece, it is probably reliable only in an WP:ABOUTSELF stylee for attributed statements about the CCP. As a source of fact, I would say no thanks. So that's option 3 with a bullet I guess, or maybe 4 but we need to clarify the wording slightly. Guy (help!) 08:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per JzG. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 We currently have around 9,500 citations to Xinhua per xinhuanet.com HTTPS links HTTP links and news.cn HTTPS links HTTP links Xinhua is the official state news agency of the Chinese Government. Like the Russian Government's TASS (RSP entry), and the Turkish Government's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry) and TRT World (RSP entry), Xinhua is usable for statements regarding the official views of the Chinese government, and non-controversial topics per WP:NEWSORG. However it is not a reliable source for stuff like the Xinjiang Camps/Uyghurs, Tibet human rights, Taiwan, or anything else where the Chinese government could be reasonably construed to have a conflict of interest. I don't see strong enough evidence (excluding the COVID-19 stuff which I don't think is definitive) that Xinhua is an outright propaganda outlet in the same way RT or Sputnik is, which I think CGTN falls a lot closer to. Any use of Xinhua should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    The problem with that is that it is not always immediately obvious that something is controversial. For example, who could be opposed to a reduction in terrorism, an increase in stability, economic prosperity, and an increase in happiness? [16] (now dead link, here is Google's cache, at least for the moment)[17][18] Adoring nanny (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
That particular piece is the attributed views of "Dr. Kaiser Abdukerim, a member of the Chinese delegation and president of Xinjiang Medical University", it states this right in the lead: "A Chinese expert from the Uygur ethnic group on Monday stressed here that without stability in his hometown of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, nothing can be achieved there." I don't think that Xinhua is making up what he is saying, and therefore can be considered reliable for his views. The statement by Dr. Kaiser that: "Today's Xinjiang enjoys social security, its people live and work in peace and contentment, its economic development is flourishing, all ethnic groups enjoy heart-to-heart solidarity, and the human rights of people of all ethnic groups are fully guaranteed" is not true, but it is his attributed opinion. Of course Xinhua is being selective in promoting this view, but this could be said for most sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UT
Per the article, "As a professional in medical education, he said he was especially impressed by such figures that from 1949 to 2017, the population mortality rate in Xinjiang decreased from 20.82 to 4.26 per thousand . . ." So the article is approvingly quoting him being impressed by mortality "figures" of 4.26 deaths per thousand people per year. Sure sounds like an alternate universe. One wonders what the mortality rate is in the camps.[19] Same story for the "happiness index" he approves of, whatever that may be referring to. Are the camp inmates happy? Lastly, the article describes him as an "expert." That part is the article's statement, not his. Is "expert" really an appropriate way to define him? Does his expertise include the camps? Does it include the ability to distinguish real data from fake data? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
4.26 is less than half of the UK's mortality at 9.3, but this is probably related to Britains proportionally older population. I can't find any other evidence of Kaiser's existence outside the UN speech other than a single paper where his is last author. Compare Xinhua with this story in CGTN and you can see that the CGTN story comes much closer to outright propaganda. I definitely think there is a case for deprecating CGTN, but not really for Xinhua at the moment. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#CGTN_(China_Global_Television_Network) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't mind seeing China Central Television/China_Global_Television_Network added to the Perennial sources list. Not sure if new RFCs are needed for those? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2: As as I mentioned in previous discussions, Xinhua often has decent reporting in English for quite a few non-controversial topics. For example, I used it heavily on some tables to provide accurate dates for Xi Jinping presidential trips. For international reporting, it has published many reports about COVID-19 in underreported areas in Africa. These reports could be verified in non-English sources (French, Arab), but hard to find in other secondary English sources. Now, there's a few topics where it would be no-go except for quoting Government officials, specially US-China disputes and other political controversies involving China. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Option four makes a statement which is demonstrably true but I am opposed to outright bans on any source. CCP propaganda can be judged on a case-by-case basis, recognizing what it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 US government sources peddled the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but that theory didn't stand up, did it? All government-controlled organs are partisan by definition and this naturally matters in controversial cases such as wartime. Xinhua should be treated like other government sources of information and attributed so the reader can decide for themselves whether to trust them. Holding a straw poll here to decide the matter is ridiculous because Wikipedia and its editors are definitely not reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Straw polls on RSN are the standard way feedback on each particular source is collected. Honestly I haven't thought of a better system than that, though one could post information on polls and surveys indicating trustworthiness of sources in certain countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: In both Chinese and English, Xinhua generally report factual information with carefully chosen terms that favor the PRC government. It also often publishes articles for major government propaganda points. Xinhua should only be used for certain restricted cases.
    It's important to note that the heavy journalistic spin doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting. An appraisal from a 2010 Newsweek article (pre-2013 Newsweek is considered generally reliable on WP:RSP): It helps, of course, that Xinhua's spin diminishes when the news doesn't involve China. [...] And even if the agency fails to improve its image, naked bias is not a handicap the way it was for TASS, the Soviet Union's 100-bureau news agency during the Cold War.
    That said, I still would not use Xinhua as the sole source for most claims given that their editorial oversight is severely compromised by being an arm of the PRC Central Government, which does not hesitate to actively censor information. It's really only useful as a source for the view of the Chinese government, or for obscure details of uncontroversial events (e.g. the dates and lineup of a concert). — MarkH21talk 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Updating vote: after seeing Newslinger's response and seeing that Xinhua has a news exchange agreement with AFP, I'm also okay with a very restricted option 2 that relegates its use to covering the Chinese government point of view and uncontroversial events. — MarkH21talk 04:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, any source that published conspiracy theories related to COVID should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Neither The Telegraph or The Atlantic stories specifically mention Xinhua in reference to COVID 19 conspiracy theories. The NYTimes story refers to this tweet which contains a bizarre video mocking Pompeo using automatically generated speech and weird animated figures, see what you make of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 3. It is similar to RT (TV network) that was depreciated. We need to be consistent. It does not matter that much if it is controlled by a government, although to be controlled (rather than simply be funded) is a red flag. It is known for promoting disinformation, which is opposite to be known "for fact checking and accuracy". My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    RT and Xinhua are superficially similar as state-run news outlets by Russia and China. However, they have different histories and different sets of appraisals by RSes. The history of RSes calling out RT for disinformation and other journalistic malpractice is significantly more extensive than Xinhua.
    The two outlets have no formal relation, so Xinhua needs to be looked at independently from RT. — MarkH21talk 00:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    They do have a lot of similarities, as sources say. For example, according to US senators [20], "Similar to Russia’s state-controlled RT and Sputnik news services, the People’s Republic of China controls several media organizations that disseminate news and propaganda domestically and internationally." So, they are placed together. Also, they both appear in the controversies about the "foreign agents" in the USA. Now, according to the letter above, Xinhua is not just a propaganda organization (like RT). “Xinhua serves some functions of an intelligence agency by gathering information and producing classified reports for the Chinese leadership…”. See als o here. Yes, that appear to be a difference. In Russia such reports for "the leadership" are compiled by the GRU and SVR (Russia), not by RT. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, and none of these similarities have to do with the reliability of factual reporting published by Xinhua. That can be assessed on its own merit by what RSes say about the accuracy of Xinhua's reporting. — MarkH21talk 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think this analogy is precise. Xinhua is China's largest state-owned news agency and is targeted to audiences both within and outside China, which makes it the equivalent of Russia's TASS (RSP entry), currently considered a situational source. The Chinese equivalent to RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry) is China Global Television Network (CGTN), a television network that was modeled after RT and is targeted exclusively to non-Chinese audiences. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree: the analogy with TASS would be more appropriate. It indeed served as a front organization for the KGB, although even TASS did not prepare the intelligence reports for the Soviet leadership. But it does not add any reliability as a source for controversial content. Using TASS or Xinhua for official statements by the government? Even that would be pretty much just a "primary source". One should use other, secondary RS which would place such government statements to proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 It's a reliable source for the views of the Chinese government, but there are better sources for that. Presumably a secondary source will discuss important Chinese political views without us having to determine what is and is not propaganda. The misinformation is disqualifying similar to RT, and anything factual those sources say will be corroborated by a news organization with a better track record. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I'm against banning major news outlets on principle.ImTheIP (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, even if they technically meet the definition of option 4 and are eligible for deprecation I would oppose deprecation on the grounds that it would leave us with few direct sources for Chinese government opinion. They are the world’s second most powerful country after all, even if they engage in world leading levels of disinformation and generalized information operations. That being said the disinformation published by Xinhua in relation to the coronavirus pandemic has been shocking even by the standards of Chinese information operations and information warfare, the argument for full depreciation is a solid one I just oppose it for the reason stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice) by process of elimination. Xinhua News Agency is the official state-owned news agency in China, and its content is guaranteed to be consistent with the Chinese government's position. If used (whether under WP:ABOUTSELF or on its own merits), content from Xinhua should be attributed in-text. Xinhua is not generally reliable (option 1), because it is a biased or opinionated source that is not editorially independent from the CCP. Among all mainland Chinese state-owned sources, Xinhua is the highest-quality source, which is enough to make me oppose deprecation (option 4). There are other Chinese sources for which deprecation is warranted (e.g. the Global Times), but if I were only able to use one mainland Chinese source to provide coverage of China across Wikipedia, it would be Xinhua. It's the gold standard. Compare to Russia's TASS (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    An alternative approach would be to treat Xinhua similarly to Turkey's Anadolu Agency (RSP entry), a state-run news agency that is considered a situational source (option 2) for general topics and a generally unreliable source (option 3) for controversial topics and international politics. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 per Wugapodes. If you need to quote the Chinese government's statement, there are better, third-party independent sources for that. OceanHok (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3 WP:ABOUTSELF for the PRC. Xinhua is useful for uncontroversial details like who's the Party Secretary of randomProvince, what jobs did they held beforehand and when they were elected to the Central Committee. Some people may see that stuff as trivial, but due to the way the PRC/CCP Nomenklatura functions I think that it provides notable information. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 in general, except where WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 - This is the official news agency of the most populous country on earth, and should be treated as major news organizations in the west that are closely aligned with their respective governments. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Newslinger. Regarding the argument that state media outlets transmit conspiracy theories through insinuations, anyone trying to cite a claim in an article to something as weak as an insinuation should rightly be reverted, regardless of the publication. As long as the disinformation doesn't rise above the level of insinuation (and as long as the publication publishes something other than insinuations), I don't think that we as editors have much to worry about. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: there is quite a lot of opinion here but few examples. Those examples that have been given don’t show unreliable reporting. Regarding the quote "State media outlets rarely transmit conspiracies in the form of bold, direct claims. They usually do it through a combination of insinuations: We’re just asking questions, really.": this describes some of the COVID reporting published by western media outlets that have been trying to assign blame to China. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 1) The AFP cooperation agreement, in force since 1957, speaks volumes. 2) And there is no basis whatsoever to have an assessment vastly different in spirit (e.g. "generally unreliable" or deprecation). 3) Per Rosguill and Burrobert, insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, anyone who suggests otherwise should be regarded as in violation of WP:CIR; to add to Andrew Davidson's point, major U.S. newspapers (WaPo, NYT, USA Today, WSJ) played as propagandists to promote the false notion that Gaddafi was perpetrating large-scale state violence on yet another largely nonviolent "Arab Spring" revolution; as an example, the WaPo has no story on HC 119, which confirmed that the US/UK/France had made a false case to the UNSC for NATO intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    CaradhrasAiguo, I don't know that I'd say that insinuations aren't promotions of conspiracy theories, they just aren't the kind of promotion that affects our ability to use the source here because we shouldn't be basing claims on insinuations in any context. signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 depending on the topic. For non-politically-controversial subjects (e.g. China opened _______ new train/subway line/road/some other building), it would be a reliable source. However, for some more controversial issues, it is reliable only for getting the Chinese government's view on the subject, as it is the official view of the Chinese government (e.g. The official Chinese government view on ______ subject, according to Xinhua, is "blah blah blah"). Félix An (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2, just like for any other news agency. But this discussion is far too theoretical for my liking. Are we discussing something specific here? Is there a specific factual inaccuracy that we're evaluating? I haven't seen any examples in this thread of actual problems in Xinhua's reporting. I therefore propose that this thread be closed with no result. If someone has a question about a specific Xinhua article, they can bring it here to get input. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, an unreliable source as is typical for a state run outlet from a one party state which is consistently at or near the basement of press freedom rankings. Analogous cases include PressTV (which was deemed unreliable) and Telesur (which was deprecated) so I don't see why this source should be granted an exception. To grant an exception to Xinhua for the simple fact that it's a non-"Western" or non-European/Anglospheric source isn't going to cut the mustard. If an exception has to be made with regards to the difference between its political vs non political reporting, then we can split the Xinhua source accordingly (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics. While there is some agreement that Xinhua is usable for general topics, there is near universal consensus that it is problematic as a source for politics, and the final decision needs to reflect that reality. @Newslinger: and @My very best wishes: The two of you are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I would say (in my lay and non-expert capacity) that the comparison with TASS and I would even go so far as to say RUssia Today is misleading because: 1) Russia is a constitutional democracy and 2) the press freedom situation/ranking in Russia is significantly better than that in the People's Republic of China. At this point I would strongly recommend closing this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting given my comments and the tally of the votes above (11 votes for option 3/4 vs 6 votes for option 1 vs 5 votes for option 2 - I've disregarded option 2/3 votes to prevent bias.) Festerhauer (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    Press TV (RSP entry) is a television network solely targeted to non-Iranians, which makes it the Iranian analogue of RT and China Global Television Network, but not TASS or Xinhua, which are news agencies that serve both domestic and international audiences. Telesur (RSP entry) is a single television network with plenty of competitors, whereas Xinhua (as a news agency) is the closest thing China has to an Associated Press or Reuters, complete with a news exchange agreement with Agence France-Presse as others have mentioned. Yes, China scores lowly on the Press Freedom Index, but there is more to a source's reliability than the country that it is based in, and even in countries with low press freedom, some sources are more reliable than others. Finally (and this applies to both comments above), RfC discussions are not solely assessed through vote-counting, and early closures are not performed unless there is overwhelming support for a single option and close to no support for the other options – which is not the case here. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Declaring that Xinhua can't be used for "political" topics would be the worst outcome, as it would substantiate editor fears that this discussion is being used to censor Chinese political viewpoints. Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, In some non-political news, this is still relatively reliable. But for news involving politics or controversy, just because it is the official release channel of the Communist Party of China, this means that it will be accompanied by its political needs to meet its interests. This may deviate from the objective facts.——Cwek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, mostly per Cwek. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 01:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Xinhua is not just state owned, it is an integral part of the Chinese Communist Party. All information coming from Xinhua should be indicated in the text, not footnotes, of articles. It is a task for someone who actually knows something about China to figure out what is true and false, slanted or straight in a Xinhua article. It is not 4, which I would reserve for unprofessional, low grade conspiracist drivel. It is a professional propaganda unit of the world's largest Communist Party. It has many professional journalists, but its goals are set by the party, its writing is supervised and monitored by the party. Writing which is in any way inconsistent with party policy appears there only by accident, and will be punished. Accuracy is NOT its primary concern, except insofar as it serves the party's purposes. It can and often should be cited in China-related articles, but with clear indication of where the information came from. It should never be used for general information outside China! Why should it be when there are so many accurate and timely sources of information that are not part of the CCP? As for general information inside China, always check whether there are non-Xinhua sources available first. It should never be a default choice and special care in attribution should always be used. Rgr09 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2, most of their news reports are reliable. Their political comments may be controversial in neutrality. --Steven Sun (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: So just to be clear. Are you saying we should split the evaluation of this source into its reporting on political vs non-political issues (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics? Because it seems like that's what you are saying. I am asking because of how similar your position is to mine, which is to close this thread with the result of at least a designation of general unreliability for Xinhua's political reporting Festerhauer (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    I wouldn't split the discussion as we don't have an agreed-upon boundary yet. We do want to think carefully about how we delineate the topics for which Xinhua is considered unreliable, as POV pushers (in either direction) will wikilawyer every single word of the RSP entry to get it to say what they want it to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, a good source.--RuiyuShen 03:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1I think Xinhua News Agency is reliable. If you say it is non-neutral, then Fox News, CNN, Voice of America and other media also have non-neutral phenomena. For example, Fox News exaggerates Mr. Trump’s political achievements and CNN has fake news. Voice of America is not neutral in some matters, and my English is not very good, so use Google Translate, please understand!Jerry (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — 城市酸儒文人挖坑 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Option 1-2: Most of the time, Xinhua Net is a good source for Chinese news, even it is the best one in all nationwide news agency of China.