Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 390

Archive 391

Archive 392

→

RfC: The Economist

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

In short, there is a consensus that the The Economist is reliable for trans topics. The consensus is overwhelming when solely accounting for those who voted for one of the four traditional options: more than 90% of those editors picked option 1. The large number of editors who voted for option X presents a complication, as some editors (e.g., Rhododendrites) objected to the RfC mostly or solely because they felt it was frivolous, while others' comments (e.g., Tamzin and Sideswipe9th) imply that they disagreed with the eventual outcome and chose to object to how the RfC had unfolded rather than present their own arguments and attempt to salvage a situation they perceived to be hopeless. While we can speculate on how hypothetical alternative realities might have affected editors' views and the outcome of this RfC, these cannot modify said outcome, only qualify the authority of the RfC. Hence I find as follows: there is an affirmative consensus that The Economist is generally reliable and that the arguments presented here in favor of excepting and downgrading its coverage of trans topics are unpersuasive. This is, of course, not an affirmative consensus that The Economist is exceptionally reliable in this area; it is, however, an affirmative consensus that The Economist should be regarded as no less reliable than any other source we consider reliable in this area. This finding may be subject to revision in the near future. Anyone thinking to use this outcome, or the outcome of any other RfC on the topical reliability of a mainstream media outlet, as a cudgel in content disputes should bear in mind that WP:DUE requires articles to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the[ir] prominence, and attempts to give equal weight or entirely exclude a minority perspective by declaring its proponents reliable or unreliable in a narrow topic area are likely to be ineffectual, if not entirely pointless. ~~On that note, Genericusername57 is cautioned that the community felt this and the two related RfCs were frivolous and that he should not open similar RfCs in the future.~~ —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC) :Portion struck by request. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?

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

gnu 57 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition:

Option X: This RfC is not presented in such a manner as to encourage informed discussion, and should be closed procedurally.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Further down, you say that the RFC question should contain arguments against option 1 (Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

If you came here because of the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies [1], please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Discussion (The Economist)

Instances where the factual accuracy of covetage of transgender issues in reporting by The Economist include this discusion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have WP:MEDRS which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used. The anonymity of articles in the Economist is a problem wrt judging the reliability of the author. -- Colin°^Talk 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. The Economist is well-regarded as a reliable source. No evidence has been provided that it is not.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. This is clear. I mean no disrespect to OP but it would be great to close at least two of these RfCs that are bound to be uncontested and are taking up quite a bit of space for the same discussion to happen three times. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Obvious and established. Andre🚐 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 - as I noted for the two broadsheets listed below, the OP appears to have presented these filings devoid of context or Talk notifications in order to achieve quick SNOW endorsements that they can use as a cudgel in Talk discussions. Editors familiar with the coverage of trans topics by these three outlets are aware of the ways all three have placed their news coverage in the service of political campaigns to limit or reverse trans rights. This is most certainly a case where additional considerations apply. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Various editors in this discussion have apparently !voted on the RfC question without examining any evidence beyond their own perceptions of The Economist as a reliable source in general [2] [3] [4]

This in spite of documentation that The Economist as having published "anti-trans screeds",[5] and has mischaracterised their own articles to discuss the "sterilisation" of trans people[6] on social media.

A "gender critical" editorial line was pursued under the leadership of Helen Joyce, as has been documented in (RSN-green source) the Daily Dot in 2019. Outside of her work at The Economist, Joyce continued to pursue this approach in her controversial[7] book Trans, written while working for The Economist,[8], and that she now follows (while on leave from The Economist) as director of advocacy for sex matters, a group campaigning to protect the expression of "gender-critical" views.[9]

Some editors have argued that bias is not an issue in source reliability.[10] However, the main point made in the policy section on WP:BIASEDSOURCES is that Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. I am not in any way disputing that The Economist is a reliable source for its own "gender critical" opinions on contemporary issues, but the concerns I am raising have nothing to do with the reliability of the magazine's coverage arise when it is elaborating its own "viewpoint" - they are all about claims made in avowedly factual news coverage. The assertion that because The Economist is generally respected for its factual coverage in other areas, that therefore this also applies to its coverage of transgender topics, seems to assume the conclusion that this filing is intended to assess.

