Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) Archiving 4 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot |
returning to rsn; still active |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk archive navigation}} |
{{talk archive navigation}} |
||
== Can we please adapt the ''Daily Mail'' consensus to reflect a position on ''Mail on Sunday''? == |
|||
The applicability of the ''Daily Mail'' ban to the ''Mail on Sunday'' has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly): |
|||
# ''The Daily Mail'' (including its website) was proscribed in 2017 in an RFC: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC]]. There was no mention of ''Mail on Sunday'' being subject to this ban. |
|||
# This ban was reaffirmed the following year: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail]]. Again, there is no mention of the ''Mail on Sunday''. |
|||
# The examples brought forward that led to the ban came from ''The Daily Mail'' or ''Mailonline'', not the ''Mail on Sunday'' from what I can see. |
|||
# ''Mail on Sunday'' is not just a sunday edition of ''The Daily Mail'', it is editorially independent i.e. different editors, different writers. Occasionally they even adopt opposing positions (such as on Brexit). They are different newspapers but with a common ownership. |
|||
# ''Mailonline'' publishes content from ''The Daily Mail'', ''Mail on Sunday'' and its own stuff. |
|||
The question of the ''Mail on Sunday'' has been raised on several occasions: |
|||
# At [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday]] the prevailing opinion (summarised by {{u|Andy Dingley}}) is that the ban does not cover the ''Mail on Sunday'' namely because it is not stated to apply. |
|||
# At [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again)]] {{u|Newslinger}} also notes that ''Mail on Sunday'' is unaffected by the ban. |
|||
# At [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday?]] we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. {{u|Mazca}} observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an ''argument'' that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS. |
|||
# We now have a situation with {{u|David Gerard}} purging ''Mail on Sunday'' references from Wikipedia: see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_snooker_players_investigated_for_match-fixing&diff=prev&oldid=977759151], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thick_as_Thieves_(Spiegelman_novel)&diff=prev&oldid=977759201], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoff_Hill_(Northern_Ireland_journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=977759055] just for a few examples. There are dozens more. |
|||
I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the ''Mail on Sunday'' shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is ''argument''. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite ''Mailonline'' then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the ''Daily Mail'' ban explicitly applies to the ''Mail on Sunday'' or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard. |
|||
I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: {{ping|Yunshui|Primefac|Sunrise|Jo-Jo Eumerus|Tazerdadog|Vanamonde93|Ymblanter}}. |
|||
I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the ''Mail on Sunday'' or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the ''Mail on Sunday''?? If the ban is to encompass the ''Mail on Sunday'' then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:As the asker of the clarification request, I understood the result of the discussion as: “MOS is not included in the DM RfCs, but may suffer from the same issues. A new RfC will be required to come to a determination on its status.” Obvious question is: what until then? If it’s got the same reliability issues, we wouldn’t want it being used on wiki, and I doubt there’s much community energy for an RfC on this niche case. I think it’s thus appropriate to treat it with questionable reliability, but not as explicitly deprecated. But I don’t care enough either way. Someone like Newslinger may be better placed to answer the procedural issue. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with your concerns. I have seen David Gerard's newest approach to the Daily Mail topic. He has now proceeded to strip anything published by the [[DMG Media]] company in the past two week. He his now removing the [[Mail on Sunday]], [[Irish Daily Mail]], and [[Irish Mail on Sunday]]. The reliable source noticeboard needs to deal with this topic, since numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process. Since, the reliable source noticeboard is what is providing the cover for these actions, the board needs to be very precise about the decisions it is taking. And as far as the [[Mail on Sunday]], no it is not included under the [[Daily Mail]] deprecation. Many of us editors who create the content obviously have access to outside newspaper databases and do not need to use the website www.dailymail.co.uk --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:This seems like an overly procedural argument. If they have the same reliability, why the need for endless debates on it? According to [[WP:RS]], part of the core content policy, unreliable sources should not be used (with narrow exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here). ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Also note that there is no assumption that a source is reliable, the [[WP:ONUS]] is on those seeking to restore disputed content is to show that the source is reliable. So I ask, what is the evidence that ''Mail on Sunday'', ''Irish Daily Mail'', etc. are reliable sources? ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Have we not just had this very discussion?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
'''The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source''' is what the last discussion said, and your laughable ''content (which is probably 99% good)'' flies in the face of reality. |
|||
''numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process'' I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Citing dailymail.co.uk is indeed a barrier to citing the ''Mail on Sunday''. But it is a technical barrier. In the same way if Wikipedia were only to insist on hardcopy citations. It is misguided to suggest that the MoS is not reliable purely because some of its content is reproduced at ''MailOnline''. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to suggest that it is not reliable because it is plagued by the same problems as ''Daily Mail''. In fairness I am putting a simple question to the administrators who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: does the consensus also apply to the ''Mail on Sunday''? Some of you may consider this overly procedural. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't be asking if an editor were not deleting vast amounts of content on entirely procedural grounds. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:If anybody in that discussion had made that "barrier" argument, it would have been countered, just as Betty Logan has done, by saying there is a print edition. But nobody did make that argument, or anything remotely similar to it, so "barrier" is not a reflection of consensus, it is merely the closer's opinion. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Is there any evidence that the MoS is a reliable source for anything? Reassuringly, the ''[[Sunday Mail (Scotland)|Sunday Mail]]'' doesn't seem to be subject to the restrictions, but as it's a tabloid I wouldn't tend to think of it as a RS. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at [[List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing]] - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated. |
|||
I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back ''after'' without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting [[WP:BURDEN]], and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people. |
|||
I would suggest that ''even if'' the MoS is not covered by [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:My primary concern is your interpretation of the RFC consensus. I have raised this same issue with you prior to this latest incident: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted]]. Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/David_Gerard&offset=&limit=100&target=David+Gerard contribution history] shows you were engaged in a purge of the ''Mail on Sunday'' and justifying it using the ''Daily Mail'' RFC. I don't see any attempts to locate an alternative source or raise the issue on the talk page. Removing content in this manner is destructive. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::If you ever think unreliable tabloids are a suitable source for material about living people, you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing, and what constitutes "destructive". You appear both unable and unwilling to back up the content you want to edit-war back in, under [[WP:BURDEN]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::You keep calling it "unreliable" but I have not seen any evidence for that position. During the Daily Mail RFC examples were presented of ''The Daily Mail'' or its website fabricating stories. Are you able to provide such examples of the MoS doing so? THis [https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10 IPSI report] (page 18) shows that in terms of upheld complaints it is comparable to other other publications in its category. ''The Sunday Times'' had more complaints upheld than MoS but I don't see you objecting to that title. It is fairly obvious to me that your actions are motiviated by an agenda against ''The Daily Mail'' rather than any objective assessment of MoS's reliability. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 08:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Speaking as a closer rather than someone who had an a priori opinion on the source; no, the DM RfCs do not extend to the Mail on Sunday, and citing the DM proscription as a reason to remove the Mail on Sunday source isn't appropriate. Conversely, just because it isn't proscribed by the DM RfC does not make the Mail on Sunday a reliable source by default, and the spirit of [[WP:BURDEN]] still applies to any content that it is used for, in that the person seeking to include that content needs to demonstrate verifiability. To be honest, for contentious material sourced to the news media, I would want multiple corroborating sources always, unless the first source is of unimpeachable quality. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:I've already spoken (and answered) this exact question, but to (again) reiterate, I'm with Vanamonde on this: the RFC related to the ''Daily Mail'' and the ''Daily Mail'' only. The fact that they share a website is problematic, but if a reference is for the ''Mail on Sunday'' then it is inherently ''not'' a reference for the ''Daily Mail''. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*::Agree with Vanamonde and Primefac above - The Mail on Sunday was not covered in the RFCs, and it can be argued seriously (and probably correctly) that it is a fundamentally different source. Therefore the DM RFC does not cover the Mail on Sunday. If you think that the Mail on Sunday is a bad source that should be deprecated or otherwise restricted, you are free to open a fresh RFC to find consensus on that. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I still stand by my comment at [[User talk:Primefac/Archive 29#The Daily Mail RfC, Again]], i.e no unless MoS is part of DM the RfC on the latter does not apply. That's a separate question than whether it's a good idea to use MoS as a reference for something. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== RfC: Mail on Sunday === |
|||
{{RSN RfC status|1600504860}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC) --> |
|||
What is the reliability of ''[[The Mail on Sunday]]''? |
|||
*'''Option 1:''' Generally [[WP:RS|reliable]] for factual reporting |
|||
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply |
|||
*'''Option 3:''' Generally [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] for factual reporting |
|||
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]] |
|||
[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Responses (Mail on Sunday) ==== |
|||
*'''Option 4''' The content on mailonline (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html) seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet, Peter Hitchens has reported favourably on the Douma chemical attack leaks, which are discredited by most mainstream sources. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Even for news stories, there's no separate subdomain for MoS stories and the bylines say "for Mailonline", the only way you'd be able to definitively know whether it was a MoS story would be by checking the actual physical newspaper, which wikipedians aren't going to be citing anyway. The TV&Showbiz section which editors find to be the most problematic is displayed right with the news on the MoS section. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: The MoS has its own separate domain, https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/, but it's only been cited 11 times per {{duses|mailonsunday.co.uk}}, and provides no separation from the TV&Showbiz section https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html, which appears to be the same as the rest of the mailonline, and the website functions as more of a mirror than anything else. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: As I write this on a weekday, The content of mailonsunday.co.uk is identical to that of dailymail.co.uk, making it for all intents and purposes a mirror of MailOnline, and so therefore mailonsunday.co.uk should be added to the deprecated domains list regardless of the outcome of the RfC. If the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated, it should be allowed to be cited as a print reference only. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' I regard ''Mail on Sunday'' reliable for the following reasons: |
|||
#It has editorial oversight. independent from ''The Daily Mail'' and the website. |
|||
#It has been established that the DM ban does not apply to MoS. |
|||
#During the Daily Mail RFC, examples of the DM fabricating stories were presented. I do not recall any from the MoS. |
|||
#Other reliable sources reference it. |
|||
#The number of complaints upheld by [https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10 IPSI report] (page 18) is comparable to other publications in its category that are generally regarded as reliable sources. ''The Sunday Times'', for example, had more complaints upheld than MoS. |
|||
#MailOnline (which is already proscribed) is a separate entity. It houses content from ''The Daily Mail'' and ''Mail on Sunday'' but also publishes its own content. This does not confer unreliability on the MoS. This is nothing more than a technical barrier and the print edition can be cited directly. |
|||
:It may get things wrong occasionally but no more than other comparable titles. No evidence of it fabricating stories has been presented and an objective measure shows that its level of accurate reporting is comparable to other titles deemed reliable. The arguments presented in the above discussion invariably boil down to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] and a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Sunday and daily editions and the website. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::There's a couple of lists now of egregious fabrication - please address these (with more case by case specifics than "I feel like it's no worse than others"), even a little bit of this sort of thing seems a massive red flag that would rule it out as being treated as an ordinary [[WP:NEWSORG]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are no lists of fabricated stories, just lists of stories that were proven to be factually inaccurate. For example, the story about a "Muslim" gang attacking a van was not fabricated. The incident happened! The MOS was forced to adjust the article because the religion of the perpetrators was based on conjecture. The story about climate change that was prcolaimed "fake news" wasn't fabricated if you look at the article, it was simply inaccurate. Again, the level of complaints upheld against it is not significantly different to other titles, such as ''The Sunday Times''. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::They've been provided right here in this discussion - fabrication of claims, extensive fabrication of quotes, etc - but if you want to pretend they don't exist and think "lalala I can't hear you" and "but whatabout that other paper we're not discussing" is a refutation, you can certainly stay with that. If you want to discuss the Sunday Times, you should start an RFC on that. (And if you didn't actually want to discuss the Sunday Times, then your discussion of it so far is indistinguishable from throwing up chaff.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::To be fair, the meat of Betty's argument isn't so much that there isn't any incorrect information, just that there isn't any ''more'' incorrect information than papers we tend to consider reliable. They aren't saying they 'feel like it's no worse than others' but that there's empirical evidence that it isn't. Bringing up other papers we consider reliable isn't irrelevant. The problem is that the empirical evidence presented is extremely flimsy: the IPSO report is on the number of articles which received ''complaints'', not how accurate they are. The report itself says "newspapers with the highest circulation [...] received the most complaints." It doesn't tell us anything. I was unable to find any empirical reports on the reliability of the Mail on Sunday specifically (if there were any I imagine there'd be no discussion), and all fact-checking websites treat it alongside the Daily Mail. Wikipedia seems to be alone in considering it separately. I think the false information already presented is egregious enough to warrant '''Option 4''' and if other sources we consider reliable have done the same we should stop considering them reliable too. [[User:Iesbian|Iesbian]] ([[User talk:Iesbian|talk]]) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::You're making this seem a lot more reasonable than it is. An outlet that bases significant information on conjecture is not reliable. Other outlets we consider reliable don't do that. [[User:Iesbian|Iesbian]] ([[User talk:Iesbian|talk]]) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' - it's the same trash from the same sewer, and it always has been - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4'''. Obviously. Examples of false stories published specifically in the Mail on Sunday: <ref>{{cite web |title=Third anniversary of fake news story in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ |url=https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/third-anniversary-of-fake-news-story-in-the-mail-on-sunday/ |website=[[London School of Economics]] – [[Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment]] |date=1 September 2017|quote=Yesterday was the third anniversary of one of the most inaccurate and misleading articles about climate change impacts on the Arctic that has ever been published by a UK newspaper. On 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Mail on Sunday apologises for 'Muslim gangs' attack immigration van story |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/20/mail-on-sunday-apologises-for-muslim-gangs-attack-immigration-van-story |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en |date=20 September 2015 |quote=The Mail on Sunday has apologised for and corrected a story that said “Muslim gangs” were behind an attack on an immigration enforcement van in east London following a complaint to the press regulation body Ipso.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Fake News: Mail on Sunday Forced to Correct ‘Significantly Misleading’ Article on Global Warming ‘Pause’ |url=https://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/09/18/fake-news-mail-sunday-forced-correct-significantly-misleading-global-warming-pause-article |website=DeSmog UK |language=en |date=18 September 2017 |quote=The Mail on Sunday has been forced to publish a 659-word correction to an article alleging a scientific study exaggerated the extent of global warming and was rushed in an attempt to influence the Paris Agreement negotiations. [...] The UK’s press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), today ruled that the Mail on Sunday had “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” and “had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements”.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=‘The Mail on Sunday’ admits publishing more fake news about climate change |url=https://www.cccep.ac.uk/news/the-mail-on-sunday-admits-publishing-more-fake-news-about-climate-change/ |website=[[Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy]]|quote=‘The Mail on Sunday’ newspaper has been forced to publish a statement today admitting that two more articles it published last year about climate change were fake news. It is the latest humiliation for the newspaper which has been misleading its readers for many years about the causes and potential consequences of climate change.|date=22 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=British journalists have become part of Johnson’s fake news machine |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/ |website=openDemocracy |language=en |quote=In other words, the Mail on Sunday splash that Downing Street was investigating Grieve, Letwin and Benn was fabrication. Fake News. There has, however, been no retraction from The Mail on Sunday. As far as the newspaper’s readers are concerned, the story remains true and the senior British politicians behind the Benn Act continue to be investigated for suspicious involvement with foreign powers.|date=22 October 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Mail on Sunday made false claims about Labour's tax plans |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/09/ipso-rebukes-mail-on-sunday-over-labour-movers-tax-claim |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en |date=9 December 2019 |quote=The Mail on Sunday (MoS) falsely claimed that Labour was planning to scrap a tax exemption on homeowners, in a prominent story that has since been used by the Conservatives as part of their election campaign. [...] The erroneous article was published in June, and the press regulator ruled on the inaccuracy in November. The MoS must now publish Ipso’s ruling on page 2 of its print edition and on the top half of its website for 24 hours. But because the paper sought a review of the process by which the decision was made, publication of the correction has been delayed until after the election.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Beautician's libel victory over false Mail on Sunday story |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-51676350 |website=[[BBC News]] |date=28 February 2020 |quote=A beautician who tried to take her own life after a newspaper published lies about her business has been paid damages for libel by the publisher. [...] Ms Hindley complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that the coverage was factually incorrect and it found in her favour. The regulator got her a correction, which was supposed to appear on page two of the newspaper but ended up on page eight. |
|||
}}</ref> In all cases, they only ever published corrections months later when forced to by the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]]. ─ [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]] « [[User talk:ReconditeRodent|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent|contribs]] » 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::These are not fabricated stories. They are stories containing inaccuracies. Statistically speaking, the MOS on average contains no more inaccuracies than something like ''The Sunday Times''. It had two complaints upheld in 2018: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10. Should we proscribe ''The Sunday Times'' as well because five complaints were upheld over the same period? [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The false claims are central to the story in every example I've given. IPSO only deals with cases that get referred to them by members of the public and the inaccuracies they investigate can vary in severity which is why we're looking at specific examples. If you can find similarly many examples of egregious journalism in ''The Times'', we can have a discussion about them as well. ─ [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]] « [[User talk:ReconditeRodent|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent|contribs]] » 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::False or misrepresentative claims usually are central to inaccurate stories. I am not defending these articles. I am pleased the beautician won her case! But are any of your examples more egregious than this sequence of ''Times'' stories: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43887481. It is worth noting that of the 69 stories that received complaints only two were ultimately upheld. The remainder were either not taken up, resolved through other means, or IPSO found in favor of the MoS. I take on board your point that the IPSO cases are just a sample and not a comprehensive vetting of MoS's output, but that is true of the other publications they have ranked too. I think these examples would carry more weight if this were a discussion about a ''class'' of sources i.e. a discussion about raising the bar on what constitutes a reliable source. But this is not about raising the bar; it is about purging one particular source that sampled evidence shows is not disproportionately worse than rival titles in the market. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 23:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' The above is enough for me to say 4, rather then 2 or 3.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' Complete trash, per {{U|ReconditeRodent}} and others. This is [[lipstick on a pig|lipstick on the Daily Mail]].  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' – these are not just "stories containing inaccuracies", on the global warming "pause" it made allegations of malpractice while ignoring evidence,<ref>{{cite web |title=Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise |url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise |website=Carbon Brief |language=en |date=5 February 2017|quote=accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data [......] What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data ...}}</ref> and as noted above was eventually forced to publish online the IPSO finding that instead it had based the article on misrepresenting a blog post.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rose |first1=David |title=World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data |url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html |work=Mail on Sunday |date=4 February 2017|quote=the newspaper's claims [....] went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact...}}</ref> Similar misreporting appeared in the MoS in 2012.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Office |first1=Met Office Press |title=Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 |url=https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ |website=Official blog of the Met Office news team |language=en |date=29 January 2012|quote=Today the Mail on Sunday published a story [which] includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science [.....] to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him ....}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Office |first1=Met Office Press |title=Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 |url=https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ |website=Official blog of the Met Office news team |language=en |date=14 October 2012|quote=An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’ It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, ...}}</ref> . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