--Xiliuheshui · chat 04:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, as I know it is serious and accurate when reporting the facts, and more neutral than RFI, VOA (especially when reporting China). Compared with NYT, BBC, it has less doubts, assumptions and implies which is trying to lead to conspiracys in its reports. Maybe you dont agree with its ideas for it has a Chinese offcial background, but it doesnt mean it is unaccurate when reporting the facts. --“ ROYAL PATROL ” ☎ 911 04:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 when the reports are not about China's politics. KONNO Yumeto 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and 2 - Xinhua is a reliable source with special considerations. This is pretty clear cut to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time citing their articles: they are more reliable than many national and international news providers, except on certain topics where there is an incentive to propagandize — and likewise for SCMP. Prohibiting either of these two would have completely unnecessary and wide-reaching consequences across the project, and I would strongly oppose a blanket restriction even on politics because there are dry, non-controversial political stories where they are literally the most reliable source tangible.   — C M B J   04:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 - A lot of political decision/policy from China Mainland government and China Mainland NPC are published via Xinhua News Agency as official policy release channel, thus needed to be Option 1. For non-politically news, Xinhua News Agency is fairly reliable. For political decision articles that is not marked as "Official Release", they can be in the scope of option 2. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for controversial topics and international politics and Option 2 (situational source) for general topics. Per Newslinger ([21]) Flickotown (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3, mostly per Newslinger. It is a state propaganda source, so must be used with caution and attribution except the most basic information, such as the dates of Xi's trips (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Xinhua is owned by the government of P.R. China and hence they are, or could be, biased when reporting around topics like China's international policy and so on. When reporting most of China's internal news, they are still pretty reliable. Itcfangye (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) — Itcfangye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Option 2/3, it is a state propaganda source which should be used with great care.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Xinhua News Agency can be regarded as a relatively reliable media in China, and it is actually relatively neutral except for political reports. --⌬Yxh1433 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Options 2-4 depending on subject. Like RT is a state propaganda mouthpiece. For boring insider baseball it is probably fine. The more the CCP dislikes something or needs spin, the less likely it is to be reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3-4 depending on topic. I came here wanting to argue 2/3 but was convinced by the arguments that (a) RT is in category 4 and (b) actually I have never written about any topic for which Xinhua was a reliable source I depended on - for topics about Mainland Chinese culture and events there are more specialist sources; for anything vaguely political they're firmly in category 3+. Deryck C. 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3. As an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, use should be attributed by default, which is how their reporting is generally handled in reliable sources I've seen. Reporters Without Borders calls it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" and "at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party".[1] Some straight news and the fact that independent original reporting from China is hard or impossible to come by for certain topics doesn't make it reliable. I think this is most important when considering due weight – if other sources don't cover something they've said, we shouldn't either, and if they do, we should be able to cite those sources instead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for most cases, while Option 4 for global news/politics of regional/global concern . It should be generally reliable in local (China) news, but when it comes to global or regional news, like that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even that in Xinjiang, it becomes a propaganda service rather than a global news service. I can't agree with what most Chinese editors think of putting it a direct option 1 because it is the official mouthpiece of China. Being a mouthpiece means some reliable sources for news related to the location, but at the same time, can raise doubt of neutrality and factuality if the thing that they report is of global concern that doesn't align with the country's values.--1233 ( T / C） 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is state-run media, how about Yonhap, Tanjug, Anadolu Agency? If you choose Option 3 or 4 because of Xinhua is communist country media, how about VNA, KPL, Prensa Latina? As for Covid-19's source, Xinhua is just quoting rumors on social medias, just like some media (including US-based) said Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology. I think Xinhua is generally reliable as a news broadcaster, though its political words and opinions are left-wing. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe of all the sources you just named Yonhap is the only one we hold to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
So what about Antara, MTI, CNA, they are all generally unreliable as state-run media? 隐世高人 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Antara is complicated and has changed massively over the last three decades. I’ve discussed MTI before and its a middling source but their issues seem to be with selective coverage and boosting of the governing political party there not disinformation. By CNA do you mean Taiwan’s or North Korea’s? I wouldn’t consider either to be of top quality but Taiwan’s CNA would be a solid 2. State media as a category is not inherently reliable or unreliable, its a very diverse group of sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh jeez pete Singapore’s is CNA too isn't it? I would say they’re also a two, they generally produce higher quality journalism than Taiwan’s CNA but Singapore’s press environment and freedoms are inferior to Taiwan’s. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
When you ignoring Xinhua's left-wing words and opinions which makes it nonneutrality, Xinhua would be generally reliable. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - we should exercise caution regarding all news sources, particularly state-owned sources when it's political, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSBREAKING while keeping in mind that the paradigm shift from print publication to digital online has made once trusted news sources dependent on clickbait revenue and sensational headlines in a highly competitive cyber environment. Also to consider are the nuanced changes in journalism today which is an opaque blending of opinion journalism and factual information in the same article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Op-Ed for links) which creates media spin and makes it difficult for the average reader to distinguish between the two. Atsme Talk 📧 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Pretty obvious. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Option 2' It depends on thetopic. For topics of current controversy where the Chinese government had a particular contested opinion, then Option 3. For routine news,Option 1. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 mostly per Hemiauchenia. It is a government news outlet, and in China there is no practical difference between the party and the state. However, Xinhua's articles skew straight reportage rather than publications outright designed to be party propaganda like People's Daily or Global Times. I would trust Xinhua for e.g. statistics of airports in China. feminist (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I find Hemiauchenia's opinion reasonable. wikitigresito (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 - Per Newslinger, because it makes sense to still have a Chinese source for inside China stories. TheKaloo (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Xinhua's reporting in many underdeveloped news markets is sometimes the only source available online, owing to their global footprint. I don't see any case made for why all of Xinhua's reporting should be presumed bad. [MBFC also rates it mixed. --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI Ad Fontes Media and their media bias fact check are not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ad Fontes Media. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) and Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry) are separate entitites fyi, though they are often mentioned together. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
You’re right, I’m confusing AFM’s Media Bias Chart with Media Bias Fact Check (shame on me but those are awfully similar). I don’t believe that either is reliable though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Object to form of RfC - based on the lack of a succinct question. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    The RfC statement meets WP:RFCBRIEF and this RfC format has been recommended since Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6 § RfC: Header text. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 - I am fimiliar with their work, especially in the field of foreign policy when I was researching the Syrian Civil War. Their publications on the topic tended to be accurate, well-informed and corroborated by other news outlets. Furthermore, as another editor noted, they have a cooperation agreement with AFP, which is considered a very trustworthy reputable news agency. Xinhua is state-run media, which could mean editorial viewpoints in line with those of their respective government, but most of their work lacks any serious issues. As long as their reports continue to be accurate, I do not believe that their state-run status ought to be cause enough for a deprecation. For these reasons, I opine that they ought to remain an acceptible source, though may require attribution in cases in which their status as a state-run outlet could be problematic. Goodposts (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-3: Xinhua News Agency is a big news agency, and its reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. Xinhua inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think Xinhua should be split into multiple entries in the Perennial sources list when it gets added there:
Option 1 for all African and Central/South American and uncontroversial Chinese topics per MarioGom and King of Hearts. The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (and to a lesser extent Central/South America); in these regions, Xinhua has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. Specifically, I should note that English-language reporting in Africa is relatively scarce and Xinhua does help to somewhat plug this void of African-based reporting. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, there will definitely be a pro-China bias, but I don't know if this bias affects their reliability for such cases so Option 2).
Option 2 for all other general topics per Newslinger and Hemiauchenia not covered above or below. From here on citing Xinhua should preferably (but not mandatory) be used together with in-text attribution. Topics that fall into this category include some European topics (i.e Eastern Europe), Oceania topics, South-east Asian topics (except South China Sea), South Asian topics (except the China-India border), the Middle East, etc. For such topics, Xinhua is generally useable, but if other sources are available, cite those sources in addition to the Xinhua article being cited.
Option 3 for all topics where China is involved / has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and some European topics (i.e Western Europe), the politics of East Asia, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. For such topics, Xinhua can be used for the viewpoints of the Chinese government; outside of that, other sources should be used instead. Citing Xinhua for these topics should use in-text attribution.
Per Newslinger, I don't think Xinhua should be deprecated given that it is the "gold standard" of Chinese reporting. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You might want to clarify what you mean by "where China is involved". As I explained in my !vote above, I consider Xinhua most reliable for Chinese inside baseball and routine reporting of uncontroversial events that don't rise to international prominence (where Chinese sources are often the only ones available). And since China is one of the biggest investors in Africa, I'm sure the CCP has certain politicians it favors, so I'm not sure it is that great for covering African politics. If Xinhua reports on any international news that isn't covered in other media, that's very suspicious. So for me Xinhua is primarily a source for Chinese domestic matters which are not highly political in nature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: With regards to uncontroversial events inside China, I agree with you, so I've amended my !vote accordingly. Xinhua is a good source for non-political matters within China and should be treated as generally reliable for such topics. As for African politics, examples like | this, | this and | this show that Xinhua is relatively unbiased so long as the Chinese government does not have a conflict of interest. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I guess for any international news reported by Xinhua it's always going to be on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. As Thucydides411 noted: If "We're just asking questions" articles are going to be used to deprecate sources, I have bad news, because plenty of "generally reliable" Western news sources have engaged in this exact same sort of wild speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). I also agree with Darouet re Politics is precisely what I would go to Xinhua for: in order to understand the political perspective of China on a given issue. A biased implementation of policy that ranks Western-aligned media that walk in foreign-policy lockstep as somehow more 'independent' and 'reliable' than non-Western-aligned media does our readers a disservice. Humanengr (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1' Option 2. No evidence has been presented of poor journalism, just criticism of the state. It has been demonstrated that there are some issues around Xinhua reporting about China. I think if we are using them as a source on say Tibet, Xinjiang or the South China sea we should look to other sources. That being said it is generally reliable, at leat as much so as a rubbish western outlet like Fox News. If being in step with the CCP makes them unreliable then surely all of Murdoch's papers are unreliable, he once ordered his editors to "Kill Whitlam" our democratically elected Prime Minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis which lead to the un-elected opposition taking power. We still consider his rags reliable, and many of them are despite their notoriously partisan owner. Do we have evidence of Xinhua publishing falsehoods? I've seen none. This debate is mostly just pro-china vs anti-china opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Many of Muroch's papers are also considered unreliable by our standards. I feel the issue here is less one of verifiable outright lies and more of what to do when Xinhua is the only source we have on a topic, as is frequently the case given the heavy restrictions on press freedom in China. In those cases, reliable sources I've seen make clear in the body of the text where the information came from (for both plain and dubious claims), and we should as well. That said, they also publish lies and deliberately misleading information, such as that "There are no so-called "re-education bases" in Xinjiang." or that "There are no so-called "wildlife wet markets" in China." even though the market where COVID-19 originated sold wildlife at the time. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your Australia Yahoo link contained no references to wildlife wet markets. If you cannot provide a link that does, you ought to redact the entirety of your comment, lest be considered in violation of WP:SOAP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
User:ReconditeRodent Thanks for your considered response, as always. You've convinced me there are issues with this outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 I'm no fan of the CCP by any means, and I find quite a few false equivalences between this and various Western media among the Option 1-ers, but per KofH and Horse Eye Jack I find that this is an at least tolerable Chinese source (esp. compared with stuff like China Daily) so outright deprecation would give us a systemic bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2. When the reports aren't about politics, it's reliable, as China's national news agency. When talking about politics, you should check their reliability separately, not deprecate. --Rowingbohe♬(Talk/zhwiki) 02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 per Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is definitely not reliable for any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim made or any claims where the Chinese government is known to lie (COVID-19, Uyghurs, Hong Kong etc). But it can be a valuable source for non-controversial news in China as well as the views of the Chinese government. Like it or not, that government runs the largest country on earth.VR talk 05:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I explain my rationale in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Rgr09 and Hemiauchenia. Xinhua is part of the propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Community Party/Chinese government, which does not value press freedom. Per it's article, Xinhua head is a member of the party central commitee. They will prioritize supporting the party/government's political views over truthful reporting (which has been clear to me since I came upon a clearly propagandistic article of theirs about Tibet in Google News results about 15 years ago). They should not be used as a source on any topics that are subject to those political views or are otherwise considered "sensitive" by the party/government. Those topics include, but are not limited to: Xinjiang, Uygurs, Tibet, Tibetans, the Dalai Lama, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Democracy Activists, Protests, Human Rights, COVID-19, any organization or person critical of the party/government, party/government accomplishments, actions of "rival" nations, views of the Chinese people in general on any political topic, Chinese terrtorial disputes, etc. I agree with King of Hearts that there are certain noncontroversial areas where its reporting can reliable, but the number of caveats that have to be placed on it are so great that I think it needs considered generally unreliable, and when it's used a good argument for the reiablity of a prticular article needs to be made on a case by case basis. In most cases, a better source can be found and should be used instead. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Xinhua News Agency reports on the facts. There's very little editorializing in its articles, and when there are opinions, it's just quoting government figures, (which are especially relevant, being it's news from China). Deprecating Xinhua would take away a prominant source for news in China. I also agree with some of the other comments, in that a lot of the criticism seems to come from its ownership rather than its reporting. I ask, should we deprecate Deutsche Welle because it's owned by the German government and receives all of its funding from the state? Conflict of interest with DW reporting on German affairs, politics? To me, there just isn't enough evidence that Xinhua should be deprecated based on these facts. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    At least Option 2-3. Germany is a full democracy with laws ensuring journalistic freedom, the PRC is a one-party state with laws restricting it. Their state-funded (and even public) journalism systems are nothing alike. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
We are here to discuss the reliblity of the source. Is there any specific issue regarding factual reporting. Not liking the Chinese government is not a reason to question an oulets reliablity. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I simply stated that you can not possibly compare Deutsche Welle to Xinhua News Agency, because such a comparison is meaningless. In an authoritarian state like the PRC, you can never fully disentangle journalism from the political system in which it exists. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Shellwood Any reason? Remember, this isn't a democratic vote, you are supposed to provide a reason for your vote. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Yeah, nope, no reason given for Xinhua just a simple "democratic" vote. It is annoying when people disagree. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries, it's not annoying. Just thought you might have a reason as to why you think the source is generally unreliable or should be depreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3. Page 2 of this study says: "Although the credibility of Xinhua is often undermined by its perceived role as a propaganda platform for the Chinese government, the newswire can and does provide foreign journalists with key insights regarding China not available through western sources." The source, like most others, should be evaluated with a case-by-case basis, as in not reliable for political or overly contentious topics, but possibly acceptable outside of that. For instance, what about journalists who have worked for both Xinhua as well as acceptable news outlets (like these people to name a few)? We should deprecate/censor all their articles as well, regardless of their quality or relevance to a Wikipedia page? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Judgments about reliability should be made on a case-by-case basis. In line with WP:GLOBAL we shouldn't be over-generalizing about reliability or unreliability of Chinese media based on Western perspectives. For example, the term pro-democracy movement for Hong Kong opposition to PRC control is the standard term in the Western media, but it's really a political spin term that ignores the complexities of the situation (and the fact that many thoughtful and intelligent Chinese people disagree with that movement). NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I think Xinhua is a good source for the Chinese space program and the Chinese government's new policies. E.g. [22] or [23] (and similar news reports) might be important in some articles, which need exact citations of the Chinese government, data of the space program, or Chinese foreign policies on tariffs and such. The source has some opinionated contents when it comes to subjects that bear political interest to the Chinese government, but Wikipedia has also allowed some other opinionated media to be used with caution. I think it would be fair to do the same, as not to take any political position. I think there should be a bigger discussion on what to do with the various government news outlets. Whitehouse.gov also publishes fake information these days and it is also partially propaganda, should it be also banned? Senate.gov also has some opinionated contents. Why should the Chinese government's news be treated any different than the American government? Mur (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Xinhua)