Some editors have argued that the issues identified by RS about coverage of transgender issues are confined to editorials, headlines, or statements attributed to sources. I have therefore come up with four examples to discuss, of claims that could be made (or have actually been proposed in WP article text; two of each). These claims refer only to statements made recently (2021-22) in the editorial voice of The Economist in news articles (only).

The purpose of these examples is to evaluate whether or not The Economist is reliable for the statements in question and also whether or not it may be expressing the view of a WP:FRINGE minority that is not typically WP:DUE for inclusion in WP articles. If one or both of these problems exist in these instances, I think it should be clear that a policy-based close of this filing cannot conclude that the magazine is generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics (as the filer, who has advocate its use in one of the cases I am using as an example, had presumably hoped[11]), but rather that additional considerations apply.

Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?

Is The Economist a reliable source for the factual claim that trans ideology is distorting US medical education? The magazine has most recently made this assertion

here (trans ideology is distorting the education of America's doctors, as a headline, based on It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor and How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools? unattributed in article text). By contrast, the consensus of experts is that "trans ideology/gender ideology" does not really exist, and is a conspiracy theory or trope of anti-trans rhetoric.[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16] Meanwhile, quality sources about medical education in the US do not document any controversy about transgender topics, much less any incursion of "trans ideology" [17] [18] [19]

While I was unable to locate other potentially reliable sources supporting The Economist's claims about encroachment by "trans ideology", the statement is supported by other voices such as

Barri Weiss's substack WP:FRINGE anti-trans lobbyists GENSPECT [20], evangelical group focus on the family and Catholic publication America Magazine.[21]]

So is The Economist a reliable source for the assertion that "gender ideology"/"trans ideology" actually exists in the US? I would say, no. Is The Economist a reliable source doe the assertion that "trans ideology" is distorting US medical education? I would also say, no. And I don't see the merit in a WP:FALSEBALANCE presentation that would say, e.g., "The Economist, Genspect and America Magazine state that gender ideology is distorting US medical education, but other experts disagree". This seems pretty clearly to represent a WP:FRINGE claim. It seems clear also that coverage in The Economist is unlikely to make this issue WP:DUE for inclusion in article text.

Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?

Is The Economist a reliable source for the factual claim that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology? The magazine made this assertion in 2021 (Lawmakers in these mostly conservative states are pushing back against the Biden administration’s embrace of gender ideology, again unattributed in article text). This full-throated endorsement that the Biden administration has embraced "gender ideology" flies against the face of the established view - documented in my first example - that "gender ideology" is a conspiracy theory or rhetorical tropes. Other sources described the Biden administration initiatives as guidance seeking to protect transgender students or rules to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

Again, while I was unable to identify potentially reliable sources to corroborate the Binden administration's embrace of "gender ideology", related claims were supported by The Heritage Foundation The Christian Institute, Catholic World Report and the (RSN-yellow labelled) Washington Times.

Do is The Economist a reliable source that the Biden administration has "embraced gender ideology"? I would say, no. Would it be appropriate to say that "The Biden administration has been described as endorsing gender ideology, according to The Economist, the Washington Times, Catholic World Report and The Heritage Foundation, but other sources do not agree"? I don't think so - again, this seems like a WP:FRINGE characterization, not supported by reliable sources and not WP:DUE for WP article space.

Is The Economist reliable for its coverage of the launch of the 8th edition WPATH guidelines?

This is the actual proposed use of The Economist[22] that resulted in this filing. [23] The Economist article in question states that the public launch of the latest standards of care by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (wpath) on September 15th was a mess and that WPATH refers to a website which hosts stories about castrating boys against their will. Now I have no idea whether the latter statement is true or not, but it is not backed up by any of the other sources (e.g., The Times, The Telegraph) discussing the site in question. The former statement that "the public launch ... was a mess" may also be supportable, but given that - apart from a brief comment from the publisher - The Economist only included reactions by gender-crtitical figures associated with WP:FRINGE groups Genspect and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the reliability of this assessment seems questionable at best.