* '''Option 4:''' There are dozens of examples of ''Mail on Sunday'' fabrications, but I will list just one, featured in ''Vogue'': [https://www.vogue.com/article/meghan-markle-responds-to-tabloid-rumors Meghan Markle Responds to a Set of Tabloid Rumors] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Bad RfC'''. The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017. The list from David Gerard below is over-the-top with its accusations, e.g. being in fifth place for complaints just ahead of The Guardian doesn't show anything as others have already indicated, and there were no "fabricated claims of anti-Semitism" (the Mail on Sunday did not say Mr Livingstone was anti-Semitic), etc. But the lists do show that Mail on Sunday publishes corrections, and (see WP:RS) "publication of corrections" is a good signal. They are sometimes forced by IPSO but that is a good thing too, the British newspapers that refuse to join IPSO are the contemptible ones if that's what matters. Mail on Sunday is a "well-established news outlet" so WP:NEWSORG tells us it "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", so voting to censor it is a demand to violate WP:RS. Option 4 should not have been proposed. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
** Here is the article Peter Gulutzan is referring to: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6868849/Ken-Livingstone-says-Labour-anti-Semitism-row-lies-smears-peddled-ghastly-Blairites.html Ken Livingstone stokes new Labour anti-Semitism row after dismissing problem as 'lies and smears peddled by ghastly Blairites']. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
** '''Bad counting'''. Peter Gulutzan at 01:22, 13 September 2020 wrote "{{tq|The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017}}" The list was started with 7 items by ReconditeRodent at 10:56, 12 September 2020, and I added four items, two of which were articles covering the same incorrect article by David Rose already covered in item 3 on the list, and mentioned along with other incorrect articles of his in item 4 on the list. I'd already researched it independently, so added my items and tried to indicate two were on the same topic, but evidently not clear enough. In total, the list of 11 items covers 12 transgressions, that is 12 separate articles published by the MoS, some of them repeating false claims by David Rose. Appreciate it's a bit complicated, so miscounting is understandable if rather careless. Hope the following list helps to clarify things. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{quotation|list for clarification: |
|||
1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed. |
|||
2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015 |
|||
3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction |
|||
4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online." <br>Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.<ref>{{cite web | author=Mail on Sunday | title=IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS: Sasha Wass QC | website=Daily Mail Online | date=6 August 2017 | url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4764454/IPSO-adjudication-upheld-against-MoS-Sasha-Wass-QC.html | access-date=13 September 2020|quote=Following an article published on 9 October 2016 in the Mail on Sunday, headlined “Revealed: How top QC ‘buried evidence of Met bribes to put innocent man in jail’”, Sasha Wass QC complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=Mail on Sunday | title=IPSO upholds complaint by Max Hill QC against MoS | website=Daily Mail Online | date=24 September 2017 | url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4913782/IPSO-upholds-complaint-Max-Hill-QC-against-MoS.html | access-date=13 September 2020|quote=Following publication of an article of headlined “The terror law chief and the 'cover-up' that could explode UK's biggest bomb trial”, published on 5th March, Max Hill complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required The Mail on Sunday to publish this adjudication.}}</ref> |
|||
5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'" |
|||
6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election. |
|||
7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages. |
|||
8 article and correction as 3 |
|||
9 article and correction as 3 |
|||
10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office |
|||
11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office |
|||
[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
*'''Option 2''' - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually [[The Mail on Sunday]]. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Categorise the same as the ''Daily Mail''''': there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the ''Daily Mail''. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the ''Mail on Sunday'' differently then we must categorise it as '''option 4''' per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1 – 2''' - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. [https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-8732839/Medics-teachers-left-unable-coronavirus-swab.html Mail on Sunday] and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i>]][[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">❧</b>]]</span> 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''', same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::This is an incorrect statement. It has been stated multiple times that the ''[[Mail on Sunday]]'' is its own independent newspaper. This means it has its own staff, journalists, and editorial board. Please read the ''Mail on Sunday'' wikipedia article to inform yourself about the newspaper. These are the "authors" as you call them of the ''Mail on Sunday'': |
|||
{{Div col|colwidth=10em}} |
|||
:::[[Peter Hitchens]] |
|||
:::[[Rachel Johnson]] |
|||
:::[[Olly Smith]] |
|||
:::[[James Forsyth (journalist)|James Forsyth]] |
|||
:Robert Waugh |
|||
:[[Piers Morgan]] |
|||
:[[Craig Brown (satirist)|Craig Brown]] |
|||
:[[Tom Parker Bowles]] |
|||
:[[Chris Evans|Chris Evans]] |
|||
:Ruth Sunderland |
|||
:Sebastian O Kelly |
|||
:[[Liz Jones]] |
|||
:Sally Brompton |
|||
:Sarah Stacey |
|||
:[[Mimi Spencer]] |
|||
:Jeff Prestridge |
|||
:John Rees |
|||
:Ellie Cannon |
|||
:Jane Clarke |
|||
:Katie Nicholl |
|||
:[[Oliver Holt]] |
|||
:Stuart Broad |
|||
:Patrick Collins |
|||
:[[Glenn Hoddle]] |
|||
:Michael Owen |
|||
:Nick Harris |
|||
:[[Andrew Pierce]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
::You have also chosen option 4, which means that you are stating that these journalists as a group are involved in writing "{{tq|false or fabricated information}}". You have provided no proof of your statement. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse '''Option 2''' with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. [[User:Ortolan57|Ortolan57]] ([[User talk:Ortolan57|talk]]) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**It's hard to see how it's an option 1 given its cited record of fabrication - surely this should be addressed in an opinion worth taking into consideration - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''', just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3 or 4''' Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726155/SIR-DAVID-ATTENBOROUGH-reveals-born-today-witness-sixth-mass-extinction.html]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**So you're fine with the list of blatant fabrications? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Apparently you're fine with the "fabrications" of the newspapers you judge to be reliable? Please quit this obviously disingenuous and facetious line of argument - the output of a media outlet should be judged as a whole and not based on cherry-picked examples. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::The argument "but whatabout these other newspapers that aren't the topic here" isn't regarded as a useful argument on RSN. If you want to discuss those, you should start an RFC about them, listing their fabrications. This discussion is about the Mail on Sunday - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Responding to "but the MoS is not less reliable than the Sunday Times according to the metric that you've chosen to ban it" with "then you should start an RFC on banning the Sunday Times" is clearly not an argument made in good faith. We all know that the outcome of such an RFC would be a snow-close for "Option 1" and a possible trip to ANI for whoever chose to waste everyone's time by proposing it. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::David you clearly chose not to read my comment, so I will reply to your strawman with emphasis added. "''all'' wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should '''never be our first choice for sourcing content''' and we should prefer '''neutral academic sources'''. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a '''last resort''' and guided by '''exercising good judgement'''. .... '''Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis'''. You appear obsessed by the Daily Mail and removing any reference to it, often to the detriment of article quality and blind to the reliability of the article. You would remove [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726155/SIR-DAVID-ATTENBOROUGH-reveals-born-today-witness-sixth-mass-extinction.html this] for example and are you suggesting that an opinion sourced to [[David Attenborough]] becomes unreliable simply because it is published in the DM? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' As per Curry above and the fact that MOS has a separate editor. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ping|The C of E}} Seeing as you were [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|opposed]] to the deprecation of the ''Daily Mail'' itself (arguing that there was "no need to blacklist a whole publication because of a few opinion pieces that may not be to some tastes") and then [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|argued]] just two years later that the ban should be lifted because they had "changed", what possible relevance could ''The Mail on Sunday''{{'s}} editorial independence have? [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 04:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::This argument essentially boils down to trying to exclude anyone who was in the (substantial) minority in the DM Ban RFC from ever having a say in any future issue related to banning media. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I question who this IP is {{ping|FOARP}} given he seems to have only started editing this year so how can he know about whom said what back when? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't recall having participated in a previous RfC on the use of the ''Daily Mail'' as a source. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm merely questioning the particular argument being used here. Given what {{u|The C of E}} has said in the past, supporting option 1 is consistent, but given their premises, I can't see what relevance the publication's editorial independence could have. Perhaps {{u|The C of E}} can clarify. |
|||
::::But I don't see how what I'm saying would exclude anyone who participated in the past RfCs from having a say here. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It is a clear attempt to daisy-chain RFCs. "But you didn't agree with the concept of these RFCs so you can't vote Option 1 in this RFC" the argument goes, resulting in a more extreme and less balanced result. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 4''' (preferred) because it shares DM staff, history of fabrications, and has the same website as the Daily Mail, complete with "sidebar of shame" and its obsession with objectifying (see also "all grown up"). Failing that, then go with print edition ''only'' as no worse than the average tabloid, but still best not to use because tabloid. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**FWIW, not really seeing why the print edition should be presumed less deprecable than the online version - is there a convincing reason? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{u|David Gerard}}, convincing? Not sure: depends who you're trying to convince (and obviously here I exclude Brian K Horton and his hosiery drawer). The bar to inclusion means that most of the [[churnalism]] on the website doesn't make it into print. The print edition is exactly as biased, and has undoubtedly printed some egregious bollocks, but the level of oversight is at least marginally higher. But you'll note that is my second choice, because my strong preference is to exclude altogether. You cannot trust anything you read on the Mail websites, and that fatally undermines any claim to journalistic integrity for any of its output IMO. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::fair - I'll certainly agree that if there was an Option 4½, Mail Online would warrant it - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Bad RFC''' (or '''Option 1''' if the RFC still goes ahead) - These "let's ban media outlets we don't like" have no link to any actual issue in an article on Wikipedia. They always turn into a forum-style discussion on the perceived good-ness or not of the source itself rather than its reliability in relation to any subject matter. Editors should be free to decide what sources they use through consensus on a case-by-case basis, rather than these pointless blanket bans. Comparisons to reliable sources with exactly the same failings that the news outlet to be deprecated displays are always batted away with "why don't you start an RFC on banning the New York Times then?" (or similar facetiousness). The outcome is pre-determined as soon as the typically right-wing nature of the publication to be banned is highlighted. Rampant double-standards abound especially between UK and US publications. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:Seeing as your issue is with the writ-large deprecation of sources generally, isn't that an argument better suited to [[WT:RS]] to have {{section link|Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Deprecated sources}} amended? I don't see how it's relevant here when we're trying to apply the existing guidelines. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Since I oppose these blanket bans of regulated media with well-established editorial teams based in countries with robust freedom of speech, then I also oppose banning the MoS and hence am voting on those grounds. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|hence am voting on those grounds}} These discussions are not votes; so you appear to be declaring that your statement here is explicitly not about the MoS as a source, and hence meaningless in the discussion. The process of deprecation was itself ratified in an RFC; if you want to remove it, then you would need to run an RFC to do so - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You're trying to make any opposition to this steady banning of sources invalid ''ab initio''. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I note you haven't answered my point below about your deletion campaign deleting even [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] statements by the MoS (explicitly allowed even under the DM 2017 RFC close) which is a prime example of how this isn't about content, or what has been specifically decided in RFCs, but about getting something you can use to justify a mass-deletion campaign against a publication you dislike. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Your other question is you whatabouting the issue - this is a discussion of the Mail On Sunday, not of me. If you have a point to make about the Mail On Sunday, it needs to be a point about the Mail On Sunday. If you can't make a point about the quality of the Mail On Sunday as a source - and you've just said above that you're not making a point about the Mail On Sunday, you're trying to reverse the idea of deprecation of sources, which is an action that's been ratified at RFC. You can keep on trying to flail about to distract from the point, but if you're not addressing the question then you're just making noise. You don't even understand that this isn't a vote, so I can't say that you are even proceeding in bad faith, but you don't appear to be proceeding [[WP:CIR|competently]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is '''totally inappropriate.''' If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is). |
|||
::::::::2. '''Comparisons with other sources are NOT irrelevant to this discussion,''' and telling editors to 'go start an RFC about The Times' or whatever is flat out disruptive. GENERAL RELIABILITY is RELATIVE. We should not be applying different sets of standards to sources we don't like than the sources we like. Furthermore, your 'suggestion' is a non sequitur, and is clearly in bad faith, because [[WP:SNOWBALL|every one of us knows that will NEVER happen]]. [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk:Firejuggler86|talk]]) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agree with FOARP. It's unfortunate because blanket bans will come back to haunt us in the future for a number of reasons. This is not to say there are not problems with sources, but every source article should be evaluated and never site banned. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' As per [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]]. [[User:Autarch|Autarch]] ([[User talk:Autarch|talk]]) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 2''' per others, they make corrections and the volume of problems is not severe. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' - generally reliable newspaper. The Mail on Sunday had a relatively low number of complaints based on the ipso statistics. The number of complaints was similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. It’s a respected newspaper that has a number of notable contributors. Other newspapers quote it. The paper is conservative leaning so care is required on political topics. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3, prefer 4''' I kept being surprised that this was still being employed as a source following the Daily Mail deprecation. Tabloids are bad sources, and this is on the bottom layer of tabloids, sharing staff and large amounts of content (and apparently its philosophy and veracity) with the Daily Mail. The above examples of fabrication and evasion require some pretty dedicated scampering to ignore. We are an encyclopedia and must be able to exclude material that has a high chance of being misrepresented or made up. If an item is of wider impact, we can use one of many other sources; if it is MoS exclusive, we run the risk of it having been blown up into some chimaera in order to add another five points to the headline size. Do not need. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4'''. The list of issues above is persuasive. The reason why full depreciation rather than unreliability is called is twofold. First, the "errors" highlighted above are all in one direction and all reflect the biases of the Mail's owners (its "errors" are inevitably stuff that eg. downplays global warming, paints Muslims or Labour in a bad light, bolsters the Tories, and so on); this, combined with the tendency to slow-walk corrections or neglect them entirely, suggests that, regardless of the (still uncited?) claims of editorial independence, it is subject to the same forces, in the same way, that make the Daily Mail itself unreliable. Bias is acceptable in a source, and occasional errors are not an issue; but repeated errors, in the same direction, which consistently reflect the biases of the owner suggest a systematic problem that makes it hard to justify using them as a source - there is simply every reason to think that their overriding goal is to advance their owners' political agenda at the expense of fact-checking or accuracy. Second, they fit the same criteria that made depreciation of the original Daily Mail necessary in that they are clearly not reliable due to the above, yet a vocal minority of editors insists that it can be used - and not merely that it can be used, but that it is somehow an ''exemplary'' source (note how the opinions here split between overwhelming numbers of people favoring depreciation and people saying it is generally reliable, with so little in-between.) That is the sort of situation that requires a decisive conclusion, since it is plain some people will continue to try and use it as a source everywhere unless there is an unambiguous decision saying they can't. Finally, in case it comes up - given that this discussion focuses on the parallels between the Mail and the Mail on Sunday and how those seem to stem from its ownership, I would suggest that whatever decision we reach here ought to apply to any outlets owned by [[Daily Mail and General Trust]], at least by default ([[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]], the other major paper they own, is already listed as generally unreliable.) It is clear from these discussions and the examples above that the root problem is the owners and not the individual editorial boards. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic. |
|||
::It's not complicated for me. The complaint statistics of the the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday are the same. The Sunday Times has also made a number of significant corrections. All this information was provided below. What the Sunday Times does better is that it has a more sophisticated writing style, since it targets the professional upper class. The Mail on Sunday is targeted towards the middle class. Option 2 I certainly can understand, since this is similar to how many American editors view Fox (which has some parallels to the politics and biases of the Mail on Sunday). Even option 3 would be understandable for people who cannot bear any publication which makes an error. But option 4 would mean the newspaper is worse than a self-published source. It would mean the highest selling Sunday newspaper, which won newspaper of the year in 2019 and has a number of notable writers, cannot be even used for its review of a theatre play which is gross and absurd. Fortunately, what is happening with the British media market on this board cannot be done to the American media market which has a much larger and more diverse pool of Wikipedia editors who use it. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Whole heartedly agree with this view. That the editors who have actually used the MoS as a source have not been notified is a legitimacy issue with this RFC. That they are excluded is an inevitable product of this RFC being completely divorced from actual content issues with articles. Engaging with the actual use of the MoS on Wiki would mean acknowledging that a lot of the present use (which is not high) is simply [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] (e.g., the edit by [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] linked above where he deleted even the mere mention that a book had been MoS book of the week, claiming that this was justified by the DM ban which explicitly allows "about-self" use), or completely uncontroversial. The double standard between UK and US media outlets, let alone between UK outlets and those of China or Iran, is as palpable as it is absurd. Responding to clear evidence that the MoS has had no more complaints upheld against it than the Sunday Times with "well then you should start an RFC to ban the Sunday Times" is not arguing in good faith. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' - I would think that because ''The Mail on Sunday'' is just the weekend branding of ''Daily Mail'' that it'd fall under the existing restrictions there, but nonetheless, they still seem to have a desperate use of trigger words, sensationalism, low-quality fact checking and having been the source most sanctioned by [[IPSO|UK regulators]] ([https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/?fbclid=IwAR1VqUZAbAbQ-_aIYPxwDg12k-wuyWKYjTpBN0P1oWS2FRDlSCf1jsG-gNY source] which says "The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday...") three years in a row ([https://themediafund.org/news/daily-mail-most-unreliable-paper/ source]). [[User:ItsPugle|ItsPugle]] <small>(please [[:Template:ping|ping]] on reply)</small> 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It has been explained multiple times that the ''[[Mail on Sunday]]'', ''[[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]]'', ''[[I (newspaper)|i]]'' (originally a sister newspaper of ''[[The Independent]]''), and also ''[[Daily Mail]]'' are all separate newspapers. This means that the newspapers have separate staff, journalists, and editorial boards. These different newspapers are published by [[DMG Media]] which itself is owned by the media company [[DMGT]]. It is normal for media companies to own multiple titles. See for instance [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corp]] which owns [[Dow Jones & Company]] (publisher of 'of the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', ''[[MarketWatch]]'' and ''[[Barron's (newspaper)|Barron's]]''), [[News UK]] (publisher of ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' and ''[[The Times]]''), and book publisher [[HarperCollins]]. |
|||