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

I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua. The other government sources are worse and the “independent” sources don’t exist for our purposes as they only re-write and republish content from the government sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Every news source should be evaluated on its own merits. Blanket banning of sources from entire countries is a very bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Its not a blanket ban if theres an exception. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll just add that your proposal would mean banning Caixin, which as far as I can tell, does excellent reporting. During the outbreak in Wuhan, for example, it published articles that revealed a lot of previously unknown information about the initial phases of the outbreak and the initial government response. These articles were fairly critical of the government. This is just to illustrate that a blanket ban on an entire country's news sources is misguided. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Legal investigative reporting does not exist in China in a way which would be recognized in the west, what does occur is illegal. Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider. See media in China for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I think to add to Horse Eye's statement is I believe exposing stuff on local governments is allowed by the CCP in China but not on the CCP leadership and nor the central government. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thats very true, within China the media plays an important role in exposing and/or scapegoating local and regional officials for major problems/corruption to deflect from or obfuscate the failings of higher officials or the CCP. Its much more a kangaroo court of public opinion than what we would recognize as genuine muckraking though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan, contrary to your blanket statement. More generally, their articles appear to be mostly original content - not reprinted from government media. We should evaluate every news source on its own merits. Deprecating every news source from China, without looking at them one-by-one, would be wrong-headed. You appear to have some very strong preconceptions about Chinese news sources, but the statements you're making about Caixin are just factually incorrect. Political dislike of China by some editors should not trump WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: If Caixin's reporting was focused on the wrongdoing of the Wuhan municipal government I could see the CCP let them do that, but one would not expect Caixin to do "independent investigative reporting" on the CCP highest leadership. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
"Caixin did independent investigative reporting about the outbreak in Wuhan” source? That would mean they broke Chinese law btw, there is no dispute here that independent journalism as we would recognize it in the free world is illegal in China. China is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to press freedom, they make the Russians look good in comparison. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Caixin does good investigative reporting, as proven by their coverage on Wuhan ([24]), but because you assert that their reporting is actually illegal in China, you want to ban their use on Wikipedia. Where's the logic in that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I missed the part about investigative reporting, is there a specific quote you have in mind? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the Caixin article I linked? It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known, before the article was published (29 February 2020). Caixin learned this information by talking to people directly on the ground - for example, at labs that had tested samples. This is the sort of high-quality reporting that you're saying should be barred from use on Wikipedia, simply because it comes from China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I did read the article, however if I want to read it again I must subscribe. Thats why I’m asking for specific quotes. I also noticed you havent responded to the much meatier comment below. Are all those WP:RS lying? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: The whole article is here at archive.is. I'll see if I can get one on Megalodon. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I’m not seeing a level of information here that would allow us to discern whether or not "It's packed full of information about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan that had not been previously known.” We need a third party to deliver that analysis. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Every statement in the article that begins with something along the lines of, "Caixin has learned that ..." is based on Caixin's original reporting. There are many such statements throughout the article. For example, almost all the details about how the first patients were discovered to have a novel coronavirus was uncovered by Caixin, by talking with its sources (including people at the testing labs). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
How do you know that? I also wonder how you can argue that their board is independent given their Chairman’s affiliation, you do know who he answers to right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Caixin's founder and president is a she not a 'he'. And foreign praise of its investigative reporting is not hard to find. These are only two of the multiple examples out there. And like how Xinhua has a partnership with AFP, Caixin is also partnered with the Wall Street Journal Financial Review, BBC, and other accepted outlets. Just a glance at some of the journalists shows a good number of their articles have also been featured in several highly-accepted foreign new sites after all. The NYTimes/Georgia State U piece I linked also suggested at least several other Chinese news organisations to be worthy enough not to warrant a blanket ban. To call for their deprecation (not to mention just Caixin's, one of the most respected out there) based on your opinions without specific evidence against them is at best, well, highly prejudiced. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There is almost no media freedom or editorial independence in China, per the BBC "Most Chinese news sites are prohibited from gathering or reporting on political or social issues themselves, and are instead meant to rely on reports published by official media, such as state news agency Xinhua.”[2] and media outlets are shut down for doing independent reporting.[2][3][4][5][6] Most indipendent media outlets have been forced to shut their doors and the few that remain publish under heavy state supervision and control.[7][8][9][10] Xi Jinping has stated that Chinese state media are “publicity fronts” for the CCP/government and that “All news media run by the Party must work to speak for the Party’s will and its propositions and protect the Party’s authority and unity,” (Xinhua translation)[11] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger: how we have not deprecated Global Times is beyond me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: Then start a vote for it. No sarc when I say this, but it should be a guaranteed deprecation given the reputation of that publication/Communist Party rag Festerhauer (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The last time it was up for discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times I made my views clear, it wasn’t a RfC so a formal deprecation wasn’t on the table. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: Err...so do you want to start an RFC on it or do you want me to? It's better if you did as I'm not familiar with the procedures of rsn. And while we are at it maybe open an RFC on CGTN as well? I mean we might as well given what we have discussed here...Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t believe in starting RfCs from whole cloth, I prefer it to be a specific incident which is escalated here. We don’t want to clutter the space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, Festerhauer See Global Times RfC below. It is used in more than a thousand articles, so better deprecate sooner rather than later, imo. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
buidhe we might as well do CGTN too as its between Xinhua and Global Times in reliability, that would be our direct analogue to RT. They also publish straight up disinformation like this gem: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest you do as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.” [25] TBH this one video is probably grounds for deprecation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, most of the votes in the TASS discussion were for option 3, yet it wasn't found to be generally unreliable. I think DannyS712 did an excellent job closing that discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

We are only two days into this RfC, and RfCs on this noticeboard are open until there are no new comments in five days, with a minimum duration of seven days. An uninvolved closer will assess the consensus here. It is premature to make such an assessment when the discussion is still highly active. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Well I would have to respectfully disagree with what you've said. Based on what's written above I just don't see my assessment as being premature. There is near universal consensus that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics and that needs to be reflected in the final consensus; you don't need to look any further than all the comments that have been made after our above exchange (Cwek, Eric Liu, Rgr09 and Steven Sun). Their voting options may be different but they all agree on one thing: that Xinhua is problematic as a source for politics. You are right when you say that the discussion is highly active but tahat doesn't mean we can't draw stable conclusions in the interim. And you are also right when you say that we ourselves will not be determining the consensus, but of course our contributions are still important as they help determine the consensus. Could you comment on my point above to split Xinhua's source between its political vs non political reporting (as is the case for Sixth Tone on the RSP directory and as was the case for RT) and designate Xinhua as usable for non-political/general topics and unusable for political topics accordingly? Festerhauer (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the Sixth Tone (RSP entry) split would also be appropriate for Xinhua, and I had made a note under my original comment in the survey section referencing Turkey's Anadolu Agency (which is treated similarly) after you submitted your previous comment. Yes, many editors who have already participated in the discussion agree that Xinhua is less reliable for politics, but there are still at least five more days in this centralized RfC, and the consensus could very well shift in either direction. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

@Thucydides411: With reference to our article Xinhua News Agency, it was easy to find:
  • Dodds, Laurence (2020-04-05). "China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda ads blaming Trump". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on April 6, 2020. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  • Zhong, Raymond; Krolik, Aaron; Mozur, Paul; Bergman, Ronen; Wong, Edward (2020-06-08). "Behind China's Twitter Campaign, a Murky Supporting Chorus". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
  • Kan, Michael (August 19, 2019). "Twitter Bans State-Sponsored Media Ads Over Hong Kong Propaganda". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
  • Doffman, Zak (August 19, 2019). "China Pays Twitter To Promote Propaganda Attacks On Hong Kong Protesters". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
  • Lakshmanan, Ravie (2019-08-19). "China is paying Twitter to publish propaganda against Hong Kong protesters". The Next Web. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
Doubtless older resources could be found for less topical matters. GPinkerton (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You posted a bunch of links about China. Do you have anything about Xinhua? I'm asking for actual examples that demonstrate Xinhua's supposed unreliability, not a litany of complaints about the PRC in general. If there are real concerns behind this attempt to deprecate Xinhua, other than general dislike of China, then there should be some specific examples you can give in which Xinhua's reporting is unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: All the articles I listed detail Xinhua, the agency which has been spreading and amplifying misinformation it wrote for the purpose at the behest of its superiors. The headlines mention China, the actual articles describe Xinhua malfeasance in China's service. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Your links show neither "malfeasance" nor "misinformation" by Xinhua. The first link only mentions Xinhua once, and doesn't actually point out any instance of inaccuracy or misinformation in Xinhua's reporting. The second article, from the New York Times, only mentions Xinhua to link to a humorous video they posted on Twitter. I don't think anyone is proposing treating tweets as news articles. I'm sorry, but at this point, you either show actual examples of misinformation printed by Xinhua, or you admit that you can't find any. Decisions on WP:RS have to be based on real facts, not on political dislike of one or another country. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you tried taking a peak in the local references section? It doesnt appear you have, why go nuclear on GPinkerton when you havent done your due diligence? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Propaganda by Xinhua, among other state-sponsored channels Chinese and no, is analysed here:
by the Oxford Internet Institute. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I opened the PC Magazine link, and it is a typically incoherent mess and hack job, stating on the one hand In response, Twitter told PCMag it removed the ad cited by Pinboard for violating its ad policies on inappropriate content, which bans advertisements that can be considered inflammatory, provocative, or as political campaigning. Twitter also appears to have removed many other ads Xinhua was promoting concerning the Hong Kong protests., while, in the next paragraph, It isn't the first time a state-run news agency has been accused of spreading misinformation via Twitter ads. Well, which is it? Inflammatory / provocative / political campaigning, or outright "misinformation", for which they provided no evidence of Xinhua itself (and not random accounts) engaging in? Inclusion of tangential links, as Thucydides mentioned, to bait discussion elsewhere is not a sign of good-faith discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
All you have is somebody else has said this, it is really not that helpful. Do you have the link to an actual article that is in the Xinhua news network's domain that is not reliable? VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean stuff like this is clearly lie by omission. Like TASS, it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's an interview with a Chinese government official, in which all views are properly attributed to that official - just as we expect reliable sources to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "it's reliable for the views of the Chinese government and non-contentious topics". Here is the problem: with sources like that you never know if this is really a personal opinion by a state official or a scripted disinformation he was asked to promote, and you do not know if this is something really "non-contentious" or this is a "kernel of disinformation" about something you know little about. such tactics are generally well known [26]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Like this kernel of disinformation put out by gov't official, broadcast by Xinhua: [27]. Or: this bland propagandizing or this. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
As Comrade J said, 98% of information would be accurate. Only 2% would be the "kernel of disinformation". But you never know which 2%. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
1. It's perfectly legitimate to report what Chinese officials say. 2. Nothing in that first link is "disinformation." It's a short statement by a government official complaining about anti-Chinese sentiment in the US. You appear to be upset about the idea that a news outlet might actually report on the views of Chinese officials. This is a global encyclopedia, and reporting on the views of Chinese officials is just as important as reporting on the views of American officials here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A concrete lie by Xinhua I've seen repeated statements in the RfC that Xinhua doesn't lie, they are just selective. I'd like to point to a counterexample. In this article[28], Kaiser Abdukerim is described as an "expert." The remainder of the article consists mainly of quotes from Kaiser. The choice of word "expert" is therefore crucial in framing how the reader understands the article. And Xinhua introduced that word. The article then goes on to describe his reaction to various "statistics" about death rates, poverty rates, the "happiness index", and so in in Xinjiang. These "statistics" all claim to show dramatic improvements. But the Xinjiang re-education camps hold a large number of people who are utterly destitute, die with considerable regularity, and are surely unhappy.[29] A true expert would notice that the "statistics" could not possibly be correct. For example, it is not plausible that there is a death rate of only 4.26 per thousand in a region where a significant portion of the population is held in such camps. Therefore, Xinhua should not have used the term "expert" to describe Kaiser Abdukerim. But it's actually worse than that. A quick control-F shows that they use the word four times -- once in the headline, and three times in the body. So they are hammering the usage home. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny: Re: the CNN link, using one verified death (of the infant Mohaned) and a former detainee's spurious claim of deaths of fellow detainees is hardly solid evidence, and your die with considerable regularity extrapolation is thus WP:SOAP-violating nonsense. There are numerous examples of former detainees fabricating stories of physical abuse; e.g. that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Per CNN: But Tursun's story of detention and torture -- which she also delivered in full to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 2018 -- fits a growing pattern of evidence emerging about the systematic repression of religious and ethnic minority groups carried out by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Those are CNN's words, not mine. Based on what do you conclude that her account is "spurious"? See also [30]. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Your initial strongest claim above was large number of people who...die with considerable regularity. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I am not going to allow a shifting the goalposts. And as with the Nayirah testimony, yes, people do perjure themselves in human rights testimony to U.S. congressional institutions. And please stop the WP:SHOUTING. There are templates such as {{tq}} which can allow for emphasis in quoting.
  • Just for the record, I don't contest the "destitute" part for many detainees who feel utter emptiness in the facilities. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Toned down the bolding. You are arguing that nine deaths in a single cell does not support "considerable regularity"? What about this? [31] I am still interested in your assertion that the nine deaths statement is "spurious". Based on what? Does evidence that one person lied support an assertion that a different person lied? Or do you have something more? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You're citing "Radio Free Asia," a US-government-funded outlet established explicitly in order to oppose the Chinese government. Even if we believe the article, it claims that 150 people died, which would not have much of an effect on overall mortality in the region (Xinjiang has a population of over 20 million). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding why there are so much Chinese users flocking to this place: someone posted in the Chinese Wikipedia that enwp tried to label Xinhua as unreliable when this is clearly a RfC. Then, these people who basically ruined the Chinese Wikipedia's discussion atmosphere of sensitive topics, flocked here to defend the news agency. They are mostly Chinese and seems to be linked to a working group (which called themselves a User Group) Wikimedians of Mainland China. BTW, this vote sea have been seen in the Chinese Wikipedia at admin votes and some other issues, but it is really another story. Back to this story: there should really be a separation of columns and news articles of Xinhua, where can be seen below:
User:1233's opinion on Xinhua News Agency (and all other agencies with communist influence in China)
Content related to: Opinion News Story
China, excluding Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan Normally Reliable Reliable (considering this is a government mouthpiece)
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, South China Sea Proceed with caution, may contain disinformation Mostly contain disinformation, while in some cases, such level can be considered as fake news
East Asia (Japan, the two Koreas) Normally Reliable Proceed with caution, may contain discinformation
South and Southeast Asia Normally Reliable Proceed with strong caution, especially related to South China Sea
Africa Be careful, but mostly Reliable Reliable, but proceed with caution in news reports about clashes as it may be sided
Other regions with a positive Chinese presence (e.g. Pakistan) Mostly reliable Mostly Reliable
Other regions with a negative Chinese presence (e.g. USA) No comment on opinion Beware of disinformation, though news tips from Xinhua (and other CCP-controlled media) would mostly be considered ok and could supplement an article in a positive side.
--1233 ( T / C） 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is interesting. Note to closer: people living in mainland china who don't want to be blacklisted, arrested, or otherwise punished, may not feel free to write something bad about CCP organizations such as Xinhua. People living in China are subject to punishments up to and including disappearance for expressing the "wrong" opinions.[32] See also [Ren Zhiqiang]. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Its actually a bit more pervasive than that... Its any Chinese citizen anywhere in the world, there is a portal maintained by the Chinese Communist Party's Cyberspace Administration which allows users overseas to report Chinese citizens committing political crimes (they can even report them by just their username and the CCP will investigate who is actually behind that account). In July they handles 95,000 reports and thats just for political crimes.[12] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: It looks like you're telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Have I misunderstood you here? @Horse Eye Jack: Do you agree with Adoring nanny's suggestion? This is really beyond the pale, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t agree with your assertion of what Adoring nanny’s comment does, advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern is not the same as telling the closer to discount the views of Chinese editors. Do you disagree with the characterization of the nature of political crimes in China or the Cyberspace Administration's online portal? I doubt the Sydney Morning Herald is making that up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the practical distinction between "advising closers to be aware of a relevant legal concern" about Chinese editors and "discount[ing] the views of Chinese editors." Anyone can see what Adoring nanny is asking the closer to do - to treat the Chinese editors as if their votes are based on fear of their government, and therefore to ignore them. I don't see any other plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Failure to WP:AGF would be unwise, I’ve already given you another plausible interpretation of Adoring nanny's statement. That you don’t see a distinction between them is your opinion, I see a very large distinction and you need to respect that. Also consensus isn't about votes, wikipedia (like China) isn't a democracy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Spell out the distinction: how should the closer take this legal concern into account? If the implication isn't that the closer should discount the opinions of Chinese editors, then what is it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion about that issue that needs to be had. But on this RfC, it's a distraction, so I've struck much of my comment. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Comment - It seems to me that Xinhua's reporting fits the description of WP:QUESTIONABLE, so should be considered generally unreliable and fall into option 3. Consider "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight": here is a Xinhua article that states, without qualification, in the headline, lead and article body that 'over 470,000 people gathered on Saturday in a rally held at Tamar Park'. A factual source would at the very least attribute this number to the rally organisers, and to be accurate and reliable would also say that the police estimate of turnout was 108,000 (contrast an accurate report of the same rally).
I've seen three main lines of reasoning for treating Xinhua as option 2. Firstly, per @Hemiauchenia:, that there's no strong evidence that Xinhua sometimes acts as propaganda à la RT. I point back to the linked article above. Considering the topic is a pro-police rally in Hong Kong, sentences such as 'people from all walks of life take part in a rally to voice their opposition to violence and call for restoring social order, expressing the people's common will to protect and save the city', and phrases such as protestors 'say "no" to violence', are clear, blatant propaganda. As Xinhua is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the CCP, it's fair to presume that the article is intended to mislead readers about the scale of pro-police protests, amount of popular support for pro-democracy protests and promote an image of pro-democracy protestors as only seeking violence. ReconditeRodent linked a report[1] that confirms how the CCP controls/influences Xinhua's output.
The second argument is one that @MarkH21: and @Newslinger: make, that Xinhua isn't fundamentally unreliable for factual reporting, but simply skews, manipulates or otherwise misrepresents facts. Essentially, because it's a news agency it's the 'gold standard' for factual reports within China. However, as Horse Eye Jack has rightly pointed out, the sad truth is that there is very limited media freedom in the PRC and therefore can be no factually reliable large-scale WP:NEWSORGs, Xinhua is no exception. Returning to the above article, it's obviously unrealistically generous to account for its inaccuracy as a gross failure of fact-checking. For this reason, I think it's worth looking back at WP:QUESTIONABLE, which also says "beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking that this guideline requires" per the 2017 Daily Mail RfC. There seems to be a presumption that Xinhua, because it has less commentary and analysis, is factually accurate. How can there be evidence for this, even on non-sensitive issues, if it has no independent editorial oversight or reputation for trustworthy fact-checking?
The final argument, made by @Darouet: and Mark H21, is that Xinhua is a reliable source for illustrating the Chinese government's position. On this point I agree with Wug·a·po·des - the political concerns of the Chinese government will be analysed and discussed by political science journals, current affairs magazines and well-respected research groups such as Brookings or Chatham House in a much more reliable, neutral and rigorous way (and without having disinformation mixed in), while factual claims by Xinhua can be confirmed by more reliable news or statistics sources. Jr8825 • Talk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The Brookings Institution is closely connected with the United States government (similarly to CSIS, Heritage, CFR and RAND). We should not have to rely on the US government and organizations that make up the Washington policy establishment to summarize the views of the Chinese government. Chinese sources will give a fuller and more direct expression of these views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References (Xinhua)