The proposed use of The Economist here was, along with The Telegraph and The Times, to insist that space within the article on WPATH's standards over time include this 2022 controversy in somewhat lurid terms. (Note that the proposed arricle text is not supported in detail by The Economist's article text, but I digress.)

Is The Economist reliable for its characterisation of a third party interview of Marci Bowers by Abigail Shrier?

This is the proposed use of The Economist that I linked in the "Context" section, above. The interview in question was carried out by minor "gender critical" celebrity Abigail Shrier and was initially published on Barry Weiss's substack [24] before the article in The Economist here. Although the characterization of her remarks was subsequently disputed by the interview subject here, editors have nevertheless argued that The Economist's characterisation reliable for its characterisation of the interview should be considered reliable[25] and that it is WP:DUE for inclusion based on The Economist and a Medscape news bulletin? And does The Economist 's publication of the article make it WP:DUE for inclusion in the WP article for which it is proposed - given that no other WP:RS have picked up the story? (The dubious exceptions being the news feeds of WebMD and Medscape, and RSN Yellow-labelled National Review). While ignored by high-quality sources, the interview was picked up by WP:FRINGE contributor Genspect and an RSOPINION piece from Canada.

Given these four examples, it seems clear to me that the policy-compliant conckusion is that additional considerations apply, given the repeated statements The Economist makes in its news coverage, in its own voice, that align with a tiny minority of FRINGE sources rather than the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT of mainstream and high-quality sources. A decision that The Economist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" would only be a red flag to POV editors to introduce poorly-sourced and UNDUE content to articles in the GENSEX WP:ACDS topic area, and to encourage WP:FALSEBALANCE article text in which the talking points The Economist shares only with FRINGE publications would be presented as an alternative reality alongside the consensus reality documented in the bulk of reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC) corrections by Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your first two examples are based on The Economist's use of the term "trans ideology/gender ideology". You state that there is a consensus that this does not exist. If it doesn't exist, there can be no reliable source saying that it influences anything. However, this is a challenge to the use of a term. Instead of/in addition to challenging the term, we should look at the things that it is said to consist of... according to the second Economist article, this is: "the Biden administration’s embrace of gender ideology, which holds that trans people should be recognised as the sex with which they identify". So, the question changes from "Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?" to "Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced the idea that trans people should be recognised as the sex with which they identify?" EddieHugh (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree that The Economist could be used as a source for the latter statement, along with other more mainstream sources. But that wasn't my question. One characteristic of editors sympathetic to "gender-critical" positions in the GENSEX area is their insistence that the language of WP:BIASEDSOURCES be retained in WP article text. As noted in my response to VickKiang below, one of the additional considerations I would like to see noted in the close is that the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice. Your paraphrase here sidesteps what I regard as a critical concern. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not my paraphrase; it's quoting The Economist. I generally oppose labelling when we can describe, but it's very popular here... I wouldn't advocate using "gender ideology" merely because a reliable source uses it, but I also wouldn't oppose using a description of (part of) the same thing from a reliable source. For me, the fact that a source uses both a label and a description doesn't make it unreliable. As editors, we can use judgement in deciding what from a reliable source is best to use, for the benefit of readers. EddieHugh (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Typically in the GENSEX area editors insist that the "facts", the "labels", the "opinions" and the salience of inclusions are all based on the sources used. What I am saying is that in cases where The Economist includes facts, labels and opinions that may correspond to those used in FRINGE sources but are not found in other reliable sources, that these should not be regarded as salient (and in the case of labels, that they should not be employed in wikivoice). Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The third one: they quote people from the two groups that you mention, and the head of the drafting committee: "This is a professional organisation of people who all adhere to the Hippocratic oath." The article might not be 100% balanced, but what is factually inaccurate? The proposed use that you link to is: "Should the article mention the controversy over the Eunuch chapter in SOC8?" Exactly what that proposes isn't clear to me. The article contains only two sentences that are specifically about a eunuch chapter... is anything in them incorrect? They describe it as "the most controversial chapter", which looks like opinion, so would have to be attributed if used; the quotation can be checked; leaving the website claim. EddieHugh (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As I specified, The Economist specifies in its own voice, as an unattributed, factual statement, that the public launch ... was a mess. With a publication that is regarded as generally reliable for transgender topics, we would take this judgement at face value. Can we, for The Economist, particularly given their selection of voices used to support this characterisation? With a generally reliable source, we would assume that the content of those sentences about the Eunuch chapter (the topic the WPATH page editors were aiming to include) is factually accurate, but is it safe to assume that concerning statements of fact that are not made in other WP:RS? The assumption that The Economist must be reliable on these topics because it is reliable on non-trans related topics seems to me to be circular and unconvincing, given the well-established biases of the source. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Is describing something as "a mess" a statement about facts? It's an opinion, which is immediately followed by an explanation: "they originally included a list of minimum ages for treatments—14 for cross-sex hormones, 15 for removal of breasts, 17 for testicles. Hours later, a 'correction' eliminated the age limits. The head of the drafting committee, Eli Coleman, said the publisher went ahead 'without approval' before final changes were made." That's a statement about facts. Is it inaccurate? EddieHugh (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As I noted above, typically in the GENSEX area editors insist that the "facts", the "labels", the "opinions" and the salience of inclusions are all based on the sources used. What I am saying is that in cases where The Economist includes facts, labels and opinions that may correspond to those used in FRINGE sources but not in other reliable sources, that these should not be regarded as salient (and in the case of labels, that they should not be employed in wikivoice). This is the nature of the "additional considerations" I would like to see noted in the close. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should instead reconsider if the other sources are actually FRINGE? Sorry, this really does come across as trying to argue to a conclusion that is preferred vs following the sources. Springee (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea. See below. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Johnson, the lead author of the eunuch chapter, also recently co-authored this journal article about the Eunuch Archive website. Table 1 ("Various forms of voluntary and involuntary genital ablations in the top 100 Eunuch Archive stories") confirms the Economist's claim that the site hosts stories about castrating boys against their will. gnu 57 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the journal article in question: what is the passage that supports stories about castrating boys against their will? Or course, if the scholarly source does confirm this, WP:V is satisfied without consulting The Economist... Newimpartial (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: It's a table, so there's no directly quotable passage, but Table 1 says that 34/100 of the top stories on the website contain "involuntary ablations" of minors where "ablation" refers to any kind of genital removal. In terms of specifically castration (orchiectomy), 24/100 of the top stories on the website include an involuntary castration of a minor. The reason why one might wish to use The Economist over that journal article is because The Economist is a secondary source, while that journal article is a primary source written by someone involved with the guidelines. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not going to pose as an expert in sadomasochistic erotica, it is precisely the move from the table's involuntary to The Economist's against their will that I am questioning here. And given that no other sources appear to back up the interpretation offered by The Economist, we have reason to doubt that the journalist's expertise in this area is any stronger than mine. So I actually think this remains an excellent example of a case where we should not simply defer to the magazine's overall reputation in assessing it as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Nobody is expecting you to be an expert in sadomasochistic erotica, but it's generally expected that editors on Wikipedia will know basic linguistic concepts such as the idea of a synonym. Here is a link to a dictionary that defines "involuntary" as an adjective meaning Acting or done without or against one's will. [26] The Economist using words you do not understand does not make it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that in this context the terms are not necessarily synonyms. To use an analogy: compulsory military service is "involuntary", but being press-ganged is "against one's will". Please do not condescend to me with phrases like using words you do not understand when I am trying to have a WP:CIVIL discussion about specific meanings; I find it unhelpful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Your understanding of the English language should be cited to reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I am a linguistic pragmatist, with the result that I don't find appeals to dictionaries especially helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: By that logic, I can easily get any source rated as unreliable at RSN by redefining words in my own head so that the source is now wrong. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

But redefining words in my own head is pretty much the opposite of linguistic pragmatism. What we do is pay attention to how words are used in specific contexts, and there can be a significant semantic difference between "involuntarily" and "against one's will" - in spite of what some dictionaries might say. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of these arguments rely on: "well, The Economist covered this, but some other outlets didn't"; which is a fantastic argument for not downgrading The Economist's reliability so all credible arguments can be represented fairly. The Economist typically extensively quotes subject-matter experts in their trans coverage, and I find all these articles credible; though obviously we can all disagree with credible articles and have our own perspectives.