::Also it is not clear why you provided links to two blogs about the IPSO statistics, when below is the complete IPSO table for 2018. The table clearly shows that the Mail on Sunday did not rank poorly. Please uncollapse the green bar below that says table and trust your own eyes. The only thing I do want to quote from one of your blogs is the following:"{{tq|''Sunday Times'' Forced to Admit to Fake Antisemitism Smears}}". That sounds like a major faux pas that the Mail on Sunday's competitor made, just like that little faux pas that the ''New Statesman'' made in regards to the Roger Scruton interview [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#The_New_Statesman that we just discussed on this reliable source board]. It is unfortunate that generally reliable sources sometimes make faux pas. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply|Guest2625}} Would you be able to link to the discussion that ended in a consensus that the staff etc are different and that there's absolutely no commonality between the two? I think you'll also notice that the source I provided is from 2019, not 2018. Associated Newspapers Limited, which owns Metro, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online, even says in their annual report that Mail Online shares editorial content, lawyers, and replies to complaints to IPSO on behalf of Mail on Sunday. [[User:ItsPugle|ItsPugle]] <small>(please [[:Template:ping|ping]] on reply)</small> 06:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The Wikipedia article on the ''[[Mail on Sunday]]'' explains that it is its own newspaper. It is stated there that the newspaper has its own staff and editor. The blog you provided is from 2019; however, it's referencing the IPSO complaint statistics from 2018. This is a quote from the blog:[https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/?fbclid=IwAR1VqUZAbAbQ-_aIYPxwDg12k-wuyWKYjTpBN0P1oWS2FRDlSCf1jsG-gNY] "In terms of total number of sanctions, the top seven reached 90 between them across 2018. This is slightly better than 2017’s total of 115, but up on the 62 offences committed in 2016." As you'll note the blog's most recent numbers are the 2018 IPSO statistics, which are provided in clear detail in the table below from the [https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10 2018 IPSO report] on page 18. So for clarification again, the chief editor of the ''[[Mail on Sunday]]'', as stated in the Wikipedia article, is [[Ted Verity]] and these are the current writers for the newspaper: |
|||
{{Div col|colwidth=10em}} |
|||
::::[[Peter Hitchens]] |
|||
::::[[Rachel Johnson]] |
|||
::::[[Olly Smith]] |
|||
:[[James Forsyth (journalist)|James Forsyth]] |
|||
:Robert Waugh |
|||
:[[Piers Morgan]] |
|||
:[[Craig Brown (satirist)|Craig Brown]] |
|||
:[[Tom Parker Bowles]] |
|||
:[[Chris Evans|Chris Evans]] |
|||
:Ruth Sunderland |
|||
:Sebastian O Kelly |
|||
:[[Liz Jones]] |
|||
:Sally Brompton |
|||
:Sarah Stacey |
|||
:[[Mimi Spencer]] |
|||
:Jeff Prestridge |
|||
:John Rees |
|||
:Ellie Cannon |
|||
:Jane Clarke |
|||
:Katie Nicholl |
|||
:[[Oliver Holt]] |
|||
:Stuart Broad |
|||
:Patrick Collins |
|||
:[[Glenn Hoddle]] |
|||
:Michael Owen |
|||
:Nick Harris |
|||
:[[Andrew Pierce]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
::::Since the owners of the ''Mail on Sunday'' have multiple papers, it would not be surprising, if they used the same legal staff for the different papers. I read the Associated Newspapers Limited 2019 annual report [https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/_7rGvfCig_2hGMWRCLXa4hiUY4WdsoNQ0JvdeLbHK30/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3JH6IASXN%2F20201012%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20201012T094710Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEE4aCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIGH4IhEmDyPUrvQQfAbU%2BDNFdB2r%2FnHtnh0gimvRAf27AiEAqDCRmVKsuqewO2GgFrrtDoMaQOZWeqtz9HEsgLu50yoqvQMIh%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARADGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDP1OJ9hyuc6uHnGITiqRA1G9Qvx4iruvIaIiZtRfQf%2F3%2BhFg9Mpy%2FqiYGkR8t5089b1qQZKow6%2BGGDbH4YVzn3jOnAPi%2FbY1b9nMTWfk1mfusuv91Qyh0s5JWZSRim46H%2B%2FHI4iSl1quRAOLLpaOi5RWH601pEWqU8hhqvmadgcq9UHGa9jDbNhyR06DjyGtJ1%2FUYR1t98mMM7w0iqgKf9ryFGUM3gsP7zCkuJp2FbGrumBDEx0DM1zStUIdzOUlrZ2CSHqukmu%2BoenZ8YTiAw8ohAF7ZQN3v%2BH%2BPq7Fl%2Byp4dynERA3veIIJLKQHr1%2F8xjQeWgRochwk7pLY4GNcCi69LI8YacyWdKKDlDCyLCmLZB33KqFT4tfDJyKDt81MGl2KJ0mjbi6tm9NOyNxohHSFof04kirIfswYtFT7wDlkIl2hhuLStQqGS5LF7GD4krnvij6go6IDMWd6WMVRTM5ELXUeMFfD0sQiuCsIBbGpzzVwEMwRgvdUtkB0ZLaF5pKz0opYrdV5LVuLW2Gv9KVwnmWnSGuk%2BW3PePhAjPrMPTkj%2FwFOusBVuAvJmuq8zmPn7R38zIpk8Vx7wvm75gUn18mAWluYCkdCCKNcbbbl5qzL4VH3u50kSpMFK3qjAqrpUHiUmkK4l%2Fqe4NFX5AujYU%2BQxUZM7lt%2BFHUBmo8cnwp09NlDhgn6d6aqCd4d2lbn1QdO0nquMZfAQty55n2A9qiJmX31U0X81zJKYwwAPQOrRED%2FB3MS2oBAI7Sq%2BqOZ0wEALKUOaxlAV0FxOW87aKiFvEELlnshd%2F%2BYhkKULlxivLl3pBXnyQ4AUs9BN4CRSH1YlyWSbzavFovFNKLzV4iW8fI8vz8Id8zg69D4Zf%2FMQ%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=c639da07a39b5b4a90772eedcf1c22114e0462baea1d2ad846615c2d1cb35049 here][https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00084121/filing-history and here], but I wasn't able to find your statement about sharing editorial content and complaint reply in the report. Could you provide me with a link to the annual report that you read and the relevant page number. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''Option 2''' How much confidence can really be taken from a debate where even basic pertinent details, such as whether or not the Sunday edition has a separate editorial staf , cannot seemingly be settled a priori? I note too, the complete lack of impeccable sources like the Columbia Journalism Review. These have been used when debating the reliability of Fox and the New York Post in this foraaa , so their absence here, given the claims that basically cast the MoS as a step change worse, rings alarm bells as far as the potential for bias goes. [[User:Jack B Williamson|Jack B Williamson]] ([[User talk:Jack B Williamson|talk]]) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Jack B Williamson|Jack B Williamson]] ([[User talk:Jack B Williamson|talk]] </s>• [[Special:Contributions/Jack B Williamson|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
|||
*: The Columbia Journalism Review is a US based outlet and generally doesn't cover the UK press so the lack of coverage by that outlet is irrelevant. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*: I have struck the contribution from the boring sockpuppet. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 2''' I think generally news media shouldn’t be considered reliable by it self. Citing facts from news is not how it works in the real world. You need to also consider other sources. A body of news sources together give weight, but it is still in the news. I read newspapers and enjoy, but that is mostly because I think. The narrative that we need to fact check the media is a construction. This RfC I think is created to ease some admin work, and that is perfectly OK. They already banned publications that can easily be mistaken, because of the architecture of the web address. I understand it’s a mess. I don’t like the options. I think option 1 and 4 are divisive provocations for the trenches. And option 2 and 3 are vague. What does even option 3 mean? [[User:Mysteriumen|Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ]] <sup style="margin-left:+2.0ex">[[User talk:Mysteriumen|•♪talk]]</sup> <sub style="margin-left:-7.55ex"> [[Special:Contributions/Mysteriumen|♪• look]]</sub> 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**If, as you say, you don't in fact understand the question, it's not clear this helps form an informed consensus - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' It is clear that the Mail on Sunday, while technically independent editorially, shares ownership and agenda with the Daily Mail. While this alone is not enough to deprecate the paper, it is relevant because the Mail on Sunday also appears to share the bad habits of fabricating claims about living people and publishing lies, bad information and untrustworthy speculation. I am sure that they often publish good and true information, but I am also sure that they publish outright false information which, I believe, they often know to be untrue. For the use of the MoS as a source on Wikipedia, they surely therefore have to be considered unreliable and deprecated. It would be inconsistent to come to any other conclusion. I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail as well as the MoS make their 'mistakes' in a very particular direction, which is aimed propping up the Conservative party (and perhaps occasionally offshoots of it) and putting down Labour as well as any right-wing movement which may become a threat to the Conservative party. [[User:Downfall Vision|Downfall Vision]] ([[User talk:Downfall Vision|talk]]) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' per Aquillion and others. <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>[[User:Gleeanon409|<span style="color:orange">Glee</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Gleeanon409|<span style="color: magenta">anon</span>]]</sup></b></span> 06:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' – Notwithstanding [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent's]] links, which would be reason enough by themselves, the Mail on Sunday should still be excluded due to its association with the Daily Mail. Even if it were more reliable than its parent newsletter, the fact that it's owned by the same company will inherently detract from its credibility as a source. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::This argument about deprecating a source because of company ownership makes no sense. [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News UK]] owns ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' and ''[[The Times]]''. Do you feel that ''The Times'' should be deprecated because Wikipedia has deprecated ''The Sun''? This is the argument that you are making. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::This argument actually makes complete sense in my opinion. Perhaps an unconventional view, but I would argue that indeed The Times should be viewed with suspicion given its shared ownership with a deprecated source and perhaps should be seen as unreliable based on that fact alone. It is not that The Times should be deprecated because The Sun has been deprecated, but that The Times should be viewed with suspicion based entirely on its strong association with a deprecated source. I think we should set the precedent that when media outlets share ownership, they should be viewed to share reputation. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire obviously do not take issue with their papers printing falsehoods, so why should we trust them? In the same vein, the MoS shouldn't be deprecated only because of its association with the Daily Mail, but it should be viewed as unreliable based on that fact alone. Separately, the MoS should be deprecated because it has be shown to have published multiple falsehoods and lies. I think Wikipedia could benefit from a more suspicious outlook on news media in general. [[User:Downfall Vision|Downfall Vision]] ([[User talk:Downfall Vision|talk]]) 11:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Honestly, this is the argument under which the MoS is basically getting taken down: guilt by association. Stating that ''THE'' newspaper of record - The Times - should be banned, basically just because it's British and leans to the right politically. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I probably should have made this clear from the start, but I was referring more to the fact that there is significant overlap between the editorial control over the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Murdoch does own the Times, but he makes it clear that he has no control over the stories they print. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4''' There is nothing in there that you can't find through a more reliable source in the UK. There is no loss to wikipedia to not having this as "source". [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont|talk]]) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 3 or 4''', it is the same publisher as the Daily Mail. There are better sources in the UK. [[User:Vici Vidi|Vici Vidi]] ([[User talk:Vici Vidi|talk]]) 05:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3; pushing 4''' Daily Mail and MoS may share the same publisher but IIRC editorial staff are different [[User:Nightfury|<b style="color: black">Night</b>]][[User talk:Nightfury|<b style="color: black">fury</b>]] 10:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3''' the Mail on Sunday may technically have different editorial staff but clearly has very similar outlooks on how a paper should behave. The editorial oversight does not appear to be 'meaningful' and the opinions often seem to be on the fringes of British politics. On the other hand, where it is worth citing viewpoints from columnists especially where they are part of a significant minority it should be considered reliable for their opinions. For example, Hitchens is a experienced foreign commentator who has won the Orwell Prize and as such his views on Syria may be worth mentioning. [[user:El komodos drago|El komodos drago]] ([[User_talk:El_komodos_drago|talk to me]]) 13:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3''' I agree with most of the other voters. It's owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. Although their editorial stuff is different, it looks like it has the same quality and the tendentious writing Daily Mail has.[[User:Lordpermaximum|Lordpermaximum]] ([[User talk:Lordpermaximum|talk]]) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 4:''' This needs to be the end of it. No more Daily Mail discussions. It's not an acceptable source, ever, and anything in its domain is unreliable as well. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::That people keep raising this topic is not, at all, a logical reason to block a source that is not the Daily Mail nor managed by the same people. It will also not end the discussion because the people who keep raising this topic can not stop raising it - they simply move the goal-posts. Hence the recent discussion on the DM in the past being an RS because banning the DM of recent decades wasn't enough for them. Additionally, saying "we should ban this source to stop discussions about banning it" is essentially a [[WP:BLACKMAIL]] position. |
|||
::The only thing that will end these discussion is requiring an actual link to an actual issue with the actual content of an actual article that is actually on Wiki, since none of these discussion are related to article-content and none would go forward if it were a requirement. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not even remotely a blackmail position, for starters, it isn't threat and it isn't tied to the outcome of the RFC. It is perfectly fair for editors to be left with a bad taste in their mouth from past Daily Mail discussions, not least because it published an article slamming the editors that !voted for its removal the first time. [[user:El komodos drago|El komodos drago]] ([[User_talk:El_komodos_drago|talk to me]]) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with FOARP. No argument has been provided in this opinion for deprecation. In this request for comment, two flawed arguments have been presented for deprecation: the mutual ownership argument and the cherry-picked complaint argument. |
|||
::The '''mutual ownership argument''' states that because the Mail on Sunday is owned by [[DMGT]], which also publishes a deprecated newspaper, that the Mail on Sunday should be similarly deprecated. This argument is flawed when it is realized that the Mail on Sunday's competitor the Sunday Times faces this same issue. The Sunday Times is owned by [[News UK]], which also publishes the deprecated newspaper [[The Sun]]. No one is proposing to use the mutual ownership argument to deprecate the Sunday Times. |
|||
::The '''cherry-picked complaint argument''' presents a few complained about articles from the newspaper (in the past ten years the Mail on Sunday has published over 400,000 articles) and then concludes that the newspaper should be deprecated. This argument is flawed given that the full IPSO complaint statistics have been presented below. The full set of complaint statistics indicate that the Mail on Sunday had few complaints and ranked similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. No one is proposing to use the cherry-picked complaint argument to deprecate the Sunday Times even though a number of cherry-picked complaints against it were presented below. |
|||
::Just to re-emphasize the flawed nature of the second argument, let's use the argument to cherry-pick the IPSO complaint database on another competitor the [[Daily Telegraph]]. Here's is a set of serious article complaints against the Daily Telegraph: multiple cases of falsification to inflame hatred towards Muslims,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement: Complaint 00682-15 Burbage Parish Council v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=00682-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement 00420-19 Lewisham Islamic Centre v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=00420-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> falsification to inflame racial hatred,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement 19341-17 Olufemi v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=19341-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> multiple cases of falsification to label others as antisemitic,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=05143-15 Lewis v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05143-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution statement 20834-17 Błażejak v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=20834-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> falsification to smear environmentalists,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement 01440-17 Taylor v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01440-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> distortion to harm the Labour Party,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement 16904-17 Molloy v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=16904-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> multiple cases of falsification to support Brexit,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=06056-19 Baker v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06056-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=00154-19 Stirling v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=00154-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> blatant antisemitism (article stated: “Only three countries on the planet don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”, and listed: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.),<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=19577-17 Campaign Against Antisemitism v Telegraph.co.uk|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=19577-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> numerous cases of bad science.<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement: Complaint 07520-15 ME Association v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07520-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement: Complaint 01148-14 Reynolds v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01148-14|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement 06188-19 Allbeury v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06188-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Resolution Statement: Complaint 00183-16 Etherington v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=00183-16|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=02402-15 Rodu v The Daily Telegraph|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=02402-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk}}</ref> Does this board really plan on deprecating the Telegraph. We should avoid bad science (i.e. the cherry-picking argument) and use the full IPSO complaint statistics that have been presented below. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 07:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Sources}} |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
*'''Option 2''' This is a bad/malformed RfC. Judge each reference on its own merits seems to be the best option of those presented. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Same as the ''Daily Mail'''''. Currently, this means '''option 4'''. Substantially similar content. The "sidebar of shame" on the ''Mail on Sunday'' (named "Don't Miss") includes the same articles as the "sidebar of shame" in the ''Daily Mail'' (titled "Femail Today"), except in a different order. The articles listed in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday link to other subdirectories on dailymail.co.uk; none of the ones I checked had any identifier that would distinguish them from ''Daily Mail'' articles. The community has already deprecated the ''Daily Mail'' in the high-participation {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|2017 RfC}}, and the decision was reaffirmed in the high-participation {{rsnl|255|2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|2019 RfC}}. As the ''Mail on Sunday'' publishes substantially the same content, and even reuses articles (e.g. the sidebar articles) from the ''Daily Mail'', it should be treated the same way. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 09:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::The reliable source noticeboard is supposed to be frequented by individuals who are specialists in investigating sources. Surfing briefly around the Mail Online website is not called investigating a source. Go to the corner newsstand if you live in the UK and pick up the Mail on Sunday and see for yourself that it is its own newspaper. A list of the writers and editor of the Mail on Sunday has been presented now twice, what other proof do you need. If you do not live in the UK, go to your library and get access to microfiche of the Mail on Sunday or one of the numerous online databases that has it. The Gale database for instance has access to the Mail on Sunday. The online website provides access to only some of the articles. If you want to know if an article is by the Mail on Sunday, '''read the byline''', that's why they are there. An example of an article that is by the Mail on Sunday is this one "[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725993/PETER-HITCHENS-argues-extraditing-Julian-Assange-threatens-press-freedom.html My defence of Julian Assange - a man I abhor. It ended badly the time they met yet Peter Hitchens argues extraditing the WikiLeaks boss to the US violates British sovereignty, threatens press freedom and is nothing less than a politically motivated kidnap]". Note the byline where it says "by Peter Hitchens for the Mail on Sunday". --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 04:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Insulting the many editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree with you isn't exactly productive. There is a strong consensus that ''The Daily Mail'' and ''The Mail on Sunday'' are [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantively#English substantively] the same and should be treated the same way. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::BTW, do you have an explanation for this?[https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mail-on-sunday-sanctioned-for-misleading-report-on-top-qc/5062393.article] Or this?[https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/deliberate-defamatory-lies-from-the-mail-on-sunday/] Or this?[http://www.labouragainstthewitchhunt.org/campaigns/exposedoutrageous-attempt-by-mail-on-sunday-to-smear-ken-livingstone/] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not criticising the "editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree" on the reliability of the source. Carefully weighing the different arguments is important so we can get to a consensus. If this was not a consensus building process that involved evidence and reason, we could save time and just have a straight vote. As far as your belief that the Mail on Sunday is not its own newspaper, you are wrong. The Mail on Sunday has its own writing staff and editor, newspaper databases archive it as its own newspaper, ipso regulates it as its own newspaper, and its wiki article indicates that it is its own newspaper. |
|||
:::As concerns your btw, I was wondering when this board was going to have a request for comment on the Daily Telegraph. The cherry pickings from the ipso complaint database are concerning. In fact, the cherry picking argument can be done with all the newspapers that are regulated and have their complaints stored in the ipso database. That is why any scientifically literate person knows to look at the full set of statistics. |
|||
:::The Guardian was wise not to have itself regulated by ipso, so it could more easily hide article complaints. However, it's well known that the Guardian is a falsifier. Once again we come to [[Julian Assange]] the darling of the 2000s, of the open information movement, and the left that is until he betrayed them. And this is how the left got back at him: [https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ The Guardian’s summary of Julian Assange’s interview went viral and was '''completely false''' Those who want to combat Fake News should stop aggressively spreading it when it suits their agenda.] I think I would like to be able to quote Peter Hitchen's and the Mail on Sunday and not have to depend on the Guardian as being the sole gatekeeper to the supermax prison cell. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 09:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: <p>The vast majority of citations of the ''Daily Mail'' and the ''Mail on Sunday'' are not referencing physical issues. In almost all cases, editors are not going to the library and using microfiche before citing the source. Instead, nearly all citations to the ''Mail on Sunday'' include a link to an article that was originally linked from the official websites of the ''Mail on Sunday'': https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday. Those websites mostly host and/or link to other ''Daily Mail'' content. The 2017 and 2019 RfCs took place over multiple months, and were closed by panels – the RfCs show that the community consensus is to deprecate the ''Daily Mail'', which differs from your opinion. As the ''Daily Mail'' has already been identified as a generally unreliable source, there is no reason to trust a website that mostly uses ''Daily Mail'' content. Any website that republishes such a large quantity of ''Daily Mail'' content inherits the general unreliability of the ''Daily Mail''. [[WP:EF|Edit filters]] work through URL matching, and when the articles on https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk or https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday mostly duplicate content from the ''Daily Mail'', that means the edit filter that applies to the ''Daily Mail'' should also apply to these websites. If, in some rare situation, an editor is citing an old physical/microfiche edition of ''Mail on Sunday'' that is not available online, that citation is not affected by edit filters, and is partially covered by {{xt|"The ''Daily Mail'' may have been more reliable historically"}} from {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|the 2017 RfC}}.</p><p>Finally, the volume of your 16+ comments in this discussion has the effect of [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning the process]]. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and repeating your arguments so many times does not improve the strength of your position. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|||