References

  1. ^ a b "Xinhua: the world's biggest propaganda agency". Reporters Without Borders.
  2. ^ a b "China shuts several online news sites for independent reporting". www.bbc.com. BBC. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  3. ^ "China biggest jailer of journalists, as press dangers persist: watchdog". www.france24.com. France 24. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  4. ^ Toor, Amar. "China cracks down on major news websites for original reporting". www.theverge.com. The Verge. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  5. ^ Yang, William. "How China's new media offensive threatens democracy worldwide". www.dw.com. DW. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  6. ^ "China, Turkey jail more journalists than any other country: report". www.dw.com. DW. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  7. ^ Cook, Sarah. "The Decline of Independent Journalism in China". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  8. ^ Gan, Nectar. "China shuts down American-listed news site Phoenix New Media over 'illegal' coverage". www.scmp.com. South China Morning Post. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  9. ^ C. Hernández, Javier. "'We're Almost Extinct': China's Investigative Journalists Are Silenced Under Xi". www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  10. ^ Moser, David (2019). Press Freedom in Contemporary Asia. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. Chapter 5. ISBN 0429013035.
  11. ^ Tiezzi, Shannon. "Xi Wants Chinese Media to Be 'Publicity Fronts' for the CCP". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
  12. ^ Bagshaw, Eryk; Hunter, Fergus. "China 'exporting CCP speech controls to Australia' as second university caught in row". www.smh.com.au. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: China Global Television Network

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.

What is the reliability of China Global Television Network (cgtn.com HTTPS links HTTP links)?

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

(t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CGTN)

  • Option 4 known for lies and propaganda: "It has a consistent record of blatantly and egregiously violating journalistic standards and encouraging or justifying hatred and violence against innocent people." The Diplomat, September 2019 Reporting things they know to be false is my benchmark for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this is an opinion piece, for what that's worth, much of the piece is dedicated to the reporting of CCTV in mainland China, not just CGTN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that Sarah Cook is a subject matter expert, she’s Freedom House’s Senior Research Analyst for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the author of their 2020 report Beijing's Global Megaphone [33] which features CGTN heavily. Also the 2019 report China Central Television: A Long-standing Weapon in Beijing’s Arsenal of Repression [34] which is what The Diplomat re-published. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's important to note that Freedom House is funded by the US government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (Contentious issues relating to China) Option 2 for Africa Bureau. I can understand why deprecating CGTN for stuff like Xinjiang is necessary, for stuff like this piece. CGTN has repeatedly aired forced confessions, see 1 2, which has been found to violate UK broadcasting rules 3 The Arabic language version of CGTN also ran a video pushing COVID 19 disinformation. 4. However, I think that it's coverage of issues unrelated to China like for instance its African Bureau are okay and can be probably treated in the same way Xinhua can. Over 1/8 of our entire references to CGTN are to its African Bureau per africa.cgtn.com HTTPS links HTTP links, there's not much reason to doubt their reporting that Singapore exploring feasibility for direct flights, as cited on Kenya–Singapore relations, is accurate, maybe these stories are be covered in other African outlets and therefore citing CGTN is redundant I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Having had a second look at their Africa stories, many of them are syndicated from Xinhua and Reuters and the stuff that isn't has only two authors, is quite shallow and likely to be adequately covered by other sources. I don't think CGTN provides particularly unique or valuable african news coverage, at least in their written stories, and I have no issue with wholesale deprecation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Re: your Xinjiang link, simply stating it as "deprecation-worthy" does not make it so; the only remotely objectionable quote begins with Can you believe your ears? "This is apparent"…Such sentences should never have been the language of a researcher!, which is clearly the opinionated voice of Liu Xin, not an attempt at "factual reporting". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: It's clearly an attempt at analysis, rather than just straight opinion. Stuff like Western media lies about China's Xinjiang is more blunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
If you can overlook the "bias" and "negative media" soapboxing, Barrett is wholly correct about the metholodogy: Quartz admitted themselves that the common estimates of 1M+ detained first derived as follows: The estimate used most widely for over a year—of a million Uyghur Muslims held in Chinese camps—was arrived at using similar methods by a group called China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), and by Zenz. But how many CHRD interviewees actually provided estimates of detention ratios? Follow thru to the CHRD link, and navigate to The following table presents the data we have compiled based on interviews with eight ethnic Uyghurs. Their families reside in eight different villages in counties in the Kashgar Prefecture. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 on Africa Bureau, per Hemiauchenia, on non-contentious issues in mainland China (snooker, opening of the Baoji–Lanzhou high-speed railway) and issues wholly unrelated to the PRC government, such as this piece on Fair Wayne Brant's life sentence in Louisiana, comparable to The Guardian. No opinion on contentious issues. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 due to a complete lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories like "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020 [35]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Buidhe. Cavalryman (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Option 1 Per CaradhrasAiguo. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for topics related to East Asian politics; Option 3 for other coverage. I don't think I need to rehash all the disinformation CGTN has purveyed in any topic related to the PRC/CCP. Beyond China and her neighbours, CGTN isn't much better either - for example CGTN Europe regularly cherry-picks and misinterprets evidence in order to present a narrative that unduly emphasises internal division within Europe, which fits CCP's strategic interests in the region, and often get their facts wrong in the process. Today CGTN churned out this sensationalist piece about the UK government's internal deliberations about refugees crossing the English channel, which tries to paint the UK's plan to deploy the military as more confirmed than it actually is, and France's response as more antagonistic than it really is (compare e.g. The Guardian (which is usually pro-refugee) and BBC (which is usually pro-UK gov't)), and seems to have misattributed Priti Patel's opinion to her colleague Chris Philp. Deryck C. 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CGTN is effectively China's equivalent of the BBC foreign service and Voice of America. The BBC isn't exactly a reliable source to deprecate with here. One state funded news source shouldn't be used to deprecate another especially when they have a strong incentive to say that CGTN is unreliable. I would agree that CGTN has significant bias in favour of Chinese goals and opinions but that's only warranting option 3 and not full blown deprecation. There are many cases where CGTN can be used as a source, such as opinion pieces by Chinese writers, domestic Chinese news, or possibly its Africa bureau. For example this analysis piece on the China Basketball League [36] might be a good source and their coverage of Africa might be useful as well considering systemic bias in western sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Well said: "lack of a reputation for fact checking, zero editorial independence, and specific disinformation stories". No, this is not BBC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Depending on context, location and topic - Option 1-4: CGTN's reliability differs depending on the topic being covered and its location. CGTN inherently has a pro-China bias owing to its ownership by the CCP/Chinese government, and editorial oversight is controlled by the Chinese government as well - whether this affects reliability is discussed below. Hence I think CGTN should be split into multiple entries in the perennial sources list when it gets added there:
Option 1 for all African topics (except topics related to the Belt and Road Initiative). The Chinese government has little incentive to propagandise topics covered in Africa (with the exception of topics about the Belt and Road Initiative); in these regions, CGTN has relatively neutral reporting and its news articles in those regions can be considered generally reliable. This also includes news reports on African politics (as long as China is not directly involved; if China is involved, Option 2). CGTN does not touch much on Central/South America as compared to Xinhua, so it is not included here.
Option 2 for topics about China's allies, the Belt and Road Initiative and CGTN documentaries. CGTN can be used for such topics but must have in-text attribution. Where other sources are available for the same topic, other sources should be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the CGTN source.
Option 4 for all topics where China has a conflict of interest. Such topics include all North American and Western European topics, the politics of East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, the China-India border, etc. At this point CGTN tends to go full-on propaganda mode and should not be used. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that China doesn't have an interest in Africa. They after all want African countries to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: That's true, but for other African topics not related to the Belt and Road Initiative, like | this, CGTN provides factual reporting instead of propaganda. Nevertheless, I've amended my !vote above. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI Africa is currently the primary focus of China’s information operations etc outside Asia... We call contemporary Chinese diplomacy Wolf warrior diplomacy after the Wolf Warrior series of movies, specifically Wolf Warrior 2. Where do you think Wolf Warrior 2 is set? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It's implied in the article. Wolf warrior diplomacy is a result of backlash towards constant bombardment of Chinese criticism from Western mainstream media as well as refusal for China-based media to have any say or defend Chinese actions due to perception as biased for being state-based. An example would be this, and no other mainstream media pointed out the obvious bias and double standard NYT portrayed. It naturally leads to the perception that Chinese must have a strong narrative to defend themselves. NoNews! 10:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Buidhe and also per [37]. Per the NYT, It is controlled by the Communist Party and serves as part of what Mr. Xi has called Beijing’s "publicity front." We should not indulge such outlets by granting exceptions in certain areas. It is impossible to predict what might become important to lie about when, and our policies should recognize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: Echoing what I said in the recent RSN discussion about CGTN, it's a source that should only be used in limited circumstances, e.g topics that are non-political contexts like tourism information or uncontroversial cultural highlights. It should generally be WP:INTEXT-attributed and should not be used for anything remotely contentious. — MarkH21talk 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Buidhe and Adoring nanny. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, as China's emulation of RT. feminist (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per buidhe. Willing to lie and misrepresent information, and impossible to use for due weight due to its lack of independence. Airs forced confessions. Also applies to Africa, where China obviously has interests.[1] Some straight news doesn't make it reliable – the Diplomat analysis even mentions this: "While it initially aims to build local audiences with attractive and innocuous content, it can be mobilized at key political moments to attack CCP opponents." Genuinely notable events will be covered elsewhere. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lim, Louisa; Bergin, Julia (7 December 2018). "Inside China's audacious global propaganda campaign". The Guardian. Analysing CCTV's coverage [i.e. the overseas English-language channel, now called CGTN] of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in west Africa, Marsh found that 17% of stories on Ebola mentioned China, generally emphasising its role in providing doctors and medical aid. "They were trying to do positive reporting," says Marsh. "But they lost journalistic credibility to me in the portrayal of China as a benevolent parent." Far from telling Africa's story, the overriding aim appeared to be emphasising Chinese power, generosity and centrality to global affairs.
Cheng's account of forced confession

In his 14-page complaint made public on Thursday, he says he was shuttled between detention and interrogation centers while hooded and handcuffed, and interrogated while bound in a “tiger chair,” a metal seat with arm and leg locks. He says he was also shackled in a spread-eagle position for hours and forced to assume stress positions for lengthy periods.