Your source for "anti-trans screed" comments on an op-ed.
You link to a Daily Dot article about Helen Joyce; I already debunked that she has anything to do with the Economist's trans coverage. Again, she was a Finance editor. And her book had nothing to do with the Economist.

Now onto the sources:

The Economist argues that gender ideology has distorted U.S. medical education, to the detriment of patients, including trans people. They present several arguments, good evidence, quotes from students and doctors (including trans doctors) who agreed, and criticizes dehumanizing language in textbooks. I see no bias or factual inaccuracies. The fact that you disagree with them doesn't make them fringe. Of the so-called experts you point to, who argue that "gender ideology" is a myth, most of them self-describe as activists, and none of them are medical experts who would be qualified to discuss what the Economist is talking about. It kind of proves the Economist's point, and to me, shows why it must not be downgraded so that all credible viewpoints can be correctly represented on Wikipedia. I don't see the piece as biased at all; it makes its case well.
Here again, the argument relies on "gender ideology" being a conspiracy theory, when the Economist is talking about concrete policy steps. It's a purely semantic argument, with its critics taking it to mean something different than what The Economist uses it for. The argument that medicine has become politicized is a perfectly valid one; not a biased one.
I see nothing wrong with the piece on the Eunuch passage; it seems perfectly factually accurate. The groups you call fringe are correctly described as advocacy groups by The Economist; and they include the WPATH's response, which seems fair.
I'm not considering whether it's due; merely whether it's factually accurate and non-ideologically biased. Marci Bowers's response did not pointed to clear inaccuracies or bias; yes, her comments were truncated, but that's universal to every single newspaper interview. In this case, it didn't seem like cherry-picking. I see zero issues here.

I find it hard to conclude that the Economist should be categorized as biased, without us also needing to categorize practically all LGBT-focused sources as biased (since many of their writers, again, self-describe as activists). I think that would be highly unwise, and would make for worse coverage in trans article, and would support the status quo here. Moreover, since the Economist's pieces are well-researched and argued, I think a downgrade would be highly detrimental to our coverage on trans topics, and would lead to widespread WP:NPOV violations. That doesn't mean we must only use The Economist! But trying to downgrade it to avoid these necessary talk page discussions would be inappropriate. DFlhb (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, why do you regard this Adcocate piece as an op-ed?

Also, your claim to have debunked that (Joyce) has anything to do with the Economist's trans coverage is flatly contradicted by the Daily Dot RS, which links a number of articles published under her byline. Perhaps you might read that one again, with less implicit confidence in your own prior assumptions?

Concerning your other claims:

1. Are you claiming that "gender ideology" actually exists, and is shown in RS to do so? Your comment here appears to reverse Wikipedia's WP:RS hierarchy that puts peer-reviewed publications and experts ahead of general and self-published sources.

2. Once again, you are siding with The Economist against the great bulk of scholarly and high-quality sources.

3. If you think an aricle that presents 80% of the response to the WPATH through the perspective of WP:FRINGE anti-trans advocacy groups is fair - well, I have to question your judgement about that one. The perspective of mainstream transgender health practitioners is entirely left out in The Economist's reporting.

4. If it didn't seem like cherry-picking to you, but it did seem that way to the interview subject, why should we take your opinion over that of the interview subject?

Finally, your claim that the Economist's pieces are well-researched and argued when they largely ignore the scholarly and professional consensus around transgender healthcare while amplifying the views of FRINGE cranks like Genspect and SEGM - well, I remain unconvinced of that one. The position that Wikipedia needs to platform FRINGE views to prevent widespread WP:NPOV violations does not meet with widespread community support, to the best of my knowledge. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The Advocate piece is news, but comments on an op-ed (labelled "By Invitation").

For the Daily Dot, that's precisely what I debunked. Not a single one of the articles were published under her byline. She wrote a fluff piece to conclude a series of op-eds (all "Open Future" articles are opinion pieces by contributing writers), all of which were written by others.