:::::[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] - [[WP:BLUD]] is seemingly being used as a bludgeon here. [[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] is not even nearly the most prolific commenter on this board - that's more likely to be [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] (20+ comments in total on the MoS discussion). [[WP:BLUD]] is, anyway, just an essay (Guy Macon tried to upgrade it to supplementary guideline but that was - very correctly in my view - reversed). It has also recently been updated to highlight that repetition, and not mere volume of comments, is typically the heart of [[WP:BLUD]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 2''' - Mail on Sunday should generally be considered reliable for all articles ~9 months or older. Such articles have had time for complaints to make their way through the system and be fixed. Articles younger than 9 months should receive extra caution in BLP situations where controversy could be involved. With respect to Hunter Biden stuff just coming out it would be best to wait and see if the material they publish proves reliable or is disproved in the coming months.--[[User:Epiphyllumlover|Epiphyllumlover]] ([[User talk:Epiphyllumlover|talk]]) 04:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 1''' It's just another newspaper. The details have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not with a draconian, one-size-fits-all blanket rule. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Discussion (Mail on Sunday) ==== |
|||
*I am tired of discussing the Daily Mail as much as anyone else, so hopefully after this there will be no more need for any RfC's on the topic. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**Please specify that this covers all editions at all URLs for all purposes - otherwise someone will be along making excuses as they already do with the DM: "oh, the Shetlands edition has some different staff", "but you didn't ''specifically'' mention articles on trainspotting", "but I like this guy", "but exceptions exist so I'm claiming this as an exception", etc., etc., etc - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: If the Mos and Daily Mail are both deprecated, it automatically covers all DM domains. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Including This is Money? [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::This Is Money is [https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1594525/All-This-Money.html in its own words] the "financial website and money section of the MailOnline", so is covered by [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::In fact, I see that [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday?|you already asked this precise question before, and that was the answer then too]], so it's entirely unclear why you're asking again - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That was one response from you that was not mentioned in the closing statement. I am open to hearing from other editors. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Here's about half an hour's quickest casual search. I'm sure if I put actual effort in, the list would be far longer. If anyone has their own lists of the MoS's mission to spread nonsense that we absolutely cannot trust as a source for encyclopedic content, please post them. |
|||
:*A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [https://web.archive.org/web/20120306175546/http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/tag/the-mail-on-sunday/] |
|||
:*Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/] |
|||
:*Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-brian-cathcart/pcc-complaint-statistics_b_4701685.html] |
|||
:*Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/the-mail-on-sunday-and-the-lies-about-nhs-guidelines-lessons-in-tabloid-spin/] |
|||
:*Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [https://pressgazette.co.uk/mail-on-sunday-rapped-by-ipso-over-article-wrongly-framing-labour-plans-on-capital-gains-tax/] |
|||
:*Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [http://www.labouragainstthewitchhunt.org/campaigns/exposedoutrageous-attempt-by-mail-on-sunday-to-smear-ken-livingstone/] |
|||
:*Defamatory attack on individual [https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/people/one-article-nearly-killed-me-kippax-mum-wins-mail-sunday-libel-case-2001782] |
|||
:*IPSO: "significantly misleading" [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mail-on-sunday-sanctioned-for-misleading-report-on-top-qc/5062393.article] |
|||
:*Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/deliberate-defamatory-lies-from-the-mail-on-sunday/] |
|||
:The MoS is lying rubbish just as much as the DM is, it just pretends not to be. A trash-tier tabloid that tells gullible readers it's a newspaper of record - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Some of those are not the best sources but I find (5) and (8) to be particularly alarming at a glance. Would you/someone mind digging up if the paper version, ie not MailOnline, has the same issues? And can we clarify if we’ve got this issue just in politics-related reporting or in other topics as well? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::No idea if it's in the paper version, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't distinguish on that - some of the above are paper version specifically. Nor on politics, e.g. the irresponsible lies about the beautician - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::David observe how I presented the errors made by the Sunday Times. Now look at the way you presented the errors made by the Mail on Sunday. I have used completely neutral language. I merely stated these are some errors made by the Sunday Times. And then quoted the completely neutral ruling of the IPSO committe. You on the other hand have used completely loaded language. Do you think that me or anyone else could not also use such loaded and over-the-top language that you are using? Your language is reaching for the reader's senses, my language is intended to reach for the reader's mind. I believe it is better when we are trying to find the truth through debate that we use the language of reason. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the [https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf IPSO table below]. |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Table}} |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+IPSO Annual Report 2018 |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
|No. of articles complained about |
|||
|No. of Rejected complaints in remit |
|||
|Rejected |
|||
|Not pursued by complainant |
|||
|Resolved by IPSO mediation |
|||
|Resolved directly with publication |
|||
|Upheld |
|||
|Not upheld |
|||
|- |
|||
|1 |
|||
|MailOnline |
|||
|503 |
|||
|213 |
|||
|135 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|16 |
|||
|34 |
|||
|9 |
|||
|14 |
|||
|- |
|||
|2 |
|||
|Daily Mail |
|||
|313 |
|||
|129 |
|||
|112 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|6 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|- |
|||
|3 |
|||
|thesun.co.uk |
|||
|178 |
|||
|88 |
|||
|53 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|6 |
|||
|22 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|- |
|||
|4 |
|||
|The Sun |
|||
|155 |
|||
|96 |
|||
|59 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|17 |
|||
|6 |
|||
|8 |
|||
|- |
|||
|5 |
|||
|The Times |
|||
|124 |
|||
|92 |
|||
|68 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|6 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|8 |
|||
|- |
|||
|6 |
|||
|mirror.co.uk |
|||
|102 |
|||
|48 |
|||
|25 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|13 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|- |
|||
|7 |
|||
|The Daily Telegraph |
|||
|78 |
|||
|58 |
|||
|37 |
|||
|7 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|7 |
|||
|- |
|||
|8 |
|||
|Metro.co.uk |
|||
|75 |
|||
|37 |
|||
|27 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|7 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|- |
|||
|9 |
|||
|express.co.uk |
|||
|71 |
|||
|50 |
|||
|28 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|12 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|- |
|||
|10 |
|||
|The Mail on Sunday |
|||
|69 |
|||
|37 |
|||
|27 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|- |
|||
|11 |
|||
|The Sunday Times |
|||
|58 |
|||
|52 |
|||
|33 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|- |
|||
|12 |
|||
|Daily Express |
|||
|48 |
|||
|30 |
|||
|21 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|3 |
|||
|- |
|||
|13 |
|||
|Daily Mirror |
|||
|40 |
|||
|20 |
|||
|13 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|- |
|||
|14 |
|||
|dailyrecord.co.uk |
|||
|36 |
|||
|22 |
|||
|16 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|4 |
|||
|- |
|||
|15 |
|||
|Daily Record |
|||
|34 |
|||
|22 |
|||
|15 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|- |
|||
|16 |
|||
|The Argus (Brighton) |
|||
|29 |
|||
|7 |
|||
|5 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|- |
|||
|17 |
|||
|Metro |
|||
|28 |
|||
|16 |
|||
|13 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|- |
|||
|18 |
|||
|The Spectator |
|||
|25 |
|||
|18 |
|||
|15 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|- |
|||
|19 |
|||
|walesonline.co.uk |
|||
|25 |
|||
|10 |
|||
|7 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|2 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|1 |
|||
|- |
|||
|20 |
|||
|Telegraph.co.uk |
|||
|24 |
|||
|9 |
|||
|9 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|0 |
|||
|} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
The results are quite informative. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes, but MailOnline includes the MoS's online content, and we aren't citing the physical newspapers. Using single digit "Upheld" is a weak metric for reliability. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 14:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::We have in fact cited the physical newspapers quite a lot - most content before 2000 isn't on dailymail.co.uk, for example - and I'd have expected the RFCs covered those - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: That's getting into "was the Mail more reliable historically" territory, which was discussed in the last RfC. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for table, but I don’t get it. There’s plenty of reliably sourced examples above of unreliable reporting by MOS, so why are numbers relative in table (which should be quite complete) so low? Are reports in MailOnline including problems with MOS (“paper edition”)? To clarify (as I don’t get their structure personally), is MailOnline actually the digital version (ie, word for word) of the paper newspapers? Or is it separate reporting? Further, are all stories in the MOS available word for word on MailOnline, and all MOS stories on MailOnline word for word the ones in the paper edition? And there’s no stories on MailOnline credited to MOS which don’t appear in the paper edition? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 22:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Because IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated in Wikipedia, and IPSO is widely regarded as a captured regulator. I don't know how many stories from MoS make it into one of print and paper but not the other, but either would count as MoS - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure but I just expected the number to be higher, or at least the number of filed complaints to be higher (in table, it's comparable to The Sunday Times, which doesn't seem right). I think any reliability of the paper copy is relevant though. If it's just MailOnline (which is covered under existing RfCs anyway) it shouldn't be a big issue and this RfC is moot. If the paper copy has reliability issues too, then the RfC is important. So if there's a distinction of content, really this RfC should be focused on if the paper version is equally as crappy. I've never read a copy of the MOS (tabloids with gossip covers aren't quite my thing) so I'm not saying if it's reliable or not, just that the focus should be on the paper component (if it differs). At a skim, looks like a couple of the links by dave souza above are content also included in the paper copy, though. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::*I'm confused David. In your above critique, two of your points use IPSO to criticize the Mail on Sunday. Now after the IPSO table for 2018 is presented, you state that "{{tq|IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated}}". This is truly some ironman logic. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday. <br> '''Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:''' |
|||
{{Div col|colwidth=15em}} |
|||
* [[Peter Hitchens]] |
|||
* [[Liz Jones]] |
|||
* [[Piers Morgan]] |
|||
* [[Tom Parker Bowles]] |
|||
* [[Chris Evans (presenter)|Chris Evans]] |
|||
* [[David Mellor]] |
|||
* [[Dan Hodges]] |
|||
* Anna Mikhailova |
|||
* [[Derek Draper]] |
|||
* [[John Junor]] |
|||
* [[Julie Burchill]] |
|||
* [[Austin Mitchell]] |
|||
* [[Norman Tebbit]] |
|||
* [[Suzanne Moore]] |
|||
* [[Rachel Johnson]] |
|||
* [[Frank Barrett (writer)|Frank Barrett]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the [[Quillete]] or Iranian [[Press TV]], which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to [[Breitbart News]] or the [[National Enquirer]], which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:These are opinion pieces, not quality journalism about facts, and as such are subject to the care needed when using any opinion pieces. [[Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources]] states that "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." If the viewpoint of these commentators is valuable, they can be "voiced" subject to the conditions in [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. It's not a blanket ban. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
As a side note: it is not ok to [[cherry pick]] corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a '''counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times'''.<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2015|title=Ruling: Al Fayed v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05003-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=It was accepted that the complainant had authorised the auction of the contents of the Parisian villa prior to his son’s death. As the correct position was already in the public domain, publication of this claim represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2018|title=Ruling: Yorkshire MESMAC v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=03320-18|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The claim that an outreach worker had said that other website users could ask him for anal sex, in the context where he was acting in his capacity as a sexual health adviser supported the overall criticism of the complainant, that it conducted its sexual health work in a manner which was unprofessional. The Committee therefore considered that it was a significant inaccuracy,}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2018|title=Ruling: Sivier v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=02818-18|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=However, the Committee did not consider that the publication had provided a sufficient basis for asserting that the complainant was a “Holocaust denier”, either in the article, or in the evidence subsequently submitted for the Committee’s consideration.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2019|title=Ruling: Clement v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04420-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=It was accepted that it was inaccurate to report that 117 crimes were reported at the 2018 Appleby Fair and it was not in dispute that the accurate figure was 17.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2018|title=Ruling: Nisbet v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06980-18|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=It had inaccurately reported a figure for the current gender pay gap and gave the misleading impression that the gender pay gap measured differences in pay between identical jobs.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2019|title=Ruling: Shadforth v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06272-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The article had not made clear that grades being “wrong” was the publication’s characterisation and not a finding made by Ofqual; this amounted to a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2019|title=Ruling: Wilson v Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04817-19|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The publication had conceded that its checking procedures had not worked with respect to the graph published with the online article and, as a result, the errors in the graph had not been identified prior to publication.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2016|title=Ruling: Rashid v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01535-16|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=It was not clear from the article that the claims about Deobandi Islam were the views of the newspaper’s source; instead, they had been presented as fact. The failure to correctly attribute the claims made in the article represented a failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2015|title=Ruling: Hardy v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04689-15|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The failure of the article to refer to the complainant’s repeated qualification or to the fact that he had only ever referred to 25% of the money being tax-free amounted to a failure to take care not to publish misleading information.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2017|title=Ruling: Ahmed v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=16237-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The complainant had not been receiving the £35 living allowance, as reported in the article.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2017|title=Ruling: Versi v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=20563-17|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=The study had not found that 80% of people convicted of child-grooming offences were Asian; its findings related to a specific sub-set of these offences.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2018|title=Ruling: University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust v The Sunday Times|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=03442-18|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.ipso.co.uk|quote=Also, while the Trust did not believe proton beam therapy offered any additional benefit to that offered by the hospital, it had not deemed the treatment “worthless.” This information was in the public domain at the time of publication, and misrepresenting the nature of the hospital’s concerns, represented a failure to take care}}</ref> The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation|IPSO committee]]. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your {{tq|note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world}} is incorrect. See [[Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership]]: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the ''Financial Times, The Independent'' and ''The Guardian'', have declined to take part in IPSO. The ''Financial Times'' and ''The Guardian'' have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/guardian-view-new-press-regulator-ipso][https://www.theguardian.com/profile/elisabethribbans] . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yes. You are correct. I made a slight mistake. I meant to say that no other set of English-speaking newspapers is monitored by an ''outside regulatory agency''. Most newspapers have procedures in place to deal with corrections, and many bigger newspapers have a [[Public editor|newspaper ombudsman]] who deals with questions of [[journalism ethics and standards]]. The position is independent of the control of the newspapers's chief-editor and perhaps owner. Frankly, I think wikipedia should think about getting a centralized corrections "ombudsmen" who the reader could easily deal with in order to ask for corrections. For many wikipedia readers the talk page and how to ask for corrections is a mystery. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The Fox RFC was also full of people going "but whatabout this other paper that isn't the subject of discussion". If you and Betty Logan want to start an RFC on the Sunday Times, that should be its own discussion. If you don't, then you need to discuss the MoS - whataboutery about other papers really isn't an argument. And nor is going "this is numbers, therefore they are the end of the discussion" - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point David. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 16:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Bad point. Clearly the number of corrections/complaints are relevant if you're using them in this RFC as a ban-rationale. Clearly it's relevant if the MoS receives no more complaints/corrections than sources that are recognised as reliable sources. It is simply facile logic to say "but those reliable newspapers aren't under discussion - you should open an RFC on blocking those reliable sources" because everyone knows that an RFC on the reliability of the Sunday Times would be snow-closed and the nominator would be at risk of a ban for wasting everyone's time. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Sources}} |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:Most of the information appears to be anecdotal. The ''New York Times'' and other mainstream media pushed the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, deliberately helping to start a war that foreseeably would kill hundreds of thousands of people, displace millions and cost trillions of dollars. That is more serious than the ''MOS'' publishing defamatory information about a beautician that they retracted after an IPSO complaint. The fact that IPSO upheld 9 complaints against them in one year is not statistically significant considering that they publish 52-53 issues each year. That works out to 1 error every six weeks, which is subsequently retracted. We don't expect that news media is 100% correct in reporting. We expect a small error rate and that the most significant errors will be corrected on a timely basis. The ''New York Times'' for example publishes error corrections every day. The ''MOS'' of course is not in the same league, but its accuracy rate is close to 100%. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper. |
|||
While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I'd like to respond to the point that the proposers "are tired" of arguing about the Daily Mail and newspapers related to it in some way: there was absolutely no reason at all given here to propose this ban now. The reason why people keep arguing about the Mail is because you keep opening these RFCs - there is no other reason, especially no actual content-related reason, why it is still being discussed. In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. The impression is of a group of people for whom the DM ban was their greatest moment and as such they wish to revisit it again and again. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**{{tq|In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed.}} If you read the discussion above -probably a useful step if you're going to weigh in on a discussion - you will see that your statement here is trivially incorrect - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::David, where is an actual issue with an actual article actually referenced in this entire farago? You deleting MoS references from articles is not an "issue with an article". You need to show that people are relying on MoS as a source and that this is causing actual problems (eg., it is being used to push fringe or incorrect views above and beyond what may happen with reliable sources), not "people are occasionally relying on MoS as a source and the problem is I keep deleting it because this is what I choose to prioritise". [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::PS - David, whilst we're at it, please explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoff_Hill_(Northern_Ireland_journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=977759055 this edit]. Even if you think the DM ban applies to MoS why are you deleting statements from the MoS about what the MoS book of the week is - i.e., [[Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF|a situation where the MoS is talking about itself]], a scenario which is explicitly allowed for by the DM 2017 RFC close ({{tq|"the Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion"}})? To me it doesn't look like the problem is with people citing the MoS here. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Closure?=== |
|||
{{disdis|HangTenBangTen|spi=MickMacNee}} |
|||
<s>Is there any particular reason that this specific debate is lingering on this board, stale to the point of mouldy, and long overdue a summation? [[User:HangTenBangTen|HangTenBangTen]] ([[User talk:HangTenBangTen|talk]]) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)</s> |
|||
I believe the traditional thing to do is go to the admin's notice board and make a request. If someone does this can they please make it just a request for closure without all the palaver about how this is a contentious subject and how the closing Admin will need a "thick skin" or to be "flame proof" that some people like to put in? Admins don't need to be told how to do their job. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure]] is the place to list this. [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Mail_on_Sunday|Put in a closure request]]. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 20:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Highsnobiety]] == |
== [[Highsnobiety]] == |
Revision as of 04:38, 9 November 2020
Archive 310 | ← | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | Archive 317 | Archive 318 | Archive 319 | Archive 320 |
This website have been used in several articles and I wonder the website can be considered as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I looked at some of their journalists for music and they seem pretty much verifiable and reliable, for example Trey Alston has written for MTV, Spin magazine, Paper magazine and has articles featured on Vibe, Pitchfork among others. David Opie is the deputy TV Editor at DigitalSpy and also writtens for Rotten Tomatos, Jake Boyer has written for Salt Lake Tribune, Interview Magazine and Insider, last but not least Sarah Osei is fairly recent but has already written for Teen Vogue and the Insider. All in all, they seem to hire mostly freelance journalists, but those do have some background and written for some major publications. I guess one could add it to RS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Jacobite Magazine
The site Jacobite Magazine is an online magazine that has published just over 150 articles since mid-2017. I have come across it a couple of times, and I tend to remove it when I see it. On occasion, I have received pushback (but usually not engagement on talk), so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion. Examples include: Talk:Accelerationism#Is_a_Jacobite_article_by_Nick_Land_due? Talk:The_Jungle_Grows_Back Talk:The Virtue of Nationalism.