Eventually, Cheng says he agreed to confess to the minor offense of soliciting prostitution to avoid harsher treatment and a heavy sentence on national security charges. He says his captors filmed him reading out two letters of repentance that they made him write, and then filmed him multiple times making his confession, based on a script they gave him.

“CGTN was well aware that the recording they used in their broadcast was extracted under extreme duress and distress,” Cheng said, adding that the broadcaster falsely said he went on trial, when in fact he was in extrajudicial “administrative detention.”

"Hong Konger complains to UK about China TV forced confession", Associated Press (RSP entry)

As I mentioned in a previous discusion, Ofcom has started at least five investigations on CGTN's use of forced confessions. CGTN is modeled after RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), a propaganda outlet that was deprecated in May. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (CGTN)

This isn't actually true english.cctv.com HTTPS links HTTP links exists, some of the content is syndicated from Xinhua, but other stuff like this piece appears to be original reporting. We also appear to have a large number of chinese language citations to CCTV per CCTV.com HTTPS links HTTP links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe, Buidhe, MarkH21, and Hemiauchenia: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack and Anachronist: Based on your contributions to the Global Times thread, can you two take a look at this one as well? Flaughtin (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Anachronist and Newslinger: In relation to this and this comment, can we deprecate this source as well? Consensus looks pretty clear to me to do so, at least when it comes to its reporting on any politics related issue. I can go ahead with the deprecation closure but I am not sure if that's allowed (I voted in the discussion). Flaughtin (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
​It's usually best to leave closures to an uninvolved editor, especially when the topic is contentious. Feel free to file a request for closure for this RfC. I usually prefer to wait until the RfC is archived before filing the request. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Is there a reason why you prefer to wait for the rfc to be archived before filing a request for closure? Wouldn't that make the closure process more difficult because the discussion isn't as prominent if it's archived? I'm seeing quite a few sources here being closed even though they (obviously) haven't been archived yet and, to repeat for the record, the consensus in the thread is to me clear enough to warrant deprecation without needing administrator's intervention. Your input on this would be welcomed as as it's my first time encountering this whole closure process. Flaughtin (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
​Any RfC here can be closed after seven days of activity, or earlier if the snowball clause applies. In my opinion, there is not enough unanimity here to justify making an involved closure that can later be challenged and overturned. I prefer to wait until the automatic archiving kicks in (after five days with no comments) to ensure that everyone who wants to participate in the RfC gets a chance to express their opinion, and that they are not cut off by a closure that occurs while the discussion is still active. This is not a requirement, and any uninvolved editor (regardless of whether they are an administrator) can close this RfC right now. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Flaughtin: After doing my first deprecation, I can also understand why it's best to wait for archiving: I have to go back to the pages I had to edit in the deprecation process and update the RFC link to the archive link. So there's a bit more of a maintenance burden on the closer if closing the RFC direction from WP:RSN instead of waiting for it to archive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:42, 5 September 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.

Are government documents primary sources?

For example the source used in this edit. Would that be considered a primary source? PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The government produces all sorts of documents. Some are primary sources, some are secondary sources, some are tertiary sources, and some are a mixture. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report is a mixture, but it's a secondary source re: the letter Trump sent Putin (the letter is the primary source). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
So by that the Mueller report would be a secondary source? PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, a given document can be a mix. The Mueller Report is a secondary source re: the evidence it cites, but it's a primary source for the SCO's conclusions. Same with the SSCI Report; it's a mixture of primary and secondary (and there may be some sections where it's tertiary, but I've only skimmed parts, so I don't know). As WP:PSTS notes, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement." I'm only saying that the SSCI report is a secondary source for the particular sentence that it was cited for. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In the case of the edit I gave as an example I am still not sure why it would not be primary since there is no analysis and just a picture of the letter in question. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The report cannot be a primary source for the letter itself because the SSCI didn't write the letter. They just referenced it. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The edit in question used a quote from the letter which is the primary, every time. The report did not mention that quote so again no analysis. In fact from what I can tell the whole report, similar to the Mueller report discussion is primary. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, the referent of "which" in your first sentence is ambiguous to me. Are you agreeing that the letter is a primary source when you say "which is the primary"? Whether there's any analysis of the letter in the SCCI report is irrelevant to whether the SCCI report is the primary source for the letter itself. The SCCI didn't write the letter and cannot be the primary source for the letter. The letter existed years before the SSCI ever wrote its report. The report is a secondary source with respect to quoting or printing a copy of the letter. The SSCI report is a primary source for the SSCI's own statements. Again: a given source can be a mixture of primary and secondary. The Mueller Report discussion you linked to was about Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? (emphasis added), and others correctly noted that with respect to its findings, it's a primary source, not a secondary source. But the findings are not the entirety of the report. The report also refers to a wide array of primary sources (e.g., FBI interviews, text messages, phone call records, Congressional testimony, newspaper articles), and when it's doing that, it's a secondary source. Returning to the question of the letter, the SSCI report reprinted the letter, including the quote. They do provide a brief interpretation of the letter in the context of "Sater's interest in pursuing a deal in Russia," as I noted below. The issue here isn't that it's a BLPPRIMARY violation (it isn't); the problem is that the WP editor who introduced the claim took the SSCI's use of letter out of context. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that is the wrong question. It is implicit synthesis to include this information in the article. You need to explicitly explain the connection between the letter and Russian interference in the election. How is it any different from the nice things President George W. Bush and Secretary Clinton said about Putin? TFD (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Only in the very minor inference that because the Senate report included it, they thought it bore on the matter. It's technically a secondary source recounting primary source material. Mangoe (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not analogous to an elected or appointed official saying something nice on the government's behalf. The letter was sent in 2007, when Trump was a private citizen. But the WP article's reference to it leaves out the SSCI's reason for mentioning the letter: it's in the section on "[Felix] Sater's History of Trump Development Work in Russia," and the SSCI used Trump's letter in the following context: "Sater explained that he pursued a large number of international deals which he pitched to Trump and the Trump Organization. As a result, he believed that there was not a 'special affinity' to Russia, but that a variety of factors made the prospect of a Russia deal 'interesting.' ... Sater's interest in pursuing a deal in Russia, however, did not occur in complete isolation. For example, in 2007, Donald Trump wrote a letter to Putin congratulating him on Putin's being named 'Person of the Year' by Time." If the article is trying to illustrate that Trump's longstanding interest in / efforts towards developing Trump Tower Moscow is relevant to our understanding of Russia's election interference, then it needs to do a better job. I agree that the letter in isolation isn't particularly significant. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The article in question is a timeline of who said and did what when. By its nature, it does not provide analysis of what was said or done. If you look at the talk page archive, you will find lots of discussions about the relevance of including Trump's pro-Russia statements prior to his election campaign, with the consensus being to include them because they are part of a pattern of behavior discussed in the press. It is a settled discussion for that page, so complaints about the validity of citing the SSCI report, whose non-summary sections are full of inline citations making it clearly WP:SECONDARY, are a red herring to suppress Trump's statements and actions that his supporters don't like. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Having citations is not relevant to if it is primary or not. Also things like to suppress Trump's statements and actions that his supporters don't like is not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Websurfer2, it provides implicit analysis. The letter to Putin according to the sources shows that Trump had a good relationship with Russia. That's the conclusion reached in the report. It is not an example of Russian interference in the 2016 election, but evidence the Russians had a proclivity to support Trump or that he would collude with them based on previous interactions. If you don't explicitly explain the relevance then it is advocacy. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No, they're not similar as sources, and frankly I don't understand why you think they are (you don't say why). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Because they are pretty similar in how they are put together and how they should be treated. Also my name is not Frank. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
But they aren't "similar in how they are put together" (e.g., the Steele dossier is a compilation of raw intelligence, and the SSCI report is not; Congressional testimony is provided under penalty of perjury, whereas Steele's sources could lie to him without legal penalty; the SSCI gathered information from a much more diverse set of sources than Steele did). They shouldn't be treated the same way. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Both are pretty much raw intelligence. The perjury stuff is not relevant to reliability here. Neither is how diverse the raw intel is. Again I am not seeing any reason to treat them too terribly different. Honestly I would say you shouldn't use either for straight up factual reporting on their own, especially about a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No, the Steele dossier is raw intelligence, but the SSCI Report definitely is not, and I'm baffled that you think it is. And yes, when someone makes statements in a context where it's illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements (e.g., testifying under oath, an FBI interview), that does affect the reliability of the statements that are made. That's the entire premise of perjury being illegal (that being able to prosecute someone for lying under oath makes it less likely that they'll lie), and it's the reason that we have laws against making false statements to Congress, to the FBI, etc. Collecting evidence from a more diverse set of sources puts you in a better position to look at confirming or contradictory evidence across the entire set. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
when someone makes statements in a context where it's illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements (e.g., testifying under oath, an FBI interview), that does affect the reliability of the statements that are made I don't want to be that person but have a link to policy for that? None of the statements you just made are backed by policy. That is the fundamental problem here I think. On a personal level I would trust the SSCI more than that crap dossier, but as for writing an encyclopedia neither are particularly ideal and my personal opinions do not really matter since that is not policy. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't making a claim about WP policy. I was making a factual claim: we have laws that make it illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements in certain contexts (e.g., [38], [39]), people are sometimes prosecuted for these crimes, the basis for making it illegal is to reduce the likelihood of someone lying / increase the reliability of their statements in these contexts, and oaths do have an impact on lying (hard to assess, but here's an example of relevant research in a different context: Jacquemet, N., Luchini, S., Rosaz, J., & Shogren, J. F. (2019). Truth telling under oath. Management Science, 65(1), 426-438). Your claim "the SSCI report would be kind of similar to the Steele dossier" wasn't about policy either, so I was presenting facts to help you understand why your belief that they're similar is mistaken. Returning to your original question, do you accept that the SSCI Report a mix -- a primary source for some claims and a secondary source for others, per the quote I included earlier from WP:PSTS? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of public medical publications, all government documents, even "internal histories" are authored by an interested party to the situations they describe and are primary documents. That doesn't mean they can never be used, but it does mean they're not dispassionate secondary scholarly sources. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That kind of blanket claim simply isn't true. As a simple counterexample, the Congressional Research Service regularly publishes reports that are secondary or tertiary sources: https://crsreports.congress.gov/ -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No. CRS is a perfect example of why they are primary sources; as a department of a government, it produces documents which are not a product of scholarship - i.e. work by disinterested scholars. It's certainly useful, but WP would rely on a secondary source i.e. from an academic press of some kind (or from a reliable journalistic source) commenting on a document from CRS. Cambial Yellowing❧ 19:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Many official histories, including internal ones, are written by dispassionate authors, and for good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No. You only need read the first sentence of WP:PRIMARY to understand that you are wrong. They are primary by definition. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It simply isn't true that "They are primary by definition." The authors generally aren't "close to an event" that they're writing about. For example, consider this CRS Report on The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy. The CRS staff who wrote this aren't migrants affected by the policy, aren't CPB/ICE/DHS employees enforcing the policy, ... And "secondary" does not require that a publication be "a product of scholarship" or "work by disinterested scholars." Lots of secondary sources are created by non-scholars (e.g., journalists). Here's an example of a past RS/N discussion about the CRS as a reliable secondary/tertiary source: [40]. FWIW, the CRS staff "includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists" ([41]), so many do have a scholarly background. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's usage of "primary" and "secondary" is not based on who published the information, but the treatment of the information. Raw reporting of information is considered primary, and from a government point of view, would the things like Congressional records, court transcripts, and the like, where there has been no transformation of that information. A secondary source transforms that through analysis or synthesis of some type, more than simple summary. That would be what most CRS reports do, or what a court decision will involve, or what many executive branch rule making decisions lead with in the Federal Register. That the government is reporting on government stuff makes these dependent and/or first-party sources which do have concerns related to notability and neutrality, but that's not the same as the primary/secondary distinction. --Masem (t) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, actually, Cambial Yellowing the first sentence of PRIMARY identifies such sources as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Many official histories are neither close to an event nor written by those who were involved in the events recounted; some official histories are SELFPUB and others have editorial oversight, but unless they are written by interested parties they are not PRIMARY.
And many government publications are subject to peer review and are SECONDARY RS; this is not at all limited to the medical field. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Until, of course, the material from which the government document was compiled disappears (so all we are left with is the government document)... at which point historians would classify the remaining government doc as “Primary”. In other words, a document can change its classification over time. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

napolun.com

This looks to me like a personal website, but I can't tell because I don't read Chinese. Anyone shed any light please? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The American Conservative

What is the reliability of The American Conservative, theamericanconservative.com HTTPS links HTTP links—used in about 400 articles?