I'd agree if the scholars argued the same point as The Economist; but they merely argue that it's a harmful term (very reasonable argument); The Economist only uses it in the headline, but the article body is detailed about specific problems documented by medical students and doctors (I restate, including a trans doctor), and doesn't feel cherry-picked. Scholarly pieces on terminology have zero bearing on whether the Economist's arguments there are biased or misleading.
Same comment; there is no conflict between scholarly sources & The Economist, since the former aren't addressing what the latter is talking about.
That article's claims (that critics worry about the minimum age limit, overmedicalization, and reversibility) are factual, and I believe those criticisms are fringe within the broader medical community (though we may disagree with these views ourselves).
The interviewee restates her concerns over puberty blockers in her 'correction', far from walking them back; from my reading, it seemed like she made controversial statements, which she was presumably attacked for on social media, and was trying to lay the blame on the Economist, but I don't think that she ever repudiated the controversial things she said, which she confirmed she still believed. It seemed more like damage control. Indeed, Marci Bowers is still criticized in the trans community for those statements.

Cheers DFlhb (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Joyce, your description of her conclusion as a fluff piece completely understate s her role (and undermines her agency) in making the series happen in the first place. Also, I am getting tired of your false or partial statements:

1. The Economist only uses the concept of trans ideology in the headline - no, it is used twice in the article text, as I documented above.

2. there is no conflict between scholarly sources & The Economist, since the former aren't addressing what the latter is talking about. What is the difference between the "gender ideology" that The Economist presents as real and the "gender ideology" the RS describe as not being real?

3. Presumably you don't believe those criticisms are fringe within the broader medical community, but why? I found no non-FRINGE sources for any of them.

4. It seemed more like damage control - you never answered my question about why your interpretation is more credible than that of the interview subject; all you did was elaborate on your interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I meant to point out that your description of James Cantor and other Genspect devotees as subject-matter experts strikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once. Newimpartial (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I expected you'd misread my comment or place words in my mouth (sadly far from the first time). I was referring to the fact they quote doctors (unaffiliated with any partisan group) in practically every piece of coverage; they are subject matter experts, not Genspect or Cantor. DFlhb (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is actually more typical of The Economist to quote doctors who are affiliated with a FRINGE geoup (which is presumably how the magazine finds them) without noting their partisan affiliation - as in the example I gave earlier. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: As elaborated below I find these evidence to be weak at best:

Extended content

A "gender critical" editorial line was pursued under the leadership of Helen Joyce, as has been documented in (RSN-green source) the Daily Dot in 2019. Outside of her work at The Economist, Joyce continued to pursue this approach in her controversial[38] book Trans, written while working for The Economist,[39], and that she now follows (while on leave from The Economist) as director of advocacy for sex matters, a group campaigning to protect the expression of "gender-critical" views.[40] Similarly to Loki you keep reiterating the publication of the book, which is not directly published by The Economist and is irrelevant to the news section. I have yet seen anyone linking to any article from Joyce that is obviously problematic. Moreover, a Tweet, similar to a YouTube video, does not fall under a news article, which is the scope of the RfC here: What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?

Unless I am misreading the text, the line (trans ideology is distorting the education of America's doctors is only mentioned in the headline, which as per WP:HEADLINE is unreliable. It is then paraphrased but then attributed from a lecturer: When a lecturer told her that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. It suggested..., the second time that is paraphrased while attributed to Katherine. Unless I am misreading the article, your first evidence is unconvincing. The first piece has some social-related claims but also other medical ones falling under WP:MEDRS.

In the second example you state Again, while I was unable to identify potentially reliable sources to corroborate the [Biden] administration's embrace of "gender ideology". You list two WP:RS sources, but they do not seem to disprove The Economist as invalid. This seems to be a WP:DUE concern whether than a WP:RS concern. Just because other sources did not cover it does not denote that The Economist is unreliable, contrarily, it implies that the article by The Economist is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED in this case, thus should not be included in our articles. However, I've yet to see you provide any credible sources or fact-checks disproving the claim as misleading.