Jacobite is rarely discussed in reliable secondary sources, though it has been described by Vox as "...the marginal right-wing site Jacobite." It has also been referenced a couple of times by The Federalist. It seems like this site is going for a sort of intellectual style, so some notable figures such as Nick Land, Cody Wilson, and Bronze Age Pervert have written for it. If I were ever to cite this source, I would probably argue based on the notability/expert status of its authors, rather than the reliability of the source. It has two permanent editors, and its Patreon has just over 20 supporters, a non-indicator for most wikipedia purposes, but perhaps useful to give a sense of audience size.
So for a random author on the site, is this site ever reliable enough to be cited? Jlevi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The SPLC highlighted one article by Cody Wilson: "On April 16, Wilson published a blog on the Jacobite website. The “Covid-911” post is typical Wilson. Citing Baudrillard, he spouts the conspiracy theory du jour: the current global pandemic is being leveraged to create a digital and philosophical police state." Jlevi (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- WT:RSP says
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list. There has never been a request for comment (RfC) for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of this source, please start an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist.
, so we should be basing our decision on something better than just that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- WT:RSP says
- I cannot find any evidence it is a WP:RS and every indication that it is indeed a "marginal right-wing site" which is likely wp:undue in most cases. But, it may be OK to use as aboutself in some cases for the fringe right wing topics that it represents. (FYI, I wouldn't consider the Federalist a RS either; it is known for inaccurate claims [1][2]) (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see anything to suggest it is a reliable source. I would not use this as a primary source for opinion, for the usual reason: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, and in order to establish the significance of any particular opinion, even by a notable individual (no judgment on whether this applies in this case) it needs to be in a credible source, and significance should be established by coverage in secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The magazine's articles are op-eds hence would not be considered reliable.
- WP:RSP says, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States." No there hasn't been an RfC for RSP, but then these are rare for obviously reliable sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. Since the SPLC writes about extremist groups, it's not surpising that it has attracted animosity from supporters of those groups and their views.
- Anyway, the issue is not whether the SPLC is a reliable source but whether their reporting of Wilson's article is accurate. Editors are free to read it and come to their own conclusions.
- TFD (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
As a consequence of the RfCs on Global Times and Xinhua, some users have been stripping citations from large numbers of China-related articles, which will probably lead to the eventual removal of large amounts of information about China. To give a few examples of items removed just in the past day by one user:
- [3]: Removal of a source describing how delegates for the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party were selected.
- [4]: Removal of a source describing production of Type 055 destroyers.
- [5]: Removal of source describing criticism of a famous Chinese actress' performance in a particular movie.
- [6]: Removal of source describing visa regulations in China.
- [7]: Removal of source describing the command structure of Chinese police.
- [8]: Removal of source describing the performance of a Chinese athlete in an international competition.
- [9]: Removal of source describing the Chinese premiere of an Indian film.
- [10]: Removal of source describing Chinese audience reaction to a major Chinese film.
- [11]: Removal of source documenting that a Chinese official was under investigation by a Communist Party anti-corruption agency.
- [12]: Removal of source documenting where a 2015 conference between the Communist Party and Kuomintang was held.
- [13]: Removal of source describing which routes are flown by a Chinese budget airline.
- [14]: Removal of source that lists Alibaba's sales revenue on China's unofficial "Single's Day" holiday.
- [15]: Removal of source documenting a Chinese film industry award won by a Chinese actor.
These are all Global Times sources, but I've seen similar things happening with Xinhua, which wasn't even deprecated. When the discussions occurred here about Global Times and Xinhua, I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen. In my opinion, much more focused guidance should be given, particularly about Global Times. Broad deprecation is damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes poor sources need removing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wrongthink surely. Surely where there are poor sources the object should surely be wholelistic to try to improve the encyclopedia in the most efficient way. This may at times mean replacing sources, at times tagging sourcess to assist others to improve, at times removing content. And the approach may be context dependent. It takes little effort to delete content; and somewhat more to replace it. If we take a thepeerage.com source a section or two above, remove it completely and very difficult to find the underlying source it cites unless one knew it was there and trawled through history. There are those who come to Wikipedia to build an encylopedia, there are those come to feast on destroying others efforts, though few are probably totally at that extreme.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I consider it worse to include things that may not be true then to remove them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- But they aren't removing "things that may not be true". They are removing the citation and leaving the "things that may not be true" right there in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue should be what do we gain or lose, if we remove dodgy sources and content our overall reputation for accuracy might improve,, If we allow it to stay we keep our reputation for inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- We're not risking anything by relying on the Global Times for information about the command structure of Chinese police, the routes flown by a Chinese budget airline or the date of a conference between the CPC and KMT. By stripping GT and other Chinese sources, however, we are at risk of losing a lot of content, and ending up with a narrow view of Chinese issues that comes entirely from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes we are, you are seeing it here, "but its reliable for this..., thus why not for that". We need to discourage the use of bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- How are we seeing it here? Whether a source is reliable is not an absolute all-or-nothing question. Sources can be reliable in some contexts but not in others, and a blanket rule is rarely constructive. The diffs I gave above show that the Global Times is being removed as a source for large numbers of articles in which I would contend there are not serious concerns about its reliability. Context used to be a key factor considered at WP:RSN, but the recent move towards RfCs and official deprecation of a growing list of sources has led to a much more black-and-white framing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well the first link can be seen as an example of party propaganda "look how we are tackling corruption". Second "launched in the Dalian", not built by, it may be pedantic but it failed verification, Third do we really need to know what one media outlet thinks? its trivia. I stopped at three, none of this is needed or useful or really needs better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The first source was simply used to reference the fact that the Central Committee approved a selection procedure for the 19th National Congress. That's a simple factual matter, and I don't see how its inclusion constitutes propaganda. The second edit summary does not say "failed verification." It says the source is deprecated. Global Times would be a perfectly fine source for claiming that a ship was built by a certain company and launched on a certain date. For the third edit, the issue is how Chinese audiences reacted to a certain film. In this case, the Global Times is accurately summarizing the widespread reception of the film in China (largely unfavorable). Many sources could be used for this particular claim, but it's an example of accurate reporting from the Global Times on an apolitical issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- No you think it is, the community disagreed. The fourth link, I cannot see any mention of connecting flights.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The community expressed worries about political propaganda, but I don't think most people had mundane factual matters on their minds, like who won a particular acting award. The mass removal of such straightforward information from articles, which I think will be highly unexpected to many who took part in the RfC, is why I'm raising this issue here.
- About the fourth link, the source was apparently being used to reference the change in outbound visa policies, not the detail about connecting flights. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the community thought that the sources were unusable for politics but could be used for simple factual statements, they could have gone for generally unreliable or even "other considerations"; they went for full depreciation, which is unequivocally stating that no, it cannot be used for "who won a particular award." I agree with the statement below that this reads like you are trying to re-litigate the RFC - the usage of these sources you are arguing for here is one that the community has clearly and unequivocally rejected. There is a little room to discuss the best way to go about removing these sources, but the community consensus is unequivocally that our ultimate goal should be to get our usage of them down to nearly zero - used for nothing at all outside of the tiny slivers of usage allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF and the like. If you disagree with that, you need to start another RFC, because it doesn't sound like you accept the outcome of the previous one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of your first four sources two should have been tagged anyway, two (it can be argued) are trivia. So I am gona say if this is an example of what we are losing I do not see an issue, and in fact would argue this may be one reason it was deprecated. It is either being misused or used for stuff we really do not need.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No you think it is, the community disagreed. The fourth link, I cannot see any mention of connecting flights.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The first source was simply used to reference the fact that the Central Committee approved a selection procedure for the 19th National Congress. That's a simple factual matter, and I don't see how its inclusion constitutes propaganda. The second edit summary does not say "failed verification." It says the source is deprecated. Global Times would be a perfectly fine source for claiming that a ship was built by a certain company and launched on a certain date. For the third edit, the issue is how Chinese audiences reacted to a certain film. In this case, the Global Times is accurately summarizing the widespread reception of the film in China (largely unfavorable). Many sources could be used for this particular claim, but it's an example of accurate reporting from the Global Times on an apolitical issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well the first link can be seen as an example of party propaganda "look how we are tackling corruption". Second "launched in the Dalian", not built by, it may be pedantic but it failed verification, Third do we really need to know what one media outlet thinks? its trivia. I stopped at three, none of this is needed or useful or really needs better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- How are we seeing it here? Whether a source is reliable is not an absolute all-or-nothing question. Sources can be reliable in some contexts but not in others, and a blanket rule is rarely constructive. The diffs I gave above show that the Global Times is being removed as a source for large numbers of articles in which I would contend there are not serious concerns about its reliability. Context used to be a key factor considered at WP:RSN, but the recent move towards RfCs and official deprecation of a growing list of sources has led to a much more black-and-white framing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes we are, you are seeing it here, "but its reliable for this..., thus why not for that". We need to discourage the use of bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- We're not risking anything by relying on the Global Times for information about the command structure of Chinese police, the routes flown by a Chinese budget airline or the date of a conference between the CPC and KMT. By stripping GT and other Chinese sources, however, we are at risk of losing a lot of content, and ending up with a narrow view of Chinese issues that comes entirely from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Djm-leighpark, the default is to exclude poorly-sourced material. Anyone who wants to restore it after replacing the source with a reliable one, can do so.
- I consider it worse to include things that may not be true then to remove them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wrongthink surely. Surely where there are poor sources the object should surely be wholelistic to try to improve the encyclopedia in the most efficient way. This may at times mean replacing sources, at times tagging sourcess to assist others to improve, at times removing content. And the approach may be context dependent. It takes little effort to delete content; and somewhat more to replace it. If we take a thepeerage.com source a section or two above, remove it completely and very difficult to find the underlying source it cites unless one knew it was there and trawled through history. There are those who come to Wikipedia to build an encylopedia, there are those come to feast on destroying others efforts, though few are probably totally at that extreme.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Global Times is not a poor source for most of these cases. There were concerns about GT being used for political purposes, but that does not mean that it's unreliable for all sorts of mundane information. What is going to happen is that as more and more Chinese sources are deprecated or otherwise deemed unreliable in broad spheres, there will be very few sources left for many Chinese topics. Xinhua is still considered broadly reliable, which at least means there's some coverage of Chinese issues, but some users have argued that the RfC close is essentially a deprecation (which is a gross misreading of the RfC result, in my opinion), and are also systematically stripping Xinhua from articles.
- We really are going to end up in a situation in which we will have an exclusively American or European view of China and Chinese topics, and many topics that are poorly covered in American and European sources (i.e., broad swaths of Chinese issues) will simply be removed from the encyclopedia. I think that what's unfolding here was not intended by the community, and that much more focused guidance on usage of Chinese sources is necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- We shouldn't cover topics at all if there aren't reliable, independent sources that report on them. It is better than repeating propaganda which may (or may not) be at all accurate. If Wikipedia existed in 1970 and we were trying to report on the Soviet Union, we would have to choose between Soviet propaganda and the writings of Western anti-Soviet writers, who didn't turn out to be much more accurate. If a country bans reliable sources from operating on its territory, yes, that does substantially reduce what can be said about them. Maybe they should consider allowing press to operate freely? (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is that some of the judgments have been too broad, and some of the deprecated sources are actually highly reliable for wide ranges of uses. When the Global Times reports that Spring Airlines services a route between Shanghai and Ibaraki Airport, or that Chinese actor Wen Zhang won the Best Male Lead award at the Hundred Flowers Award, there's no serious doubt that those reports are factual. I can understand avoiding the Global Times to make factual statements about contentious political topics (e.g., statements about the US-China trade war should carry in-line attributions), but stripping out all sorts of simple factual reporting about movie awards, airlines, film premieres, dates of conferences, etc. is destructive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I saw some of these removals in my watchlist earlier today and am very troubled, both by the removals and the cavalier and unprofessional attitudes used to justify them. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good riddance to bad sources, the solution here is for the Chinese government to allow independent media to operate in mainland China. We also have plenty of reliable regional papers in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and India which provide significant coverage of China, heck theres even the Hong Kong papers which may I remind you are Chinese so I don’t see the argument for including joke level unreliable (in the case of Global Times) sources as a means to balance out American and European sources as we already have a ton of good non-American and non-European sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has no influence over the Chinese government's media policies, and one of my concerns here is indeed that deprecation RfCs are being used to make the political point you just expressed, regardless of the impact on the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, we have no influence over their media policies, we only react to them. The point I just expressed is not political, it wasn’t even close. On a side note please retract your WP:aspersions that I am engaged in tendentious editing or provide diffs which support your argument, thats just about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a WP editor by another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment directly above mine was overtly political. We can't influence Chinese government policy. That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. Proposing Chinese governmental reform doesn't do anything to address the concerns I've raised here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Its procedural not political, editorial independence is one of the core components of our reliability policy. China currently does not tolerate or allow editorial independence on the mainland (HK is for now an exception to the rule). I guess technically I was wrong, there is another solution: we could completely change our reliability policy. Why that would be more reasonable than the Chinese government allowing their citizens basic human rights is beyond me though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- ^ Now that statement right there, that one *was* a little bit political. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you can see why I'm worried that deprecation discussions are being influenced by a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you also see how the way you’ve gone about saying so is a personal attack? I’l revert it for you if you don't do it speedily, you cant just make such serious allegations on a noticeboard and then refuse to back them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you can see why I'm worried that deprecation discussions are being influenced by a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- ^ Now that statement right there, that one *was* a little bit political. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves.