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

Survey: The American Conservative

References

  1. ^ Lind, William S. (17 June 2009). "Washington's Legitimacy Crisis". The American Conservative. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
  2. ^ Lind, William S.; Weyrich, Paul M. (12 February 2007). "The Next Conservatism". The American Conservative. American Ideas Institute. Retrieved 5 March 2016.
  3. ^ Google The American Conservative Cultural marxism for many more
  4. ^ Sharpe, Matthew. "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out". The Conversation. Retrieved 11 September 2020. <-- this is a reliable source
  • Option 4 (first choice) or 3 (second choice). The Option 3 part is simplest: it's not a publication engaging in journalism, its purpose is advocacy. Everything it publishes is passed through a filter of die-hard conservative ideology, so it's no use as a source of fact for the same reason as Occupy Democrats or Alternet. Nudging it into option 4 is inclusion of opinion pieces by extremists like Rod Dreher - "a man who appears to view fomenting transgender panic more as a vocation than a job" - including "Robespierres Of The Sexual Revolution" which promotes the idea that doctors decide whether or not to kill babies as they come down the birth canal, and statements like "Colin Kaepernick can’t get a job on a professional football team, but he has been affirmative-actioned into virtual football by the woke capitalists at Madden" (Kap was, of course, unable to get a job because he was blackballed, as was well known at the time the article was written). That's not just bias, that's outright disinformation. So it's useless as a source of fact, and its opinions are sufficiently extreme that we should not include them from the primary source, but only if they are reported in a secondary source. That means we should not be citing it without an extremely good reason - i.e. deprecate. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I'm picking this for two reasons. First, this effort to deprecate every source possible has gone too far. Even a so-so source can be usable from time to time. Second, what has changed that invalidates the previous discussion/consensus? I'm picking 2 because it strikes me as the most neutral option. Basically the option we might use when dealing with a relatively unknown/discussed source. Why shouldn't this sort of thing happen at the article level? With discussions like this the overall effect is green sources are anointed and treated as always reliable no matter how questionable the claims in a specific article. Conversely, a less reliable source might make a really strong set of arguments or point to important facts but, if the source is yellow, or worse red, a discussion of the potential validity of that source stops at the article level regardless of the merits of the arguments. This doesn't make for a better Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote, so if you intend a protest vote against the concept of deprecation, this isn't the place - the process of deprecation was ratified in an RFC, so if you wanted to protest it you'd need to mount a new RFC. If you have anything to say about this source in particular, you haven't done so. Thus, this is so far a null post. Do you have anything to say about this source in particular? - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3–4 - I just read a dozen stories or so. They are basically opinion, and rather extreme opinion, with sprinklings of conspiracy and misrepresentations. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Agree with Springee. There may be be limited situations where it is appropriate to use this source, but in those situations, it is fine. Deprecation needs to be balanced with situational appropriateness. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as per Blueboar and Springee. Strongly oppose option 4 at the current time as no evidence to support this has been presented yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee and the Emir of Wikipedia. There might be cases where it is useful as a source, but the onus would be on the editor adding the material to show that. We really need to do more to ensure that opinion pieces are not used as sources and that not every opinion that has been published has sufficient weight for inclusion in articles. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    If you don't think it should be worse than 2, but also don't support citing opinion pieces, please give an example of non-opinion content from this source that would be suitable to cite (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Buidhe, I can't provide one, which is why I don't think it needs to be banned. There are hundreds of thousands of comic books, novels, movies, songs, poems, plays, blogs, facebook pages, etc. that are not reliable sources for articles, but I don't see a need to add them all to the blacklist. It is only when sources present news stories that are inaccurate that we need to release the Manhattan project. TFD (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Springee's reasoning is spot on. Especially the consideration of why rerun this? Has anything changed in either the source or its treatment here? Not as far as I can see. There seems to be a drive to RfC every questionable source and deprecate as many as possible. As the person who closed the RfC on the header text that these deprecation RfC's are following, I can say that there were strong reservations expressed that the text would lead to a flood of deprecation RfC's that were unnecessary. Those reservations appear to have come true. These clog up this noticeboard and I think that unless there is an actual dispute in the use of a source, an RfC on deprecating that should not be started. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    In the first RfC, the actual accuracy of the source was not discussed very much—a serious deficiency in my opinion which led to a questionable outcome. Because the issue is not marked as unreliable, despite not having a track record of fact-checking or accuracy (quite the opposite), it still continues to be cited inappropriately. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Option 3 per the factually incorrect information highlighted by buidhe.VR talk 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you expand on where you see “factually incorrect information”. Looking at the articles presented so far, I see some controversial opinions, but not outright falsehoods. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Fact checks: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/02/texas-professor-white-people/ https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20110501/NEWS/801252480 (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those look like clear cut "facutally incorrect" to me. The first is the stronger one since it sounds like the removal of context is problematic however, the original article seems to be more than the summary that snoops provides. The second one is debunking some email that was floating around. It was not debunking the AC directly. It suggests the quotes in the negative email might be based on a book review from the AC from 2007. It does not say "The AC said X and it is wrong because Y". So that should not be considered a false claim made by the AC. Unfortunately, sometimes "debunking" can tell us as much about the opinions of the debunker as the debunked. Springee (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: the comparison to Occupy Democrats or similar is apposite. Facts are secondary to ideological opinion, and are sloppy at best, fabricated at worst. This is not a source of content that would be usable in writing an encyclopedia. It's not even clear it can be trusted for statements about itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Springee. Controversial opinions are not the same as false facts. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: seems to dip into conspiracy theory territory. See, for example, this article: "Beware Of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors: The left-wing billionaire has been funding the campaigns of prosecutors intent on creating chaos rather than doing their jobs". I checked the Soros page and it did not have anything related to prosecutors. According to TAC: "...wealthy radicals led by billionaire George Soros have poured over $100 million in hard-to-trace dark money to fund political activities in races for state and local prosecutors. Their goal? To install far-left prosecutors to undermine the American justice system at every level." And so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (maybe 3) I have used this as a source myself on a couple occasions where appropriate. For better or worse, it's an important outlet for a certain cast of characters whose voices come up a lot in right and far-right circles, so it seems valuable to have those perspectives (though perhaps red-boxed--we could base inclusion in an article on author more so than publication, perhaps). And I'm not the only one who uses the source in that way! Plenty of RSes look to TAC for a certain right-wing perspectives.
See The Atlantic: [42][43].
See The New Yorker: [44][45]
See the BBC: [46][47]
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who to be fair has himself come under fire recently, describes the site as having "occasional anti-Semitic undertones" as of 2007. Despite this, he recommended the site as an out-of-the-box mixed bag of unique conservative commentary: [48].
In 2017, The Atlantic described it as "paleocon", so maybe that's the perspective in play: [49].
In 2012, David Brooks called it "one of the most dynamic spots on the web" in a NYT opinion section. He names an array of specific authors he sees as valuable who have written for the publication, categorizing them into groups of paleocons, libertarians, "Lower-Middle Reformists", and "Burkean revivalists", Nieman Labs, a Harvard journalism center, classifies it as a "highbrow conservative publication" alongside National Review and Reason (at least in the views of Jason Wilson, a left-wing journalist who often covers the right).
Does this magazine at times publish seriously deranged material? For sure. But, for better or worse, it's also pretty important for getting access to certain perspectives on the right. Further, it's much better at avoiding saying the quiet part loud than other publications (it's not in the same league as Frontpage Mag in that regard). I don't find the examples shown so far sufficiently compelling, though I'll try to keep on top of this post and change my !vote if something more severe comes up. Jlevi (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 To me it looks reliable. We need more than a couple of cases of an alleged fake news or extreme, controversial opinions to establish that this newspaper is a serial purveyor of fake news. From what I have seen of their reporting,they seem reasonably well researched and their contributors (some of whom seem to be notable personalities who have their own wikipages) are drawn from across the political spectrum (this is in keeping with their "paleoconservatism", so this isn't your typical "left-or-right-wing-nutjob" publication where it is just a giant echo chamber) Fortliberty (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 like Fox News (talk shows). Wouldn't use for factual statements but would be okay for attributed opinion where reliable sources (like those presented by Jlevi) or agreed upon context (e.g. discussing the views of a particular writer) establish due weight. In the absence of this, I'd be very cautious of assigning weight given their promotion of fringe views and conspiracy theories (per buidhe, Guy, etc). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (also happy with 4): Because it has a sheen of respectability, I have seen some editors here assuming it is a reliable source for defence/international news, e.g. using Scott Ritter's highly fringe opinions on Syrian chemical weapons as if they are factual sources, so it would be good to flag it as needing particular caution. Re the question earlier about what's changed since the last RfC, one thing that has changed is the rise of disinformation around COVID and it seems that AmCon has played a role in disseminating this.[50][51] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) I am striking my support for 4, having re-read the comments here and googled other reliable sources' commentary on AmCon and am persuaded that there are enough times when it might be due to include it as opinion so should not be deprecated, although I continue to think it should be flagged as inappropriate for factual claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 See my prior comments linked by buidhe. Cambial foliage❧ 11:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Jlevi --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hebbar Iyengar

Most of the contents of Hebbar Iyengar relies on this page from hebbarsabha.org, which seems to be the site of "The Hebbar Sreevaishnava Sabha" (congregation). Posting it here so someone more familiar with the subject area can review. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source on Islam?

At Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Whether_to_allow_Ibn_Warraq_and_Swami_Vivekananda_opinions_in_the_article? there is discussion whether Swami Vivekananda can be used a source to claim, with attribution, that the Islamic prophet Muhammad suffered from hallucinations and these hallucinations later caused "fanaticism affecting humankind for centuries". While Vivekananda appears to be a notable figure in Hinduism, I don't think he's an expert on either Islam nor a recognized expert on medical conditions.VR talk 11:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would says its RS for him saying it, not for it being true. I think however there are other issues.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Even if Vivekananda is an established subject matter expert (don't think so) WP:DUE applies here unless this claim can be substantiated in reliable sources. One person even if they are a subject matter expert isn't enough to add a claim that Muhammad suffered hallucinations which I would imagine to be a rather contentious claim. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Member of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry by Andrey Fomich Novatski

Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of [[52]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [[53]] page 116. English translation here provided by the Heydar Aliyev foundation [[54]] (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of most-disliked YouTube videos § Am I missing something?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of most-disliked YouTube videos § Am I missing something?. Discussion about whether linking individual YouTube videos is reliable sourcing for determining the most-disliked videos, or is the selection of videos by editors original research? Sundayclose (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribute.ca

Could anyone shed light on if Tribute.ca can be used as a reliable source? To me it looks very IMDb based but not sure where else to look. Ta Nightfury 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a page? Is it one of their news articles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia:, the Dana Gaier page uses it rather extensively. Nightfury 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Nightfury, the page it references looks like it is WP:UGC. Even it is a RS I don't think it is appropriate to use the birthdate from one source like that, or to list what looks like a secondary occupation on the same level as her primary occupation. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Tribute.ca is Tribute (magazine), a Canadian magazine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Oregon Encyclopedia

Source: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/voodoo_doughnut/#.X1lVYHlKi03
Article: Voodoo Doughnut
Claims that the box of doughnuts by Voodoo is the biggest in the world and that it has been confirmed by Guinness world records.

I can't find it on Guinness' official page https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com or news articles stating it has been confirmed. For example, this one published in 2011, and updated in 2019 doesn't say it has been confirmed. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2011/08/that_gigantic_pink_box_of_vood.html Another source at https://www.today.com/food/worlds-largest-box-doughnuts-weighs-666-pounds-1C9004976 doesn't say confirmed. I am wondering if this is an exceptionally rare case or if they're not diligent about sources, thus not really reliable. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on their contributors page[55] it seems to be a legit website, many of whose authors would pass SPS for non-extroardinary claims. I would guess that it's generally reliable, but oddly enough the author of this entry, Amy Platt, is not listed on their contributors page. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Based on a search in the Guinness World Records Application Search (all you need is a free account), the record for the largest box of donuts was set by the Kuwait Food Company in 2009. Public record page for reference. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The above is correct. I am wondering if this is one of thing or if they're just lousy in fact checking. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Sword

I was referred here from a discussion on the spam whitelist regarding the reliablity of The Sword, a gay pornography news site. While the site has presently pivoted to publishing sensationalistic clickbait and is plainly not a reliable source, it was at one point a legitimate news source in its subject area. There is encyclopedic value in the site's archives, such as the final interview Erik Rhodes gave before his death (https://www.thesword.com/exclusive-the-erik-rhodes-interview.html) and this interview with the editor of the influential gay pornography zine S.T.H., which was the subject of the original whitelist discussion (thesword.com/billy-miller-interview.html). I believe the site is situationally reliable, with the archives of the site meeting the standard for Option 1 (generally reliable for factual reporting), while the present publishing of the site is an option 3 (Generally unreliable for factual reporting). Morgan695 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. — Newslinger talk 16:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • has good content I came here from WikiProject LGBT Studies. I checked some articles on the site and I am seeing some conventional journalism including investigation, interviews, background research, and narrative through general interest issues. We are in a chaotic time where many publications are folding or being purchased and changed to spam fountains, but if a publication has a mix of good and bad content, that is only a reason to be cautious. It is not a reason to dismiss all its articles as a block. Time passes and things change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett article published in the Daily Mail

I know the Daily Mail is blacklisted as a source per WP:DAILYMAIL, which I support. However, the author Terry Pratchett wrote a piece for the Daily Mail describing his views on religion, which is very good material for the article on Pratchett. As the article is written by the subject himself, could this be an appropriate exception to the rule against the Daily Mail? (I note that the headline doesn't seem to reflect the content of his article, and so I suspect was supplied by the newspaper itself, which already makes it slightly dubious - but that's just my own suspicion.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF... but first see whether the material can be supported by a more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, I don't think it can, other than in sources reporting what Pratchett wrote in his Daily Mail article. Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
If you start at [56] you can find some possible partial replacements. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones, I did in fact find that thread, but the other articles (Times etc) are the articles that caused Pratchett to write the DM piece clarifying his views. Which is to say, they reported that he found God or had a religious experience, a misapprehension Pratchett wanted to correct. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The good news is that it looks like this article was reprinted as "The God Moment (2008)" in A Slip of the Keyboard: Collected Non-fiction, which I think would make it fine? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I was going to add this was a 2008 article (DM online version) so that would fall into the "historical" allowances that the DM RFC allows, but the reprinting above would be the clear-and-free replacement. --Masem (t) 17:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones, that's a great find. Thanks! Popcornfud (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Please use a compare utility or at least a word count utility to compare the two. We have caught The Daily Mail editing the words in interviews before. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, we should not be touching the DM version at this point, pulling only from the book version, and absolutely only using the book version if we are quoting. But I would still argued that as a 2008 article in the DM, it predates where DM starting going to hell and thus probably isn't "bad". --Masem (t) 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a profoundly questionable claim, and know of no actual evidence that it was not always bad - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
As per the DM closure, historical DM use may be discussed (clearly anything recent is bad bad bad), but again, here, we have a clear replacement that eliminates any questions at all that should be used, simplifying the matter. It would be an issue to consider if there was not this books source. --Masem (t) 16:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you absolutely cannot trust the DM not to mess with text, any text. e.g., this diff is going from DM text to me looking at the actual book, which the DM mangled to hell to, ah, DM-ise it - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this example. I looked at the diff provided and didn't see the mistake made. Both the newspaper and book are written by the same person David Suchet. In both the newspaper and book, he is recalling how he got his role as detective Peroit. The recollection of the events are consistent. Suchet does not imply that he is quoting his book word-for-word, rather in the newspaper he is once again recalling the story with more detail. In both the DM and the book, his direct quotes are the same. Am I missing something? --Guest2625 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Asianexpress.co.uk

Hello everyone, any idea if asianexpress.co.uk is a reliable source? I tried, but can't find anything that satisfies WP:RS and sound like a WP:QUESTIONABLE source to me. Thank you, GSS 💬 10:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Generally unreliable. The Asian Express has the appearance of a red top tabloid with a sloppily designed website that shows a copyright footer with the year 2019. None of the articles have a byline, and the publication does not publish a list of staff. However, the Asian Express managed to win the 2015 Asian Media Awards, although I'm not convinced of the award's significance. Taking everything into consideration, I would consider the Asian Express generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Taslima Nasreen as a source for Religion and health okay?

I came across following write up of Taslima Nasreen. Would that be considered reliable source for articles Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion and/or Religion and health ?