In the third example, you admit that Now I have no idea whether the latter statement is true or not, but it is not backed up by any of the other sources (e.g., The Times, The Telegraph) discussing the site in question, thus even you are unsure if it fails reliability. You iterate that you did not manage to find other sources discussing this but that is a weak claim for unreliability. Similarly to mentioned above, given that you did not provide scholarly sources directly contradicting the coverage by The Economist, I'm unconvinced here as well. Citing WP:FRINGE but not downright WP:QS sources is a further testimony of WP:BIASED and WP:UNDUE but I don't see reliability being a concern.

Similarly, in the fourth example you state The dubious exceptions being the news feeds of WebMD and Medscape, and RSN Yellow-labelled National Review). While ignored by high-quality sources, the interview was picked up by mostly WP:FRINGE contributor Genspect and an RSOPINION piece from Canada. Similar coverage from other WP:BIASED and marginally reliable sourcing seem to suggest this piece is WP:UNDUE as well, and I would caution it being included in the article. Notwithstanding, I still do not see multiple WP:RS directly contradicting any claims made by The Economist as invalid.

If one or both of these problems exist in these instances, I think it should be clear that a policy-based close of this filing cannot conclude that the magazine is generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics (as the filer, who has advocate its use in one of the cases I am using as an example, had presumably hoped[42]), but rather that additional considerations apply. The Economist would have published less articles in contrast to The Times on The Telegraph, but still likely has hundreds of pieces. Stating that a couple of cases are WP:FRINGE does not equate to marginal reliability. Moreover, I think it should be clear that a policy-based close of this filing cannot conclude that the magazine is generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics (as the filer)- I currently see the discussion split between Option 1 and X. Some of the votes might be slightly weaker on one side but that is insufficient to turn the result to Option 2/3/X.

To sum it up you state Given these four examples, it seems clear to me that the policy-compliant conckusion is that additional considerations apply, given the repeated statements The Economist makes in its news coverage, in its own voice, that align with a tiny minority of FRINGE sources rather than the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT of mainstream and high-quality sources. I disagree, I don't see that the WP:RS guideline a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is violated to downgrade to marginally reliable. Not all sources that cite WP:FRINGE ones are regarded as marginally reliable or unreliable, to list an example Jacobin cited unreliable/fringe sources but is generally reliable with caveats. That is a different case of course but I don't see which policy-compliant conclusion is shown.

In my opinion your four pieces successfully raise WP:BIASED and WP:DUE concerns and is significantly better than the articles LokiTheLiar raised, but I don't see significant challenges to reliability here, I do not see that those disprove a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to downgrade it to marginally reliable.

To ping a few users who've supported or refuted similar evidences in this RfC: LokiTheLiar, DFlhb and Red-tailed hawk, would you agree or disagree with this assessment? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

:::@Newimpartial: And P.S. you accuse me of perceiving The Economist in general but seem to ignore totally that I have refuted the so-called evidence you and Loki provided. VickKiang (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment per comments and objection below.

Please don't over-interpret my diffs; I only made reference to your original !vote which, as far as I can tell, was made before you had examined any of the context for this filing.

As far as your claim to have refuted the so-called evidence I provided, I don't believe you to have done so; see below. On the other hand, your subjective belief that you have done so suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and may also explain why you seem to have misconstrued both my intention in presenting the evidence and some of the evidence itself. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I have striked my comment, which might be confrontational in your opinion, but I don't believe I have violated BATTLEGROUND, NPA, CANVASS... otherwise. Your comment is inaccurate as I've commented at the LBC News and read the discussion, please don't draw such sweeping conclusions next time to other editors and I as well. Not saying that you are implying this, but just because I commented promptly doesn't mean I am ignoring the context (again, not suggesting that you mean this, just a side observation). If you have other concerns with my conduct feel free to bring it to another venue (not implying that you have so, so not WP:STRAWMAN at all). Nevertheless, thanks still for the note. VickKiang (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

And side note: Once again apologies for the wording. While that refute is similar to the wording used at WP:NEGOTIATE and was not meant to be "defeat" or "won"... I apologise if the confrontational wording rendered in your intrepretations. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To begin with, I don't want to be dragged into a Helen Joyce rabbit-hole, but there is plenty of expert sourcing about The Economist's publications on trans issues prior to 2020 that makes both her biases, and the continuity with her subsequent non-Economist publications and advocacy, quite clear.