As far as I can tell, no one is doing so; they are just removing depreciated sources and leaving a fact tag on material that lacked a valid source (which is what fact tags are for) so the statement can be properly-cited in the future. The fear you're expressing here (that the text will later be deleted) is entirely hypothetical... and if you're deeply worried, your time would be better-spent finding valid sources for those unsourced statements rather than trying to throw red tape in the face of people who are making commendable efforts to improve our sources by removing depreciated sources according to the RFCs requiring such removals. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Its procedural not political, editorial independence is one of the core components of our reliability policy. China currently does not tolerate or allow editorial independence on the mainland (HK is for now an exception to the rule). I guess technically I was wrong, there is another solution: we could completely change our reliability policy. Why that would be more reasonable than the Chinese government allowing their citizens basic human rights is beyond me though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment directly above mine was overtly political. We can't influence Chinese government policy. That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. Proposing Chinese governmental reform doesn't do anything to address the concerns I've raised here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, we have no influence over their media policies, we only react to them. The point I just expressed is not political, it wasn’t even close. On a side note please retract your WP:aspersions that I am engaged in tendentious editing or provide diffs which support your argument, thats just about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a WP editor by another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has no influence over the Chinese government's media policies, and one of my concerns here is indeed that deprecation RfCs are being used to make the political point you just expressed, regardless of the impact on the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is an attempt to relitigate the RFC deprecating CGTN. If you want to un-deprecate CGTN, you need to start an RFC with any chance of doing so - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC, so I don't know what you're opposing. I'm asking for Wikipedians to consider the effects of some recent RfCs, which are now becoming apparent, and which I believe are quite different from what most commenters at the RfCs would have intended. Additionally, this is about a number of sources. I gave examples from the Global Times, but I could also give examples from Xinhua. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I have, and I agree with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @David Gerard: I'm guessing you mean Global Times rather than CGTN (which wasn't mentioned here, although both are deprecated)? — MarkH21talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC, so I don't know what you're opposing. I'm asking for Wikipedians to consider the effects of some recent RfCs, which are now becoming apparent, and which I believe are quite different from what most commenters at the RfCs would have intended. Additionally, this is about a number of sources. I gave examples from the Global Times, but I could also give examples from Xinhua. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Global Times content that isn't political shock jock isn't high quality reporting anyway, and similar content will likely be found in Xinhua and other Chinese language sources. CGTN's written content is also quite shallow and better reporting will be found elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's impose some order on this process. I propose that we start by adding a {{better source needed}} tag wherever the deprecated source exists (without initially removing the deprecated source); and then, after some reasonable period of time (I would think a few weeks), remove the deprecated source and switch the tag for {{citation needed}}. BD2412 T 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to set a hard and fast rule, since it is very contextual. Obviously anything related to a WP:BLP without a proper citation must be removed on sight, and anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL without a proper citation should almost certainly be removed on sight (in both cases an editor could, if they choose, alternatively search for a valid source to immediately replace it, if one exists; but simply removing the text is always justifiable for those.) Beyond that there's a range of options - immediately replacing the source with {{citation needed}} tag is fine, as is adding a {{better source needed}} tag. Editors can also remove even unexceptional, non-WP:BLP-sensitive text cited to a depreciated source immediately if they're confident a source cannot be found or if they feel there's something else objectionable about the text. I would say that it's generally down to the judgment of individual editors; removing depreciated sources and addressing text cited to them is important and already difficult as-is, so we should avoid tying it down in red tape. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- As Aquillion has pointed out previously in discussion of the Daily Mail (I can't quickly find the link), RSN can't require editors to treat deprecated sources more leniently than merely bad sources. Your proposal literally protects a deprecated source more than it does a mediocre source, and that straight-up contradicts the provisions of WP:NOR concerning reliable sources, which deprecated sources almost never can be, and definitely shouldn't be presumed to be - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of depreciation (as opposed to mere unreliability) is that the source adds nothing and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is almost always valid (and, in fact, desirable) to replace a depreciated source with a citation needed tag. There's a little room to discuss the best way to go about it, but I would strenuously oppose anything that would add red tape or formal restrictions to the process. I also disagree with your implicit assertion that this will lead the text to be deleted - lots of text retains a citation needed tag for years, and most people perform at least a basic search before deleting article text. The most likely effect of replacing depreciated sources with CN tags is that editors will replace them with better sources, if they exist. Since a depreciated source harms the reputation of the article by its presence, and could mislead a casual reader into thinking that a statement has a valid source, replacing it with a CN tag is always an improvement. Finally, I object to the way you titled this section - "sources" are not "content", at least in the way we usually use the terms here, so stating that content is being removed makes what is happening sound far more alarming than the uncontroversial changes you actually list. Please retitle the section to state that sources or citations are being removed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is it? I thought that we used words like "banned" or "prohibited" when we meant that something could not be used on Wikipedia. Deprecation has quite another meaning to me – much closer to "eventually, this needs to be upgraded" than "wholesale removal will happen in 3, 2, 1..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- As many editors have expressed already, it's fine to tag deprecated sources (like Global Times and CGTN) with {{better source}} or replace them with {{citation needed}}. If it was Xinhua (which is WP:MREL with specifics given in the WP:RSP entry and is not deprecated) then intext attribution and/or {{better source}} and/or {{citation needed}} is appropriate depending on the context. — MarkH21talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note that this ongoing. Amigao has removed over 250 instances of Global Times just in the past day. Scroll through to get a sense for how much completely mundane factual information that Global Times is actually reliable for is being removed: [16]. For example, the existence of a railway station in Zhejiang, China is now unsourced: [17]. The Global Times is obviously perfectly reliable for this sort of information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Global Times isnt actually reliable for that though, no deprecated source is. I’m confused here, are you challenging the deprecation of the Global Times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- In real life, yes, Global Times is perfectly reliable for this sort of mundane information, unless you can show they have a track record of inventing fake Chinese high-speed rail stations. I don't think most people participating in the RfC realized that this is the sort of information that would be removed, as the discussion was almost entirely about fears of political propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe in your life but not mine. Its a little insulting to suggest that your fellow editors who participate in that RfC didn't understand what they were doing, don’t you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, I think it is bad faith to assume questions about sourcing that arise when users like Amigao go on a crusade against a deprecated source are completely fair, and saying GT isn't reliable because it is a deprecated source seems to be circular, or some sort of is/ought fallacy. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't about GT’s reliability, thats as close to a settled fact as anything on Wikipedia is. If you want to know exactly why editors (myself included) consider the Global Times to be unreliable you can peruse the RfC. I cant parse what you’re saying before the second comma. Can you maybe rephrase it or correct any typos? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, I think it is bad faith to assume questions about sourcing that arise when users like Amigao go on a crusade against a deprecated source are completely fair, and saying GT isn't reliable because it is a deprecated source seems to be circular, or some sort of is/ought fallacy. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe in your life but not mine. Its a little insulting to suggest that your fellow editors who participate in that RfC didn't understand what they were doing, don’t you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- In real life, yes, Global Times is perfectly reliable for this sort of mundane information, unless you can show they have a track record of inventing fake Chinese high-speed rail stations. I don't think most people participating in the RfC realized that this is the sort of information that would be removed, as the discussion was almost entirely about fears of political propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- So look for better sources, I did and now its not unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- And again, one source (arguably it was primary, now its a trivial mention), so there is a question of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's the main train station serving a county of over half a million people. Of course it's notable. But this is exactly my point - one user alone is stripping sourcing from hundreds of articles a day, which will lead to a lot of content being removed. It's great that you found a source for this one example, but are you going to go out and find replacements for the hundreds of other sources this one editor has stripped just today? Unless the Global Times is actually unreliable for information like the existence of a railway station, then these mass removals are purely damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it is notable RS would have noted it, that what notability is. Again, you are the people who want this information, you are the ones whop make the case and find the sources. I think it is clear I do not see how mush of this is valuable or encyclopedic, we are not a (for example) directory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've now nominated the article in question for deletion, making exactly my point for me: [18]. An article about the main high-speed railway station for a county of over half a million people, which would be considered a major city in most parts of the world, is now up for deletion. A lot of information about China is going to get deleted if this goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to recalibrate your expectations there, 500k wouldn’t even get into the top 100 most populous counties in the US. I know to some extent its apples and oranges but your arguments do seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic and overwrought. The sky is not falling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Number 100 on that list is the county containing Jersey City, which is a major city by anyone's definition. If you'd be okay with deletion of the article describing Jersey City's central transportation hub, then you won't have a problem with the deletion of Changxing railway station. There's a bit of arrogance in brushing off the deletion of an article about a major transportation hub like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Most stations around the world don't have a unique article, they get covered on the page for the line overall. It doesn't seem like Changxing railway station is much of a hub, regular speed trains use a completely different station (which doesn't have a wikipedia page) and it has no local metro connection. Of the 11 stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou Branch of the Beijing–Shanghai high-speed railway only five have wikipedia pages. If the lack of pages worries you find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and there will be little opposition at all to creating a page for all 11. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The more Chinese sources get deprecated, the more difficult it will be to establish notability for things that are obviously highly notable in China, such as high-speed rail stations serving major cities. Your argument is circular: there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources, because that will only lead to articles like Changxing railway station getting deleted, which is no problem because it's not notable, which we know because there are no non-deprecated sources that discuss it, which is why there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources. If my goal were to remove content about China from the encyclopedia, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than getting all the major English-language Chinese sources deprecated for mundane facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly are you suggesting as a solution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Horse Eye's Back, I think this is a rather mistaken view of things. It's true that for station articles that do not exist yet, they are listed in line articles. However, the movement is toward making station articles, not consolidating them in line articles. Individual station articles are generally kept at AfD. The standard that you are suggesting here is not the standard used at AfD or elsewhere, and certainly isn't applied to stations in Western countries. I would also note that government sources are considered perfectly acceptable for such articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- As can be seen from my vote on the relevant page I don't support the deletion of that page, I do however support the removal of the GT source from the page and I reject Thucydides411’s argument that it would be perfectly acceptable to use GT on this article. As I told them I will tell you “The sky is not falling,” Changxing railway station is not going to be deleted. There isn't going to be some sort of Saturday night massacre of China-related pages, you might notice that many of the people removing CGTN and GT references are some of the most active wikipedia editors article creation and expansion wise in the China space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think there's a lot of room between "perfectly acceptable to keep" and "so bad as to justify robotically stripping it from every article it's in". The sky isn't falling, but the mass-removal approach to this seems unnecessarily brusque. As Masem says below, if the original RfC didn't plan out a mass removal, it seems like a non-sequitur to perform a mass removal justified solely on the outcome of the RfC (and for what it's worth, this seems like an absurdly unfair criterion for rail station inclusion being applied solely to Chinese stations). jp×g 17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- As can be seen from my vote on the relevant page I don't support the deletion of that page, I do however support the removal of the GT source from the page and I reject Thucydides411’s argument that it would be perfectly acceptable to use GT on this article. As I told them I will tell you “The sky is not falling,” Changxing railway station is not going to be deleted. There isn't going to be some sort of Saturday night massacre of China-related pages, you might notice that many of the people removing CGTN and GT references are some of the most active wikipedia editors article creation and expansion wise in the China space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The more Chinese sources get deprecated, the more difficult it will be to establish notability for things that are obviously highly notable in China, such as high-speed rail stations serving major cities. Your argument is circular: there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources, because that will only lead to articles like Changxing railway station getting deleted, which is no problem because it's not notable, which we know because there are no non-deprecated sources that discuss it, which is why there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources. If my goal were to remove content about China from the encyclopedia, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than getting all the major English-language Chinese sources deprecated for mundane facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Most stations around the world don't have a unique article, they get covered on the page for the line overall. It doesn't seem like Changxing railway station is much of a hub, regular speed trains use a completely different station (which doesn't have a wikipedia page) and it has no local metro connection. Of the 11 stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou Branch of the Beijing–Shanghai high-speed railway only five have wikipedia pages. If the lack of pages worries you find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and there will be little opposition at all to creating a page for all 11. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Number 100 on that list is the county containing Jersey City, which is a major city by anyone's definition. If you'd be okay with deletion of the article describing Jersey City's central transportation hub, then you won't have a problem with the deletion of Changxing railway station. There's a bit of arrogance in brushing off the deletion of an article about a major transportation hub like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to recalibrate your expectations there, 500k wouldn’t even get into the top 100 most populous counties in the US. I know to some extent its apples and oranges but your arguments do seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic and overwrought. The sky is not falling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've now nominated the article in question for deletion, making exactly my point for me: [18]. An article about the main high-speed railway station for a county of over half a million people, which would be considered a major city in most parts of the world, is now up for deletion. A lot of information about China is going to get deleted if this goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it is notable RS would have noted it, that what notability is. Again, you are the people who want this information, you are the ones whop make the case and find the sources. I think it is clear I do not see how mush of this is valuable or encyclopedic, we are not a (for example) directory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's the main train station serving a county of over half a million people. Of course it's notable. But this is exactly my point - one user alone is stripping sourcing from hundreds of articles a day, which will lead to a lot of content being removed. It's great that you found a source for this one example, but are you going to go out and find replacements for the hundreds of other sources this one editor has stripped just today? Unless the Global Times is actually unreliable for information like the existence of a railway station, then these mass removals are purely damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The meaning of "deprecated", again, does not mean that these sources must be immediately flushed and removed per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. New additions should not be added, but existing ones need to be evaluated to see if the content they were supported can be backed by a more reliable source, but there is no deadline for their removal, period. A mass removal done without the planning of community consensus (of which neither RFC in question that I see had discussed) is within the WP:FAIT territory and that editors see this as disruptive is a problem. If the community wants to see all such links removed "quickly" then a separate RFC to set a grandfathering plan ("You have 3 months or until Jan 31, 2021 to handle these links in articles or otherwise we will remove them and the content they support en masse") would be needed. Or those that want to see these links remove need to be showing they are taking semi-human involved steps to review each removal to make sure there's no other possible method with minimal disruption (which here could be simply tagging with {{better source needed}} or similar inline templates.) --Masem (t) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've made proposals similar to your "grandfathering plan" for deprecated sources repeatedly. They've been rejected every time. Do you understand why they've been rejected every time? What's different about this one? And if you're making an accusation of bot removals, you need to actually make the accusation, and actually back it up - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because everywhere else on WP where "mass" actions are done of this scale and where there is not clear consensus for removal or the action, there is usually an RFC to establish this type of grandfathering and/or the editor that initiates the action rolls back their actions until they're told its ok, or if they refuse, they are admin-acted against as being disruptive. Again, key is the language of "deprecated" which is not the same as "banned". If the RFC said "banned" that would be different allowing for this mass action. Otherwise, a careful plan to remove the links is only warranted, which what has been demonstrated is clearly not. --Masem (t) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is the appropriate path here? Keep in mind the users being discussed have been doing "mass action" for about 100 articles a day or more, so in the time of our discussion, another several hundred articles have been stripped of sources. {{better source needed}} seems to be a reasonable request directive for now, as there clearly is a hunt to strip out data from across wikipedia on mundane topics. Apparently, someone thought it was offensive to cite CGTN for the fact that china was developing a 600km/h maglev, when there are videos of it circulating online you can easily find. The user didnt even bother to put the {{citation needed}} tag. Albertaont (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because everywhere else on WP where "mass" actions are done of this scale and where there is not clear consensus for removal or the action, there is usually an RFC to establish this type of grandfathering and/or the editor that initiates the action rolls back their actions until they're told its ok, or if they refuse, they are admin-acted against as being disruptive. Again, key is the language of "deprecated" which is not the same as "banned". If the RFC said "banned" that would be different allowing for this mass action. Otherwise, a careful plan to remove the links is only warranted, which what has been demonstrated is clearly not. --Masem (t) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've made proposals similar to your "grandfathering plan" for deprecated sources repeatedly. They've been rejected every time. Do you understand why they've been rejected every time? What's different about this one? And if you're making an accusation of bot removals, you need to actually make the accusation, and actually back it up - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I too have been concerned with Amigao's warpath against Global Times, especially given their persistent refusal to engage with anyone on their talk page about the issue. I'm offering another recent example of an instance where I used GT in my intermittent overhaul of Censorship in China: Special:Diff/977243274. In that particular edit, GT provided a) details of a phenomenon reported on in Western media, but with added specificity (i.e. naming the companies involved—Mango TV/Hunan Broadcasting) and b) novel information about censorship and morality germane to the subsection overall, namely, noting a Chinese study that indicated consumption of pornography was on the rise in China despite government campaigns against it. GT is a very flawed (and often obnoxious) source, but even saying nothing of the language barrier, the inaccessibility of CNKI means that lots of Chinese research cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia. It can also be useful in obtaining biographical information for notable interviews, e.g. Dong Mingzhu, who was interviewed by GT in September. Again, the benefit here is verifiability, insofar as the source is in English and does not require fluency in Mandarin to check. This is why I still support a designation of GT as "generally unreliable" except for specific circumstances, such as when it adds to details events/topics already covered in reliable sources. Even without another RfC, I believe that Amigao's continued mass deletion of GT is not particularly constructive, particularly given their uncommunicativeness. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. CGTN is IMHO a propaganda outlet, and reducing reliance on them as a source can only be a good thing. Removing sources outright is however counterproductive, it is better to mark them clearly as being deprecated, (eg. {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}), and work to replace them. This also places the article in and can be handled from there. When you want to replace an unreliable source, having the unreliable source at hand is a good thing, and marking it as such. An alternative would be to create a template that handles a reference inline, and thus hides the reference from public view, while maintaining it for editors. If you find material that is unverifiable, by all means remove it. BFG (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- People keep advocating tagging instead of removal of deprecated sources - that is sources that should not be used in Wikipedia at all - but it has one big problem: it doesn't work. Nothing ever happens. The tag sits there for months or years. We've literally tried your proposal, and it results in nothing happening. Functionally, this sort of proposal just tries to replace doing something about the deprecated source, that should not be used in Wikipedia at all, with doing nothing about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will actually advocate for removing unverifiable information. If you put in an effort to check a source, and see there is no reputable source to back the claim, please remove the content. Leaving it with a {{citation needed}} or just removing the unreliable reference is not improving Wikipedia. BFG (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- David Gerard, if this were the Daily Mail I'd probably agree with you. I submit that the original discussion for this source is flawed and being used for mass removals in a way that was not foreseen. It's quite a jump to go from "this source is too bellicose to be trusted editorially" to "we must remove its non-controversial statements about railway stations immediately." I'm not sympathetic to taking a hard line here; show your work please, and as it applies in this case. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- People keep advocating tagging instead of removal of deprecated sources - that is sources that should not be used in Wikipedia at all - but it has one big problem: it doesn't work. Nothing ever happens. The tag sits there for months or years. We've literally tried your proposal, and it results in nothing happening. Functionally, this sort of proposal just tries to replace doing something about the deprecated source, that should not be used in Wikipedia at all, with doing nothing about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. CGTN is IMHO a propaganda outlet, and reducing reliance on them as a source can only be a good thing. Removing sources outright is however counterproductive, it is better to mark them clearly as being deprecated, (eg. {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}), and work to replace them. This also places the article in and can be handled from there. When you want to replace an unreliable source, having the unreliable source at hand is a good thing, and marking it as such. An alternative would be to create a template that handles a reference inline, and thus hides the reference from public view, while maintaining it for editors. If you find material that is unverifiable, by all means remove it. BFG (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The September RfC found strong consensus to deprecate the Global Times. In fact, the consensus here is about as strong as the consensus to deprecate Breitbart News (RSP entry) in its 2018 RfC, and there are only eight uses of breitbart.com in article space compared to the 129 uses of globaltimes.cn and 375 uses of huanqiu.com , which indicates that there is more cleanup to be done with regard to the Global Times. When a removal is disputed, one solution is to discuss the removal on this noticeboard, as we are doing now. WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source", so removals of deprecated sources are consistent with policy unless an exception such as WP:ABOUTSELF applies (and even that exception is subject to an evaluation of due weight). — Newslinger talk 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking back at the RfC discussion, I don't see any discussion at all of the effect of deprecation on countless mundane subjects, or of Global Times' reliability for simple, non-political facts. The discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the role of Global Times in voicing hawkish foreign policy views. The consequences on articles like Changxing railway station and countless other non-political China-related articles was not discussed, and does not appear to have occurred to anyone in the discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- So just to be clear you’re telling people who participated in the RfC that they didn't understand what they were doing? I voted 4 and it was always my understanding that GT would be removed from articles like Changxing railway station. Because thats literally how deprecation works, if I didnt think it should be deprecated I would have voted 3 or better like I did for Xinhua. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that there was no discussion of the implications for countless articles about mundane, non-political subjects, just like Changxing railway station. Whether or not some editors (other than yourself) had that in the back of their minds is impossible to tell, but it definitely was not raised or discussed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why would it be? Its inherent in the deprecation of a widely used source, as far as I can tell you are the only one who didn't understand what deprecation meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- As per WP:DEPS, deprecation is not banning or blocking a source, it simply means it should not be used further and further attempts to use the source at a reference are cautioned against. I'm reading some taking "deprecation" as "we must remove the source immediately from Wikipedia", which is nowhere in policy of how we treat deprecated sources. We do want to remove deprecated sources in time, but that should be managed without disruption, which is implicit by making a source deprecated. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Removing deprecated sources isn't a “must” (unless its a statement about a living person not covered by about self in which case it *is* actually a "must") its a “can” and as such removal is voluntary. Its voluntary removal by multiple editors thats being complained about here, not a bot or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- As per WP:DEPS, deprecation is not banning or blocking a source, it simply means it should not be used further and further attempts to use the source at a reference are cautioned against. I'm reading some taking "deprecation" as "we must remove the source immediately from Wikipedia", which is nowhere in policy of how we treat deprecated sources. We do want to remove deprecated sources in time, but that should be managed without disruption, which is implicit by making a source deprecated. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why would it be? Its inherent in the deprecation of a widely used source, as far as I can tell you are the only one who didn't understand what deprecation meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that there was no discussion of the implications for countless articles about mundane, non-political subjects, just like Changxing railway station. Whether or not some editors (other than yourself) had that in the back of their minds is impossible to tell, but it definitely was not raised or discussed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- We don't use Breitbart News for uncontroversial content, either, unless there is a valid exemption under WP:ABOUTSELF. There was no consensus in the RfC to carve out an exception for the Global Times's coverage of railway stations, so it is also considered generally unreliable for this topic. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- So just to be clear you’re telling people who participated in the RfC that they didn't understand what they were doing? I voted 4 and it was always my understanding that GT would be removed from articles like Changxing railway station. Because thats literally how deprecation works, if I didnt think it should be deprecated I would have voted 3 or better like I did for Xinhua. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking back at the RfC discussion, I don't see any discussion at all of the effect of deprecation on countless mundane subjects, or of Global Times' reliability for simple, non-political facts. The discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the role of Global Times in voicing hawkish foreign policy views. The consequences on articles like Changxing railway station and countless other non-political China-related articles was not discussed, and does not appear to have occurred to anyone in the discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Folks, can we please take it down a notch? The discussion above is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not familiar with the Global Times, and I will defer to those who say it's the Daily Mail of China or whatever have you, but when we wind up with abominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station I think it's okay to admit that we made a mistake somewhere along the line. This has the potential to exacerbate our existing problems with systemic bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- GT is actually significantly less reliable than the Daily Mail (although both are too unreliable for use on WP), at least the DM has editorial independence and operated in a system that respects basic human rights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure that comments like "abominations like" are taking it down a notch. That AFD sums up what many are saying, that article was a one line stub with one source until the one source was removed, and now (thanks to efforts to keep it) has been massively improved (note, this is not saying its passes GNG). Tagging it would have just meant it would have remained a one line directory entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- But what this is is disruptive. The actions being taken to remove the sources without any attempt to find replacements is against the intent of deprecated sources and is a WP:FAIT action that needs to be stopped immediately, until the community can decide what the proper approach is for dealing with these links. The bot-like actions and lack of communication by Amigao (based on the minimal discussion on their talk page) is very disconcerting and that's the issue. (At least with something like David Gerald and the DM link purge David was extremely responsive and appears far less bot-like in their review of the links). --Masem (t) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no requirement to find a replacement though, however if its a BLP there is actually a requirement to remove the source and all sourced text. In my opinion removing a deprecated sources is almost always an improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree its disruptive, no more so then arguing for their retention without finding better sources. But you are right, we are not required to remove them. But I would suggest that those who want this material sourced do what was done at Changxing railway station and find them (but this time without pushing). Hell if the amount of effort put into this "not an RFC" was put into replacing sources this might not even be an issue (again I refer back to the rash of work over at Changxing railway station).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's disruptive as first, multiple editors have complained about the actions here and directly to the editor in question, and that the actions have triggered some "irreversible" processes (per WP:FAIT) that are difficult to reverse or correct en masse. While tagging for "find a better source" may be an issue, that's not the same as that's not an irreversible process, so nowhere close to being the type of disruption that removal of sources considers. I'd still strongly urge that all such mass actions stop and a community agreement to some process to untangle the deprecation be figured out before any further mass action be taken. --Masem (t) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- And others have said they have no issue (or even agree) with their actions. On the other hand they have said this thread is problematic and an attempt as at a back door relaunch of the RFC that deprecated the source (which they see as disruptive). But if you want an RFC, launch one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- All the edits I’ve seen so far have been 100% reversible either mechanically or through a direct revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- AFDs are, however. That's exactly where FAIT originated from. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- AFDs are actually reversible although you need some admin help. This is a discussion about removing deprecated sources though not AFD, the only AFD discussion referenced here is well on its way to a snowball keep which suggests that our current system works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue though is that if these source deletions cause a lot of AFDs in a short time that would require the same group of editors to have to run around to find fixes for, that's a fait accompli action that we do not want an editor to create for others and is strongly strongly discouraged. The original situation was an editor that nominated numerous articles for AFD a day for numerous days in a row, which is what ended in an ArbCom case and the creation of WP:FAIT to warn against this type of behavior. Now, yes, many of these source deletions aren't creating AFD-worthy situations, but there is enough concern about AFDs being raised that FAIT 100% applies here - that one editor is potentially forcing a group of other editors to have to act quickly to save/keep their articles or their content. That's the whole point about avoiding disruption. --Masem (t) 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see 13 articles here (at least) only one has been AFD'd. Sorry not seeing how this is leading to a mass of AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the hypothetical you describe ever occurs then WP:FAIT would apply, it has no bearing on the issue we are currently discussing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue though is that if these source deletions cause a lot of AFDs in a short time that would require the same group of editors to have to run around to find fixes for, that's a fait accompli action that we do not want an editor to create for others and is strongly strongly discouraged. The original situation was an editor that nominated numerous articles for AFD a day for numerous days in a row, which is what ended in an ArbCom case and the creation of WP:FAIT to warn against this type of behavior. Now, yes, many of these source deletions aren't creating AFD-worthy situations, but there is enough concern about AFDs being raised that FAIT 100% applies here - that one editor is potentially forcing a group of other editors to have to act quickly to save/keep their articles or their content. That's the whole point about avoiding disruption. --Masem (t) 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- AFDs are actually reversible although you need some admin help. This is a discussion about removing deprecated sources though not AFD, the only AFD discussion referenced here is well on its way to a snowball keep which suggests that our current system works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- AFDs are, however. That's exactly where FAIT originated from. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's disruptive as first, multiple editors have complained about the actions here and directly to the editor in question, and that the actions have triggered some "irreversible" processes (per WP:FAIT) that are difficult to reverse or correct en masse. While tagging for "find a better source" may be an issue, that's not the same as that's not an irreversible process, so nowhere close to being the type of disruption that removal of sources considers. I'd still strongly urge that all such mass actions stop and a community agreement to some process to untangle the deprecation be figured out before any further mass action be taken. --Masem (t) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- But what this is is disruptive. The actions being taken to remove the sources without any attempt to find replacements is against the intent of deprecated sources and is a WP:FAIT action that needs to be stopped immediately, until the community can decide what the proper approach is for dealing with these links. The bot-like actions and lack of communication by Amigao (based on the minimal discussion on their talk page) is very disconcerting and that's the issue. (At least with something like David Gerald and the DM link purge David was extremely responsive and appears far less bot-like in their review of the links). --Masem (t) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, source depreciation is not a blanket ban, and there are reasonable uses for using them, for example in articles specifically about the propaganda mouthpiece, or in articles about propaganda related to the mouthpiece. Indiscriminate and overzealous tagging such as this is counter-productive, in my opinion. This article is specifically about Chinese propaganda, of course it would need to cite what Chinese propaganda outlets say. --benlisquareT•C•E 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This particular use of the Global Times (tagged in Special:Diff/983674054) is in a gray area, since it cites a study conducted by the Global Times about the content of the People's Daily. Although both are state-run media organizations, they are separate entities with different leadership and editorial objectives. I would not consider this citation a valid application of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- This case is less about WP:ABOUTSELF, and more about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. Contextually, the topic of this Wikipedia article makes the usage of the CCP mouthpiece reasonable. Yes, I also strongly consider Global Times to be a generally terrible source that spreads misinformation and should be avoided as much as possible, however, let's use some common sense here: For what purpose would this reference intentionally spread misinformation about the sentence being cited? It currently feels like there's a giant Wikipedia-wide kneejerk reaction against CCP-sources like the Global Times, Xinhua, People's Daily, etc. without properly considering the context they are being used in. I agree that for 99% of cases these sources should not be used, but if we are to approach this issue sensibly and not reactively, editorial discretion is necessary for the remaining 1%. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest that if you're trying this hard to come up with excuses to use a deprecated source - that is, a source so bad that a broad general consensus has found that it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia at all in general - then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've been courteous, so I'd appreciate an appropriate level of reciprocity please. I've been around for almost the same amount of time as you, I'm no newcomer, and your tone can be interpreted as condescending. How context affects the usability of a partisan reference also depends on how the Wikipedia article presents the position being cited. Consider the following three example sentences:
Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind.[REFERENCE]
A 2009 editorial from Der Führer's Lügenblatt made the claim that Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.[REFERENCE]
According to a 31 December 2009 editorial from Der Führer's Lügenblatt, Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.[REFERENCE]
Here, you see three different hypothetical scenarios where a partisan CCP source might be used, however they are written with different nuances and provide contrasting implications. The first example attempts to pass off a statement as fact using a Der Führer's Lügenblatt citation, and thus is unacceptable; the second example makes it extremely clear to the reader that X is sharing a position on Y, and thus (from my perspective) is an acceptable use of a Der Führer's Lügenblatt reference; the third example pretends to be impartial, but is ambiguous as to whether it is attempting to state a position as fact, and can potentially be written with the aim to deceive the reader, and thus is unacceptable. Now, back to the article Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, the prose already clearly explains to the reader that the People's Daily, China Daily, Global Times and Xinhua News Agency are all state-owned media organisations owned by the government of China, and it clearly presents all statements from the PD, CD, GT and XNA as claims made by those outlets, rather than facts. Based on this, I would like to argue that the use of the Global Times source is editorially ethical and responsible from a contextual perspective. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just a point of order, PD, CD, and GT are all party owned media organizations not state owned. I admit that the totalitarian single party state nature of the PRC makes this one slightly challenging but Xinhua is the only organization on your list technically owned by the Government of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is true, though the article prose can be adjusted where necessary to reflect such technicalities. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry) was determined to be a situational source that can be used with in-text attribution. It is not comparable to the Global Times, which publishes a much larger proportion of propaganda that sometimes does not even reflect the Chinese government's position. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Replace the hypothetical reference in my example from Xinhua then. It doesn't change the point that I'm bringing across. Focus on the point I'm expressing, and not the media outlet I use as an example. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The initial comment listed 13 links to edits that removed citations of the Global Times. I don't see any issue with these removals, since the Global Times was determined to be a low-quality propaganda outlet in the September RfC. Citations of the Global Times are being removed because the publication is unreliable, not because it is pro-CCP. The Global Times is only the second Chinese source to be deprecated, and this measure was long overdue. If you are arguing against the removal of Xinhua citations, I would agree that Xinhua is sometimes an appropriate source to use, but Xinhua is not deprecated and editors in this discussion have yet to provide any evidence that citations of Xinhua are being systematically removed. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The focus on Xinhua is straying from the original point that I was trying to make. I am not talking about Xinhua. If you're making a statement relating to my use of Xinhua within the examples, then please pretend that I never ever mentioned Xinhua in my 07:45, 16 October 2020 post, because otherwise it's literally focusing on one thing I've said while ignoring everything else. To remind you of what my original point was:
One: Exceptions to community rulings should be enforced on a case-by-case basis, based on the situation and literary context. The world does not exist in black and white, edge cases will always exist, and it is unconstructive to work in absolutes.
Two: Whether or not the specific usage of a citation causes harm to the Wikipedia project should be determined on what the cited claim is, and how it is worded within the Wikipedia article prose.
Three: I do not dispute that the Global Times is an obscenely malicious source, 90% of the time. However, a broken clock is correct two times a day, and if an editor can prove to the Wikipedia community that a specific instance of citation usage is not problematic, it is counterproductive to continue to prohibiting the usage within that specific instance, just because "the rules say so".
If there's something wrong with these points that I've raised, feel free to point them out. But, please, do not bring up the Xinhua RSP entry again. It is 100% unrelated to the points I am attempting to make. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Many unreliable sources publish some correct information, yet the sources are still unusable for that information because it is not possible to determine when an unreliable source is telling the truth. Because of this, the verifiability policy uses whether a source is reliable as a threshold for inclusion, and not whether the source is correct. Borrowing your example, if Breitbart News claimed that "Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind", we would not be able to cite Breitbart News for this information because it is an unreliable source. Even with attribution, we would not be able to include this information with only a citation to Breitbart because the views of unreliable sources are considered undue weight. However, if reliable sources cover Breitbart's claim, we would be able to cite those sources for the claim, with attribution to Breitbart. Likewise, a claim made in the Global Times that does not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF can be included into an article if reliable sources cover it. In this case, citing the Global Times as a supplemental primary source would be optional, while citing the reliable sources would be mandatory. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the article in question, the only thing being cited are a bunch of analytical numbers, for something very benign and uncontroversial. Would you be able to able to take a look at Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people#Phraseology and point out exactly how the use of the Global Times cite (QUOTE: "The Global Times published an analysis in June 2015 which concluded that... there were 237 articles published by the People's Daily between May 15, 1946 and May 1, 2015 which made accusations of hurt feelings against 29 different countries; among these, 9 targeted India, 16 targeted France, 62 targeted the United States, and 96 targeted Japan.") is harmful to the Wikipedia project, outside of "the rules say so"? This is purely based on my opinion on how subjective all of this is, and not based in any Wikipedia policy, but surely prohibiting something this benign falls within the realm of a rule preventing the enhancement of Wikipedia content. The content harmed nobody, but excluding the content brings gain to nobody either. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You could make the argument that the claim qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF, since some sources consider the Global Times a subsidiary of the People's Daily. It would have been better if the People's Daily published the analysis itself, but the Global Times report might qualify if editors do not find the claim controversial. Applications of WP:IAR are still subject to consensus, which can be established with a discussion at Talk:Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Effects of deprecation:
The source is designated as generally unreliable. Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. - emphasis on "generally unreliable"; this page suggests that depreciated sources may be used under unusual edge cases.