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

:What write up?now addedSlatersteven (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a provocative opinion piece written from the perspective of someone who criticizes religion in general. I think both of these Wikipedia articles should be citing sources that are more academic than this. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Book blurbs

Approving book blurbs (typically appearing on rear covers, but sometimes on the front or within, and anyway placed not to inform but instead to appeal) are often referred to dismissively hereabouts (example). No objection to the disapproval from me. But is their (non-) usability discussed in any guideline? I thought I'd seen a warning not to use them; but nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1ow that I look for this, I can't find it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the SPS nature of these I am not sure they are RS for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
But does any guideline say this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't find a specific reference to "book blurb" or "book endorsement" in any guideline. I found an old conversation on RSN. It seems like they would be a good "such as" to include in WP:RS since they are not independent and are promotional content. (I remember reading an article years ago in which a reviewer had written something like "X is nowhere near the Great American Novel" and the publisher blurbed it as "...the Great American Novel" credited to that reviewer. I can't find it online, but I did find articles explaining the purpose of endorsements/blurbs is to convince bookstores to carry the books, so advertisements basically.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject" WP:USESPS, seems to meet that and is thus SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Blurbs are generally bad for our purposes, I think. I've found a few recently that are lists of blurb quotes, claimed to be from various newspapers but cited only to the blurb text. The quote mining Schazjmd talks about is typical. These sections should just be cut unless and until they can be cited verifiably to the sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another lamentable effort to give a binary (approval or) rejection to a whole, wide, class of material, some examples of which which may be useful for our purposes. A blurb can, for example, be a reliable - and valuable source for the stated intention of the author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Per SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Book blurbs are self-published, affiliated, promotional and a whole lot of other things that Wikipedia should avoid. If you can find one that passes WP:NPOV then well done, even those for books I like a lot generally don't accurately reflect the totality of critical reaction. Andy's point about the intent of the author is, if anything, a point against him. Consider: The events of the war are related through Hitler's eyes from the Chancellery, Berchtesgarten, Rastenburg, and finally from the bunker, in a study based on ten years of firsthand research. A neutral and accurate description of a book by a holocaust denier? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Book blurbs are written by advertising staff. Neither the author nor the editor has any control of them. They make no attempt to evaluate critical opinion. They sometimes carry quotations from some well known figure, but they are almost always written by request, and are answered on the basis, of "if you can't say somethign nice, don't say anything", which could equally well be stated, as "you scratch my back, I'I'll scratch yours." If they are taken from some published news or review medium, they are normally extremely selective. In my early days of book reviewing I once found a publisher quoting a phrase from one of my reviews--had I been less naïve , I would have worded it much more cautiously . I differ a little from JzG--I would never use one in an article here, because determining it to be NPOV would be original research. If it were possibly genuine and important, I'd look for the actual source being quoted. The same goes for author bios on book flaps, or similar advertising copy. Pigsonthewing, a blurb is not a RS for the stated intention of the author. It's a source for what the publisher's PR people wish to say is the opinion of theauthor---which can be extremely different. A good source for the statd opinion of the author is an interview with a reliable publication, or the author's introduction. I agree we are often too glib in our characterizations, but this is one place where we can unambiguously reject the entire class of sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC) .
    • "Book blurbs are written by advertising staff. Neither the author nor the editor has any control of them." Yet more baseless assertions, made with no evidence to support them. On the other hand, the blurbs for each of my books were either authored by me, or by my editor, and then only published with my approval. And I don't have the clout of, say, a JK Rowling or a Bill Bryson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It's certainly been my experience that most blurbs are advertising copy written by someone other than the author, your experience notwithstanding. In any event, I'm struggling to imagine a situation where we would prefer the blurb to the work itself. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
DGG for the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely agree with this. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Aren't there two types of book content called "blurbs"? There are the synopsis-of-the-book-contents blurbs and the endorsements-by-other-people blurbs. I was thinking of the endorsement-type blurb specifically when I answered the question. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
that Is what i Assumed was meant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Adams & Adams, university press source

  • Adams, Tracy; Adams, Christine (2020). The Creation of the French Royal Mistress: From Agnès Sorel to Madame Du Barry. The Pennsylvania State University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Is this a reliable source for french royal mistresses? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic books like this should have academic-level reviews written which should help gauge its reliability in the field, though it is recent. If, by contrast, it's more a popular market overview with minimal footnotes, then sources dealing with specific kings and their mistresses, or with relevant aspects of French political history, would be a safer bet than a work dealing with all the mistresses over a broad sweep of history. Without looking at the book itself or reviews of it, it seems appropriate based on subject matter, publisher, etc., but perhaps check whether it's not been criticized before leaning too heavily on it. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lucien Merlet

  • Merlet, Lucien (1852). "Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409)". Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes Année. 13. Librairie Droz: 248-284.

Lucien Merlet appears to be a French historian and paleographer. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about Billboard

What information from Billboard should be considered reliable? I know it is great for music and entertainment news, but I just saw this diff which is kind of contentious information. Whether someone is straight or gay is something that ought to be backed up by reliable sources per WP:BLP. That said, would Billboard be a good source of information for that? Aasim 19:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Billboard is regarded as generally reliable for musical subjects. This is obviously a sensitive claim about non-musical personal life details - but Billboard is here writing up the subject literally saying it in a podcast interview, so this usage is fair enough I'd think, unless there's actually evidence BB misrepresented the interview or some other reason to question the writeup - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Awesome Aasim: I'd say Billboard is generally reliable, but the claim being made here should be edited or otherwise refactored. While I don't think it's contentious that Michael Passons is a gay man if he admitted it on a podcast reported by Billboard, he's making a very contentious claim about living people (unless the rest of the band is dead) by saying that his fellow bandmembers forced him out of Avalon because of his homosexuality. Right now the article states that "Parsons (sic) revealed that he was forced out of the group due to his sexual orientation as a gay man and his refusal to continue attending reparative therapy" in a factual voice when I would imagine that the bandmembers would dispute this. It should be rephrased to say that "Passons claimed that he was forced out of the group..." to make it clear that it's not firmly established as fact that he was forced out of the group for being gay. Heck I'm going to go do that now. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Chess, MOS:CLAIM makes it clear that, in general, neutral words such as
said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to should be used instead of those which imply doubt (such as "claim") when the factualness, or non-factualness, of the statement is not independently verified by a reliable source. Whether you find the statement plausible or not is irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't aware. That being said I would be open to any wording that doesn't assume the truth of the statement. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Mark Durie as a source for Criticism of Islam okay?

I came across following write up and YouTube link about Mark Durie. Would those be considered reliable source for Criticism of Islam article

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is he a recognised expert in Islam?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
They seem to have published academic articles in the field of Acehnese linguistics (Mark_Durie#Journal_articles), but they don't seem to be a scholar on Islam.VR talk 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)

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.
I'm closing this, though I hope someone else will do the macro for me properly. The general consensus seems to be 3, Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police. (personally, I think the nonpolitical coverage is best described as variable but the consensus was more negative than that.) DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of the New York Post?

Responses (New York Post)

  • Option 3  Option 4 – The Post has a generally unreliable track record of fact-checking. In one particularly memorable example, the paper's coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing shows several instances of failure to fact-check before rushing to print. The website is of particular concern. Online articles are rarely to almost never corrected. To this day, the website claims that "12 people were killed" in the bombing. (Only 3 people died) There are several instances from the bombing that show its lack of fact-checking. (Criticized in [57][58][59][60]) In the space of a few days, the Post had ruined the lives of at least 3 innocent people which it had accused as suspects in the bombing, going so far as to post a photograph of two of them on the front page with the headline "BAG MEN: Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon". Mistakes happen but the Post has an almost "I don't care" attitude on fact-checking. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Relabeling a clear false story about COVID-19 as opinion, instead of retracting it, takes the cake. This shows irresponsible and dangerous intent to misinform and no regard for truth. I have to change my !vote to Option 4. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The evidence of fakery means they should never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I’m concerned about deprecating the Post entirely, because we would be losing a valuable source for New York politics and news. Not to mention that yet another conservative leaning news outlet is being brought here. We should use caution but not entirely ban it. -- Calidum 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Infrequently valuable, but not never. Mainly replying to the latter. If you can find the sort of evidence C+C has presented here about the Daily News, an RfC may be due to talk about that one, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per the evidence from Coffeeandcrumbs below. I'm not worried about the balance of outlets that we depreciate. If right-leaning outlets would like to be seen as reliable, they can report the facts and make corrections when they get things wrong. I would be more than happy to re-allow the Daily Mail if their standards increased. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Coffeeandcrumbs's evidence, New York Post#Controversies, [61][62], and my personal impression. Rightly or wrongly, high quality sources do occasionally cite New York Post. I'm not really opposed to option 4, but I would prefer that we don't deprecate sources that may be useful in rare cases. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3.5 per MrX. They are rarely the sole source of first-reporting on any meaningful factual story, they have a reckless disregard for fact checking, and evidence that they may even make up stories out of whole cloth. I would rather use better sources for anything that is widely reported, and I'd be suspect of the veracity of anything that only the Post is reporting. I may carve out a VERY small exception for where their initial reporting is vetted by an actual real source, but even then I'd like to see both sources side by side as a minimum. --Jayron32 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Qualified Option 3. Absolutely never should be used for controversial claims about living people (it's a tabloid after all). Beyond that, the subject they struggle with most seems to be crime and crime-adjacent topics. The Post's NYC is a scary place filled with "thugs" and "gang-bangers" and violent homeless people/protesters/immigrants, with politicians who won't do anything to protect you. Their willingness to jump into a story without doing their due rigor is pretty well documented, and the evidence C+C provided about missing retractions/corrections is problematic. When covering politics in general, they have a bias that's strong enough to affect their factual reporting, sometimes blurring opinion and news reporting. That said, there are times when the Post's coverage of local NYC topics is useful. For the most part it's better cited to the other sources which make use of the Post's reporting but do their own vetting, but I feel like there have been stories about NYC public projects, local institutions, what's going on in local agencies, etc. that are useful enough and innocuous enough that I'd hope there would be room for an occasional exception. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The Post is a tabloid, and like all tabloids should be used with caution because it runs to sensationalism in how it covers news stories. That said, it is usually accurate once you get past the sensationalism of its format. The print version does contain an “errors and retractions” section (which is one of the ways we differentiate between reliable and unreliable news outlets). From some of the comments above, it sounds like there may be problems with the website that are not found in the hard-copy paper. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 like The Sun. Ample examples of outright fabrication of facts and quotes on all sorts of stories to the point that it just seems like the way they operate. I can’t say to what extent the print edition issues retractions but almost none of the online versions of false or misleading stories listed in the discussion below have been retracted or corrected. After falsely accusing people of involvement in the Boston marathon bombing, the Columbia Journalism Review said of the paper that it “deserves no benefit of the doubt. Any pretense of professionalism—as thin as it might have been—is gone.”[1] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The New York Post's disgrace". Columbia Journalism Review.
  • Option 3: I don't think The Post is that bad for general reporting. Gossip and speculative articles notwithstanding. As always editors should use their good judgement. ImTheIP (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 generally unreliable for factual reporting but ok for film reviews, music reviews, tv reviews and similar, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 provided evidence gives us the US equivalent of the DM. --Masem (t) 22:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for factual reporting: I am just seeing too much fabrication and lack of attention to truthfulness to rate it any other way. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3.5 - Per MrX, Jayron32. Their news section is generally tabloid trash, and increasingly so. Analogous to the British rags (Sun, Mirror, Express, Daily Mail). Should not be used when challenged, should not be used for any contentious subject, should be avoided as a source on living people. And Page Six should never be used. Maybe OK for attributed movie reviews, music reviews, op-eds, or the like, or for uncontested statements on noncontroversial topics for which no better source is available. Even then I would exercise extreme caution. (If the only source for a given statement is the NY Post, I think due weight is questionable.) Neutralitytalk 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for NYC area coverage, option 3 for everything else. I've found their local news to be mostly reliable (though of course with a political lean); it's when they get into national politics that they go totally off the rails. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Additional considerations apply as with any tabloid, and it's not particularly strong source, so due weight needs to be considered if it's the only source reporting on something. But that should be considered individually, not at RSP. Examples of errors are mostly old: Lady Gaga story from 2011, Boston bombing from 2013. Breaking news coverage can be wrong in any source (w/ Boston). As WP:BIASED sources can be reliable, I just don't see enough evidence that they mispresent news, except a few cases within the span of a 10 years. Despite being a tabloid, clearly they operate much more professionally than, say, Zero Hedge. Quite comparable to the left-wing Salon, except I suppose some may find the latter to be ideologically more reliable. --Pudeo (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It's a tabloid, so starts at a default 2, but its place in the right wing media bubble with the asymmetric polarisation and perverse incentives that produces has resulted in a markedly worse record for accuracy than erstwhile competitors. It's not quite the Epoch Times yet, but it's pretty bad, often enough that it should not really be used here. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as Coffeeandcrumbs provided examples of fake news and there are more reliable sources that provide a right-wing and populist American perspective.VR talk 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2|3 useful for local NYC reporting and film/tv etc. reviews. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 as it looks generally reliable for local reporting. WP:HEALTHRS is a thing so an opinion article on COVID 19 should not be used to deprecate this source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The Post's publisher once forced out an editor who was trying to make it more credible with the infamous quote "credible doesn't sell ... Your big scoops are great, but they don't sell more papers." A 2004 survey found it the lead credible news outlet in New York (perhaps unsurprisingly given that the above); and, as noted, they have repeatedly published false information with no indication that they care. What pushes it from 3 to 4 to me is the constant indications that they are not trying to be a reputable source or to build a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any news source can make errors, and a source that fails to correct them is simply unreliable; but a source that doesn't care whether it makes errors or not should be depreciated. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    Aquillion, did you mean "the least credible"? and also can you cite the page number? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I found it on p. 18: "On net, New Yorkers consider THE NEW YORK POST to be incredible (as in not credible), by 39% [believed it is credible] to 44% [believed it is not credible]. Among the most recognized media outlets, only THE POST earns a higher negative than positive rating on the credibility scale." I added clarification in [brackets]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3+ -- I don't read it. But I live in Manhattan and seeing the headlines in the grocery store reminds me of the Enquirer. I see no reason to use them for local reporting given the excellent sources available in NYC. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per arguments above. The only thing that made me hesitate is that sometimes it has actual reporting on NYC local news, but as others pointed out, there are plenty of other NYC sources available. Given the track record of rushing to print without fact-checking, it shouldn't be used as a source at all. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - I was hoping for option 3, but the discussion here is convincing me this source should absolutely not be on Wikipedia. Fabrication and direct disregard for fact-checking make it unusable as a source for an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 - They make a considerable number of mistakes, but they do have a corrections process. For all the users who argue that this mistake or that is a reason for deprecation, my concern is double standards, due to this[63] from the NYT, with the flagrantly false thesis that there was enough evidence for Mike Nifong to take the Duke lacrosse case to the jury, and that the files in the case did not give a clear answer as to whether or not the defendents were guilty. The story was never corrected. How can we deprecate the NY Post for uncorrected false statements, but treat the NY Times as our gold-standard source, even though it is guilty of the same offense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)
    • This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE argument. If you want to RFC the New York Times, you'd need to start an RFC about the New York Times. Unless you have an argument that is specifically about the New York Post, which is what we're talking about here, then you're not making an argument to be taken into consideration in the discussion about the New York Post - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You had to go back 5,119 issues to find an error in the NYTimes? O3000 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It's more than just an "error." It's a lengthy, front-page story, with a thesis that the NYT has every reason to know is wrong, yet they still have not corrected to this day. Worse, it is about individual criminal defendants, implying that they could be guilty of the crimes as charged. If found guilty, they would have likely faced many years in prison. I don't see any reason to cut the NYT a break based on the age of the story. In regard to WP:FALSEBALANCE, I would note that that policy applies to Wikipedia articles. This page is not a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, that policy states, in effect, that one should not give equal weight to truth and lies. But that's not the situation here, is it? The falsehood of the NYT's thesis in that particular article is a fact. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2: Extremely weary of yet another conservative news source being excluded. They've covered a lot of stories factually which other left learning sources either don't cover or cover with bias. I think users need to ask themselves the true reasoning for this source being depreciated and whether they would apply the same scrutiny to other sources. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • A culture war argument and whataboutery aren't actually claims about the New York Post's quality as a source in itself, and probably wouldn't be worth considering. This is not a forum - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 As pointed out above they have published many falsehoods and have a reputation very poor journalism, I wouldn't even call the work they produce journalism, it's a trash outlet like the Daily Mail. As Chuck D from Public Enemy said "Here's a letter to the New York Post - The worst piece of paper on the east coast - Matter of fact the whole state's - forty cents in New York City fifty cents elsewhere - It makes no goddamn sense at all - America's oldest continuously published daily piece of bullshit" Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - as their history shows, they have a poor reputation for fact checking and often print false or sensationalized stories. Lev!vich 18:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Option 3 - Changed as a result of the responses to my question. 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC) same as the other sources in this class of news reporting. I need specifics regarding the allegations that they repeatedly failed to fact-check. Has the NYPost suddenly become a gossip tabloid? Can somebody please point me to the actual failures that support the claims I've been reading? It seems more like this downgrade may be based on anecdotal evidence or worse, POV, so before I downgrade a source, I want to be sure that I'm doing the right thing based on factual information. I mean, look at this if we're going back in time to 2013 to downgrade a source. Thanks in advance... Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    Atsme, I will give you one recent example described here in GQ. The story was published on June 1, 2020, under the headline "Looters swipe $2.4M worth of watches from Soho Rolex store". Other reporters immediately noticed it was bogus because, for one, there is no Rolex store in Soho. But that maybe semantics, but the bigger problem is that nothing was stolen. The article, to this day, still quotes "a police source" saying, "The Rolex store is empty"... "They stole like $2.4 million in Rolexes."
    Now, what does the Post do after they find out the store owner's said, "no watches of any kind were stolen"? They add that bit to the story and change the headline to "Conflicting reports of looting at Soho Rolex store". This is a dishonest headline and shows their unwillingness to correct the record. (See also this for a past example of obstinate editor behavior). I am arguing this situation can only mean one of either two things happened:
    1. They did not fact-check the "police source" at all. They made no effort to go look at the store and speak to the store manager.
    2. Or, the "police source" Does. Not. Exist! Knowing their history, not an unlikely scenario.[64][65] From what I have read, they have made up quotes before.[66]
    Both of these above scenarios, in combination with their long history of bad journalism, seems to me that they should at least be considered generally unreliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    IMO they were always a gossip rag; they're mostly known for Page Six. In terms of evidence of shoddy journalism, the first example that comes to mind is the infamous 2013 "Bag Men" front page misidentification after the Boston Marathon bombing, see e.g. [67]. Lev!vich 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you - I have adjusted my iVote accordingly. Atsme Talk 📧 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 A news agency doesn't have to be a gossip tabloid to be totally unreliable as a source for use in the 'pedia's articles. Their reputation very poor journalism is well established. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Fabrication and direct disregard for fact-checking make it unusable as a source for a reputable authority such as WP. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per King of Hearts, for any coverage of the New York metropolitan area and, really, anything that doesn't have national-level political connotations or implications. For those I'd go down to Option 3.

    I have used the Post without reservation as a source on true-crime articles; I just don't see in their articles on that subject any evidence of the embellishments that you see in the Daily Mail on the same incidents. Nor have I seen the kind of evidence of outright fabrication, i.e. tell-alls by disgruntled former staff, that finally prompted us to deprecate the Mail. If someone's got that ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Option 4 Just look at this: "Newly Discovered Planet Could Destroy Earth Any Day Now.” [68] [69]. This NYPosts track record is definitely one marred by many factual inaccuracies that just proves they are really just doing it for the attention. Bar NYPost citations like these as they could influence reader's trust of Wikipedia. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Its a tabloid. It makes mistakes, but it is not a work of fiction. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 "Publishes false or fabricated information" is a bit much. It's a tabloid, not a work of fiction as Billhpike put it. However, I generally try to avoid using media outlets as sources at all, let alone tabloids. The Post's journalism is certainly sub-par, and they are known to have political biases. That isn't to say they should never be used - I'm sure they have decent articles on culture, fashion, entertainment, etc - but we should not be using them for anything political or scientific in nature. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Seems to be case by case. A lot of media today is unreliable in some cases as we move away from paid media to crowdsourced. I would think not an WP:RS for WP:BLP but for some other general topics, could be ok. Where do we draw the line? TMZ is useful sometimes, and we use huffpo. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I had the impression going in that this would be an option 3, but looking over the evidence provided, I have to up my !vote a notch. Their process is dishonest, in a deep way. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3. It's clearly not "generally reliable" but we should save the ban hammer for the worst of the worst. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Deprecated sources can be used "when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources". It also usually means editors are notified about its status when making an edit that includes it. As it happens, two of the sources you link are blacklisted, so there must be a sliding scale between sources deserving deprecation and "the worst of the worst". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3. As a tabloid, most NY Post references could and should be replaced with more reliable sources. Too often, their sensationalist and selective takes on issues are misleading. Given recent reminders of the ongoing racial bias in their coverage, I'm inclined to think that a formal stance is sadly necessary. gobonobo + c 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Thoroughly rubbish. Also, I disagree with pythoncoder that only the absolute bottom of the barrel should be banned — the minimum bar for sourcing for news and BLPs (which is all the Post would be relevant for) should really be higher than it is at present. There are plenty of reputable sources in existence, so if the only available source for a statement is in a dodgy source, then said statement is not really verifiable and most likely some combination of "trivial" and "false"; if it is important it will eventually get picked up by real sources. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I think I may have once commented here on RSN defending the NYPost, but that was based on an outdated and possibly superficial old impression I had of the paper. I've looked at recent editions and find them increasingly concerning. The links in the discussion section document some serious problems. I want to say there's usable stuff in there, but once you scratch all of the problem-categories (crime, police, politics, BLP, controversial issues) that pretty much adds up to "generally not reliable". So... it's not banned and it's usable for uncontroversial things... but if there is a dispute then the person wanting to use the NYPost will have to explain why the challenge is frivolous or unreasonable. Alsee (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They're often a helpful source for articles related to New York City. Just look at their coverage of Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Beyond that though... ~ HAL333 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - consistency to deprecate tabloids appears to be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - It's not the best source. It uses sensationalism in its reporting. Generally, there is no reason to use this newspaper for US national or international news, since there are far better sources out there. However, in the case of New York metropolitan news, they do provide relevant content. Each story needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - gutter press, good for wiping yer arse, but that's about it. Acousmana (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2. Depends on context. Obviously “Generally reliable” in usually does fulfill most RS criteria of editorial controls and publishing norms. Sensationalized headlines, not too unusual. Meh, for many things you might find BESTSOURCES elsewhere, but this is usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Speaking as an editor based in NYC, the Post is actually quite reliable for NYC metro area news, despite being biased for politics. Like Daniel Case, I don't see fabrication on the level of the Daily Mail. I don't think Option 4 is a viable option, because even our other local media often does not cover topics such as real estate to the extent that the Post does. I want to see evidence that these local stories are also error prone before I even consider option 3. However, I would consider context in deciding to use the Post as a source. epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    I'd like to clarify that I do agree the Post can be biased in politics and other world stories. I would consider supporting an Option 3 for politics and other controversial topics, but for NYC related topics I would support Option 2. epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Use Common Sense Research the article's claims and provide additional citations supporting it. It's a tabloid these days and we should probably treat it as we do many of them; but we should also be aware that they can and do occasionally provide reasonably reliable content. So as long as people use sense and don't try to cite them for every silly argument; then it's fine.♥ Melody ♥ 00:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2.5 per Epic (although I do not live in the metro area - I will have to trust him there). In my experiences with the Post, they are generally quite biased as far as politics go but cover a lot of things that other media outlets might not. I'd say keeping them as a "last resort" source, in cases where there aren't conflicting stories, would be beneficial. I don't think 4 is a good idea, because they do cover real estate minutiae that are hard to source elsewhere. -- a lad insane (channel two) 01:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 The number of articles being linked here is overwhelming. I have an example of my own. I found this article where they claim that detectives told the parents of Madeleine Mccann that they had concrete proof that she was dead [70]. In this article, they used The Sun as a source. Also, this article was published hours AFTER other news articles revealed that the girl's parents received no such confirmation. It appears that they do not care all that much about getting things right. However, I am avoiding choosing option 3 on the basis that they issue corrections and seem to have reliable local coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, the Post has clearly shown a complete and utter lack of even the most basic respect for factual coverage, since they have been clearly shown to publish completely false information they cannot be trusted as a source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 / 3. The Post is a tabloid, always has been. It's not completely uncitable and deprecation is probably too far, but it should be used with a lot of restraint. Per Epicgenius, the Post's metro reporting is Mostly Fine if often politically slanted. I would have a lot more hesitance citing it for celebrity "scoops" or criminal accusations, though. SnowFire (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (New York Post)

L:Even if it was not originally labelled as opinion, an article by Steven W. Mosher of the Population Research Institute clearly is not a news story. A news story is what happened today or what someone said today written by reporters. It's not an activist's analysis of how a virus originated. ReconditeRodent's first example is reported in their source as by "columnist John Crudele" so it would not be rs in any case. Mainstream media also publish opinion pieces by conservatives, and even articles by liberals can contain questionable logic and facts. For example, the New York Times and other major media pushed the Bush administration lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. What I find disturbing about this process is that we are basing it on anecdotal evidence and even then not looking at actual news reporting. What we should do is use sources that compare the reliability of various sources. While I am sure the NYT would rank higher, there are lots of other local newspapers I imagine that would rank lower. Why not just have a general rule that right-wing newspapers cannot be used as sources? TFD (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Because there are many good reliable right-wing sources, like The Times of London and the Wall Street Journal. Merely because some right wing sources push bullshit out (and oddly enough, they're the only sources people who want to push that bullshit on Wikipedia can find that support the bullshit) doesn't mean they all are. It isn't helpful to say that right-wing = unreliable in all cases. Unreliable = unreliable. I don't particularly agree with the editorial stance of sources like The Times and the WSJ and the Weekly Standard and the Christian Science Monitor and sources like that, but insofar as they report actual news, they have the sort of integrity and editorial oversight and commitment to truth that means I would never doubt their reliability. It's not "having a conservative editorial stance" that makes a newspaper or other source unreliable. It is being unreliable that makes a source unreliable. Don't confuse the two. --Jayron32 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
And any editor who implies - or sometimes says outright - that we need more right-leaning unreliable sources for "balance" is fundamentally misunderstanding why Wikipedia concerns itself with reliability of sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. If the correct view is "XXX is bullshit", then it would be incorrect to provide "balance" by hunting for sources based solely on whether they say "XXX is not bullshit" rather than on their reliability. Reliability is the first concern. If genuinely reliable sources disagree, we can handle that disagreement explicitly. But where shitty sources are the only ones presenting a particular side of a narrative, then they're still bad sources and we shouldn't be citing them at all. That also may be a sign that that particular side of the narrative isn't correct. --Jayron32 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The Times and the Wall St. Journal also publish opinions by conservatives. John Fund for example was a columnist for the Wall Street Journal for 20 years where he wrote about climate change. The white nationalist Peter Brimelow has written for many respectable publications such as the Financial Post, Maclean's and Forbes claiming among other things that whites were more intelligent than blacks. Some conservative writers are even published in liberal publications. In general though comparing The Post to The Times is a strawman argument. The Post is local middle market tabloid, while The Times is an upmarket publication with international reach. The Post should be compared with other local newspapers. TFD (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I.e., the most obvious point of comparison, the Daily News, which has taken on a sort of liberal bent in reaction to its competitor's rightward tilt (There is a huge irony in all this ... half a century ago the Post was an outspoken liberal paper that fought McCarthyism, while the News occupied the niche the Post does now, printing any McCarthyist slur Robert Moses leaked to them about Joseph Papp in the early days of the New York Shakespeare Festival when the two were feuding over Papp's use of the park). Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much of an opinion on the NYP but I do wonder if there are outside sources making this reliability claim or if this is just the views of editors here? I was curious and looked up the NYP on the various media bias sources. It looks so-so but I find it interesting that Adfrontsmedia puts it at about the same level as CNN, Slate and other sources we are frequently happy to cite. [[93]] Still, some of the others such as the often maligned MBFC say it's mixed. Springee (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of bias. For example, no one would dispute that Jacobin and Democracy Now! have a strong left bias and are partisan publications. However, you could not provide evidence that they are fabricating quotes or framing false stories. I have provided ample evidence that other RS publications have found that the Post has published false and fabricated information. This is not Wikipedia editors' opinions. It is the analysis of RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I would feel better about that type of argument if third party sources were making the case. Still, you make a good point, unbiased and accurate are not the same thing. I will freely admit I don't know much about the NYP so I won't comment in the survey. Springee (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The examples presented here are approaching "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" territory. So many of the alleged examples are wrong in one way or another that it detracts from the credibility. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Consider just this one story that ruined two men's lives -- how can we trust a source that considers this as enough evidence to publish photographs of people implying they are terrorists? And then says, well, we didn't really say they were suspects, just that the police were looking for them. Why put the photo on the cover, no less, if not to imply they are terrorists?
I do not believe this whole headlines don't matter bullshit people throw around thse days. The veracity of the headline and how well it represents the story within shows the motivations and trustworthiness of the editors that oversee the production of the paper. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Question for some of the "option 2 for NYC news" !voters (e.g. King of Hearts and Daniel Case). Could you say more about where it's unclear or where additional considerations apply within that option 2? The Post is fine sometimes, and on some topics, but they're really pretty terrible on matters of crime/policing and a lot of their other local political coverage includes opinion or a clear slant. The latter is the sort of thing I'd expect to read next to an "additional considerations apply" but I feel like we should exclude crime/policing from the Option two-ness of the NYC news carve-out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I'd probably agree that any coverage of alleged police misconduct, particularly in the use-of-force area, in the Post is increasingly slanted in the police's favor. I would advise not using anything in those stories sourced solely to unnamed police sources. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The Post is indeed largely uncritical of police and generally sides with police unions, sometimes becoming indistinguishable from their talking points and always a reliable outlet for printing their opinions. Police are just-doing-their-jobs to protect us from violent thugs and vagrants, while politicians and anti-police rioters want to see the city burn or don't care. There's a reason why the highest profile examples of them getting it wrong have to do with crime, and it's not limited to what's outside the city. It's most visible now because there's a lot of attention on policing, but it's not really new, either (unless we're talking about the full scale of the paper's history, in which case decades are short). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites and Daniel Case, my thing is that it is more than just bias. See my example above in response to User:Atsme, where they fabricate a story to support their strong pro-police stance (both a local and national issue). It is not only that they have a bias but that their bias also influences them to either fail at fact-checking or maybe worse fabricate stories. Either they made up this "police source" or, as soon as this source satisfied their confirmation bias, they published the story about looters. Yes, the store was vandalize in protests but it was certainly not looted by rioters for $2.4 M??? Bullshit! They simply wanted to perpetuate a common racist trope about protesters of color, that they are "rioters and looters", and did not care if the story was true, which it was not. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Oh, I'm not arguing with your point. I'm trying to distinguish the baby from the bathwater here. And one way I would do that with the Post is to consider unreliable any fact in any story they do about, well, let's say, anything involving tensions between the NYPD and local minority communities that is not sourced to anyone named. But that does not mean I consider anything and everything the Post reports to be fabricated and/or embellished. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Case, that does seem pragmatic. If I were to carve out any portion to keep, it would be their art and film reviews. Everything else, parochial, national, or global, I simply cannot trust, especially for a BLP. At least with art and film, they cannot do much damage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:01, 3 September 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.

Post-close discussion

@DGG: Thanks for closing, and sorry to put this here -- I would've gone to your usertalk but it was so long it crashed my browser tab. May want to archive. Two questions: (1) I don't disagree, but since 1976 came up only once, it's probably worth elaborating on that. (2) Several people suggested having some sort of carve-out for apolitical NYC area topics. Could you address that (whether or not there was consensus for as much)? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, and i will make some adjustments. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For anyone wondering why the New York Post wasn't depreciated: the false information problem there isn't as prevalent as the Daily Mail, for example. Therefore why consensus likely was gauged to be for being marked as unreliable. If you disagree, wait a bit before reopening this discussion. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312&oldid=1142577974"