The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. - surely it would be acceptable for me to seek community consensus on a talk page (for example, what we are doing now) to gauge whether this depreciated source can be used under this particular edge case based on a demonstrable need? There are more eyes here on WP:RSN (according to pageviews, nobody visits the talk pages for relatively obscure articles like this one), so this discussion thread seems like a more appropriate place to seek this kind of consensus. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Discussing this here is perfectly fine, although this discussion section sprawls across many different topics, and you may receive higher-quality feedback with a new discussion that focuses specifically on this use of the Global Times. To be completely clear, I don't have any objection to this use, and the intention of my initial reply was to make the case that the removal of the citation was also defensible under policy. I probably wouldn't use the Global Times for this claim, but it's not a particularly strong preference and other editors might disagree. — Newslinger talk 10:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Effects of deprecation:
- You could make the argument that the claim qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF, since some sources consider the Global Times a subsidiary of the People's Daily. It would have been better if the People's Daily published the analysis itself, but the Global Times report might qualify if editors do not find the claim controversial. Applications of WP:IAR are still subject to consensus, which can be established with a discussion at Talk:Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the article in question, the only thing being cited are a bunch of analytical numbers, for something very benign and uncontroversial. Would you be able to able to take a look at Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people#Phraseology and point out exactly how the use of the Global Times cite (QUOTE: "The Global Times published an analysis in June 2015 which concluded that... there were 237 articles published by the People's Daily between May 15, 1946 and May 1, 2015 which made accusations of hurt feelings against 29 different countries; among these, 9 targeted India, 16 targeted France, 62 targeted the United States, and 96 targeted Japan.") is harmful to the Wikipedia project, outside of "the rules say so"? This is purely based on my opinion on how subjective all of this is, and not based in any Wikipedia policy, but surely prohibiting something this benign falls within the realm of a rule preventing the enhancement of Wikipedia content. The content harmed nobody, but excluding the content brings gain to nobody either. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Many unreliable sources publish some correct information, yet the sources are still unusable for that information because it is not possible to determine when an unreliable source is telling the truth. Because of this, the verifiability policy uses whether a source is reliable as a threshold for inclusion, and not whether the source is correct. Borrowing your example, if Breitbart News claimed that "Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind", we would not be able to cite Breitbart News for this information because it is an unreliable source. Even with attribution, we would not be able to include this information with only a citation to Breitbart because the views of unreliable sources are considered undue weight. However, if reliable sources cover Breitbart's claim, we would be able to cite those sources for the claim, with attribution to Breitbart. Likewise, a claim made in the Global Times that does not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF can be included into an article if reliable sources cover it. In this case, citing the Global Times as a supplemental primary source would be optional, while citing the reliable sources would be mandatory. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The focus on Xinhua is straying from the original point that I was trying to make. I am not talking about Xinhua. If you're making a statement relating to my use of Xinhua within the examples, then please pretend that I never ever mentioned Xinhua in my 07:45, 16 October 2020 post, because otherwise it's literally focusing on one thing I've said while ignoring everything else. To remind you of what my original point was:
- The initial comment listed 13 links to edits that removed citations of the Global Times. I don't see any issue with these removals, since the Global Times was determined to be a low-quality propaganda outlet in the September RfC. Citations of the Global Times are being removed because the publication is unreliable, not because it is pro-CCP. The Global Times is only the second Chinese source to be deprecated, and this measure was long overdue. If you are arguing against the removal of Xinhua citations, I would agree that Xinhua is sometimes an appropriate source to use, but Xinhua is not deprecated and editors in this discussion have yet to provide any evidence that citations of Xinhua are being systematically removed. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Replace the hypothetical reference in my example from Xinhua then. It doesn't change the point that I'm bringing across. Focus on the point I'm expressing, and not the media outlet I use as an example. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just a point of order, PD, CD, and GT are all party owned media organizations not state owned. I admit that the totalitarian single party state nature of the PRC makes this one slightly challenging but Xinhua is the only organization on your list technically owned by the Government of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've been courteous, so I'd appreciate an appropriate level of reciprocity please. I've been around for almost the same amount of time as you, I'm no newcomer, and your tone can be interpreted as condescending. How context affects the usability of a partisan reference also depends on how the Wikipedia article presents the position being cited. Consider the following three example sentences:
- I strongly suggest that if you're trying this hard to come up with excuses to use a deprecated source - that is, a source so bad that a broad general consensus has found that it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia at all in general - then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- This case is less about WP:ABOUTSELF, and more about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. Contextually, the topic of this Wikipedia article makes the usage of the CCP mouthpiece reasonable. Yes, I also strongly consider Global Times to be a generally terrible source that spreads misinformation and should be avoided as much as possible, however, let's use some common sense here: For what purpose would this reference intentionally spread misinformation about the sentence being cited? It currently feels like there's a giant Wikipedia-wide kneejerk reaction against CCP-sources like the Global Times, Xinhua, People's Daily, etc. without properly considering the context they are being used in. I agree that for 99% of cases these sources should not be used, but if we are to approach this issue sensibly and not reactively, editorial discretion is necessary for the remaining 1%. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- This particular use of the Global Times (tagged in Special:Diff/983674054) is in a gray area, since it cites a study conducted by the Global Times about the content of the People's Daily. Although both are state-run media organizations, they are separate entities with different leadership and editorial objectives. I would not consider this citation a valid application of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as I can see, the problem is that people like Amigao are mass removing unreliable sources, like GT, from Wikipedia articles, without attempting to provide replacement sources. Have I got this right? Techie3 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is the mass removal of sources without any replacement. Part of the problem is that while deprecation discussions about Global Times focused almost entirely on the possibility of it being used for political propaganda, the actual effect of deprecating it appears to be the removal of sourcing for all sorts of simple factual issues. There was no discussion of Global Times' reliability for mundane facts (like whether or not a train station exists), but there was lots of discussion of the hawkish foreign policy views expressed in Global Times editorials. But the main effect of the broad deprecation has been on the former type of content (mundane facts), rather than the latter (propaganda/opinions). This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times, and is something that the community should consider. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please stop saying "This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times?” I’ve told you thats not true at least three times (as have other editors) so you’re telling a fib and you know it. Please WP:AGF and don’t incorrectly summarize the opinions of other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was completely unforseen in the RfC on the Global Times. It was not discussed, and if it was on your mind, that wasn't reflected in the discussion. Yet an RfC in which political propaganda was discussed is now being used to remove mundane information like who won the award for best supporting actor at a Chinese film festival. If that was the intention of commenters at the RfC, someone should have mentioned it and there should have been a discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Undiscussed does not mean unforeseen, like I said its literally inherent in the conception of deprecation. You seem to be the only person who doesnt understand that we dont want to use deprecated sources, even for mundane information. Go and try to use the Daily Mail, The Grayzone, or RT for “mundane information” and see how far it gets you. Just because you don’t understand deprecation doesnt mean you get to repeat lies and cast aspersions on the other editors who participated in that discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was completely unforseen in the RfC on the Global Times. It was not discussed, and if it was on your mind, that wasn't reflected in the discussion. Yet an RfC in which political propaganda was discussed is now being used to remove mundane information like who won the award for best supporting actor at a Chinese film festival. If that was the intention of commenters at the RfC, someone should have mentioned it and there should have been a discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- To add, maybe they are mundane facts, from an organ controlled by the state telling us what the state has done (and often how fantastic what is has done is). Its not a third party source for any information about China, not even mundane facts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I fully supported the RfCs to depreciate CGTN and the Global Times, given that their editorial takes on geopolitical issues are consistently full of polemic disinformation that can be used to cause disruption on Wikipedia if used as a source. My point, however, is that we should not be looking at the enforcement of new rules strictly in terms of black and white, because the real world does not work in absolute binaries; there will always be edge cases that exist, and a hardline enforcement goes against the spirit of the law that community consensus has built upon.
I am not arguing that the consensus gained during the RfC was somehow invalid; rather, I am arguing that the consensus established was that these problematic sources would fall within the well-established frameworks we already have for dealing with depreciated sources—that is—usage of these sources is heavily discouraged, however not outright banned for all circumstances. A depreciated source is not a blacklisted source.
Still unconvinced? If you read the section at Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people#Phraseology that uses the Global Times citation, can you please clearly explain precisely how the GT reference is problematic or harmful to the project? I can understand telling lies about COVID-19 or Taiwan, but why would the GT tell lies about how many countries were mentioned within People's Daily articles? I am arguing that our existing rules on depreciated sources do not dictate a strict, hardline enforcement on preventing these sources from being used; even if these rules were somehow supposed to be rigidly enforced without mercy (they aren't, by the way), surely such enforcement would clearly be preventing us from improving Wikipedia, and thus is a net detriment to the project? --benlisquareT•C•E 00:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Much of this has little or nothing to do with what the Chinese state has done. The existence of a train station in Changxing is a mundane fact that no reasonable person would argue the Chinese government has any strong stake in misrepresenting. The broad-brush attitude being taken towards China and Chinese sources here goes against the basic ethos of WP:RS, which is to evaluate reliability of sources in context. Going from "Global Times publishes nationalistic editorials" to "Global Times is unreliable for every type of fact" to "Chinese sources are unreliable for any fact" (something that some editors are arguing) is, I think, unreasonable and not in line with WP:RS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Chinese sources are unreliable for any fact” Who is arguing this? I haven't seen anyone make that argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You have been arguing this:
I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua.
([19]) When I pointed out that this would mean disqualifying Caixin, which has done some excellent journalism, you elaborated on your reasoning for deprecating all Chinese news sources other than Xinhua: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.
([20]) -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC) - In that same discussion, Donkey Hot-day had a detailed reply to your argument about Caixin, taking issue with your blanket approach to Chinese sources: [21]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So are you saying that Xinhua isn't a Chinese source? Or are you saying that Hong Kong isn't a part of China? I cant both reject the use of all Chinese sources and endorse Xinhua, HKFP, SCMP, etc those are mutually exclusive. Nor is that statement about China or Chinese sources in general, its specifically about the mainland. I understand that you were mistaken but please correct your offensively bad characterization of my argument. Clearly I’m not arguing what you say I am arguing, are any editors? Or did you just make it up like usual?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse people of making stuff up; I think it's fairly clear what they meant by that post. You don't think "
I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua.
" can be interpreted to mean that you'd support deprecation for *every* mainland news source, minus literally one exception? jp×g 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)- Yes it can, it can not however be interpreted as supporting the deprecation of every *Chinese* news source, minus literally one exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse people of making stuff up; I think it's fairly clear what they meant by that post. You don't think "
- So are you saying that Xinhua isn't a Chinese source? Or are you saying that Hong Kong isn't a part of China? I cant both reject the use of all Chinese sources and endorse Xinhua, HKFP, SCMP, etc those are mutually exclusive. Nor is that statement about China or Chinese sources in general, its specifically about the mainland. I understand that you were mistaken but please correct your offensively bad characterization of my argument. Clearly I’m not arguing what you say I am arguing, are any editors? Or did you just make it up like usual?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You have been arguing this:
- "Chinese sources are unreliable for any fact” Who is arguing this? I haven't seen anyone make that argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I fully supported the RfCs to depreciate CGTN and the Global Times, given that their editorial takes on geopolitical issues are consistently full of polemic disinformation that can be used to cause disruption on Wikipedia if used as a source. My point, however, is that we should not be looking at the enforcement of new rules strictly in terms of black and white, because the real world does not work in absolute binaries; there will always be edge cases that exist, and a hardline enforcement goes against the spirit of the law that community consensus has built upon.
- Can you please stop saying "This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times?” I’ve told you thats not true at least three times (as have other editors) so you’re telling a fib and you know it. Please WP:AGF and don’t incorrectly summarize the opinions of other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is the mass removal of sources without any replacement. Part of the problem is that while deprecation discussions about Global Times focused almost entirely on the possibility of it being used for political propaganda, the actual effect of deprecating it appears to be the removal of sourcing for all sorts of simple factual issues. There was no discussion of Global Times' reliability for mundane facts (like whether or not a train station exists), but there was lots of discussion of the hawkish foreign policy views expressed in Global Times editorials. But the main effect of the broad deprecation has been on the former type of content (mundane facts), rather than the latter (propaganda/opinions). This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times, and is something that the community should consider. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are countries where every source is controlled by the state (and in those countries thedistinction between the party and the state is insignificant). . Should we therefore eliminate all articles unless people from outside that country write on them? This was not the meanign of deprecated in that discusion, which covered only political propaganda. And If it is being misinterpreted to this extent, we need a new RfC on it. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Removing citations to the Global Times (RSP entry) is different from removing citations to Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry), just as removing citations to Breitbart News (RSP entry) would be different from removing citations to a hypothetical US government-run news agency. Not all Chinese sources exhibit the same level of reliability, even when they are state-run. As one of the least reliable Chinese sources, the Global Times should be treated similarly to other sources of the same quality. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think a problem is the way how Chinese media operates. Many times an official media published an article and then every other media are simply being asked to copy and repeat the exact same report in their paper. Which make it difficult to tell who really wrote the original report without careful inspection. C933103 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: While I don't have any opinion about the reliability of the Global Times on general statements, the point of confusion for me on the issue is diffs like this, in which @Horse Eye's Back: removed a Global Times citation from the sentence
An article in the Communist Party of China–affiliated tabloid paper Global Times quoted Wu Hongying, director of the [...]
, replacing it with {{cn}} and reverting me as well as another editor who tried to put it back in. As far as I can tell, this section was absolutely not citing it as an authoritative source of fact, but rather as a source of "what Chinese propaganda said about the whole thing". Whether or not GT's reliable for governmental proceedings or plane routes, I thought that WP:DEPRECATED unambiguously permitted citing biased outlets when the statement was "here's what these biased dudes had to say". What other source could possibly be used for a citation like "The propaganda outlet 'Global Times' said such and-such"? Reading through this discussion, it seems like a few editors disagree with this, and are in favor of removing it in literally all articles (including when they're WP:ABOUTSELF). Am I misunderstanding, or is that really what's being said? I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this. jp×g 17:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JPxG: I reverted you a single time, but no-one else as far as I can see from the edit history. Either provide diffs or retract. The question on VivaTaiwan is one of due weight, its also not covered by WP:ABOUTSELF as GT is being used to make a statement about the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations which is a separate entity. Specifically we have the GT reporting a comment from their director Wu Hongying, a BLP, which complicates matters. We could use the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (not GT) for ABOUTSELF but then we would *still* have a due weight issue. As for your larger question you appear to be confusing statements where WP:ABOUTSELF would apply with directly attributed statements, just because the format is “X reported _____” doesn't automatically mean its a statement *about* X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a hard-and-fast boundary between ABOUTSELF and simple in-text attribution. Reviewing the article, yes; you only removed that part twice (not reverted it twice, as I mistakenly said). My concern here isn't entirely limited to that diff, though; it was one of twenty-five removals you did in a 30-minute period that day (after participating in this discussion), including two [22] [23] where GT was used as a source for the Chinese censors having censored something, and six [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] that were either in your definition of ABOUTSELF, or had explicit in-text attribution where it was noted as being a state-run propaganda outlet (and in most cases was being cited as an example of what propaganda outlets had said). I don't understand how that violates the guidelines for citing deprecated sources. jp×g 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, the Global Times is a *party* run propaganda outlet, CGTN is a *state* run propaganda outlet. The Global Times is not part of the Chinese government therefore it can’t be used for about self when it comes to the actions of the Chinese government (let alone part of the "Jiangxi Provincial Public Security Department” as it would have to be for [30] to be about self, for example). A good example of how to include the Global Times in an article can be found in the Pishan hostage crisis article *after* my edit, that is when mentioned by a WP:RS (in this case the NYT) we can say what the reliable source says about the deprecated source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Are you saying that a Global Times citation can or can't be used with in-text attribution, in a statement about it being run by the party/state? jp×g 19:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- See #2 “it does not involve claims about third parties" and #3 "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source” at WP:ABOUTSELF, its written really clearly. Also note that the context of ABOUTSELF is "usually in articles about themselves or their activities” which doesn't apply to any of the diffs you’ve shared so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should clarify -- my question was about using the citation with in-text attribution. jp×g 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The answer is the same, adding in-text citations doesn't change anything as far as WP:V or WP:ABOUTSELF are concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should clarify -- my question was about using the citation with in-text attribution. jp×g 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- See #2 “it does not involve claims about third parties" and #3 "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source” at WP:ABOUTSELF, its written really clearly. Also note that the context of ABOUTSELF is "usually in articles about themselves or their activities” which doesn't apply to any of the diffs you’ve shared so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Are you saying that a Global Times citation can or can't be used with in-text attribution, in a statement about it being run by the party/state? jp×g 19:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, the Global Times is a *party* run propaganda outlet, CGTN is a *state* run propaganda outlet. The Global Times is not part of the Chinese government therefore it can’t be used for about self when it comes to the actions of the Chinese government (let alone part of the "Jiangxi Provincial Public Security Department” as it would have to be for [30] to be about self, for example). A good example of how to include the Global Times in an article can be found in the Pishan hostage crisis article *after* my edit, that is when mentioned by a WP:RS (in this case the NYT) we can say what the reliable source says about the deprecated source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a hard-and-fast boundary between ABOUTSELF and simple in-text attribution. Reviewing the article, yes; you only removed that part twice (not reverted it twice, as I mistakenly said). My concern here isn't entirely limited to that diff, though; it was one of twenty-five removals you did in a 30-minute period that day (after participating in this discussion), including two [22] [23] where GT was used as a source for the Chinese censors having censored something, and six [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] that were either in your definition of ABOUTSELF, or had explicit in-text attribution where it was noted as being a state-run propaganda outlet (and in most cases was being cited as an example of what propaganda outlets had said). I don't understand how that violates the guidelines for citing deprecated sources. jp×g 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JPxG: I reverted you a single time, but no-one else as far as I can see from the edit history. Either provide diffs or retract. The question on VivaTaiwan is one of due weight, its also not covered by WP:ABOUTSELF as GT is being used to make a statement about the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations which is a separate entity. Specifically we have the GT reporting a comment from their director Wu Hongying, a BLP, which complicates matters. We could use the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (not GT) for ABOUTSELF but then we would *still* have a due weight issue. As for your larger question you appear to be confusing statements where WP:ABOUTSELF would apply with directly attributed statements, just because the format is “X reported _____” doesn't automatically mean its a statement *about* X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that deprecation should not be overly broad. Sources should be analyzed in context, and I would generally say that it's appropriate to be cited for attribution of what the outlet itself is saying. Benjamin (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF is available for deprecated sources. Uses of deprecated sources (by themselves) outside of WP:ABOUTSELF would almost always fail the verifiability policy, as the RfC that deprecated the source found consensus to prevent these uses. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)