Concerning the medical education aricle, I will correct my statement above, but the relevant passages from the article body incude It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor and How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools? - still unattributed statements in the voice of The Economist. In spite of your claims, neither of these statements are attributed to the lecturer.

If the proposed use of The Economist in this instance were "one medical student suspected that gender ideology had distorted her medical education", I would agree that the magazine would be reliable for that statement, but that was not the question, it was Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education? I do not see how this question could be answered in the affirmative.

Similarly, my second question was Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology? This is a factual question which demands a yes or no answer: either "gender ideology" is real or it isn't, and if real either the Biden administration has embraced it or it hasn't. VickKiang, I simply don't understand how you can in good conscience duck this key question, on which The Economist lines up with the FRINGE sources against mainstream sources, and then conclude that the claim is BIASED but with no prejudice against the reliability of the source.

On the third issue, my point was that we have a specific characterisation that is made in The Economist alone. My question is whether the source can be regarded as reliable for the claim, and onxe again you dodge the question with reference to DUE. If your point is that, when The Economist relies on FRINGE spokespeople and is the only periodical publishing a characterisation, that it is unlikely for that characterisation to be DUE, then in fact you are supporting what I mean when I say that additional considerations apply. Those seekinf to rubberstamp the prior assumption that The Econimist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" are precisely seeking to ensure that content sourced only to it and similar WP:BIASEDSOURCES is considered DUE and presented as fact in wikivoice- as I have documented above.

Finally, on my fourth example, if you do not see the interview subject's own disavowal of the published coverage of the interview as directly contradicting any claims made by The Economist then I'm afraid I don't know how to interact with you. The Economist states that "gender identity ideology" exists (in many more articles beyond the ones I discuss here), while the high-quality sources on transgender topics are clear that it does not - that seems like a rather direct contradiction.

Finally, I'm afraid you are strawmanning my argument when you say, Stating that a couple of cases are WP:FRINGE does not equate to marginal reliability - I have never been suggesting marginal reliability, I am proposing that additional considerations apply. To specify what those considerations might be, they might include the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice, as numerous editors in the GENSEX area typically insist on doing. Another consideration is that when The Econonist choses to amplify FRINGE voices in its news reporting, this form of advocacy should not be considered as contributing to WP:DUE except where issues are picked up outside of the "gender critical" echo chamber. Inclusion of those two caveats would go most of the way to addressing the concerns I have been articulating all along, concerns that I believe the initial filing was intended to pre-empt and plow under. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 can also mean marginally reliable, this is not at all a straw man. I am intrigued what do you mean by the mainstream sources. Additionally, you enjoy straw man my argument and Chess’s as well by exaggerating a single comment. Your comments state high quality sources- as in scholarly ones or the standard similar to FAA? Further, you still generalise the Joyce one as quite clear without providing examples. VickKiang (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Did my !vote specify what I meant ("additional consideractions apply"), or did I not?

Meanwhile, I don't see how linking the diff of your !vote could straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I don't see how linking the diff of your !vote could straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote- in fact, I could also link your initial vote devoid of context before you completed your insightful analysis. But that is obviously unhelpful. VickKiang (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, per WP:MREL No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. "additional considerations apply" could be taken marginally reliable and may be usable depending on context. This is not a straw-man argument, but I apologise if my imprecise wording bothers you. VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Through If your point is that, when The Economist relies on FRINGE spokespeople and is the only periodical publishing a characterisation, that it is unlikely for that characterisation to be DUE, then in fact you are supporting what I mean when I say that additional considerations apply- per WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. That IMO it occasionally covers WP:FRINGE topics and organisations and could be sometimes (but not always) WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED in occasional (not most) examples you gave does not mean I would like to downgrade it to additional considerations apply. If the viewpoint from The Economist is minor it might not be a significant viewpoint per DUE, of course. But I don't see how at all how I am indirectly supporting your position. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are unwilling to caveat The Economist with an "additional considerations" note, but I don't really understand why. You acknowledged above that Citing WP:FRINGE but not downright WP:QS sources is a further testimony of WP:BIASED and WP:UNDUE but I don't see reliability being a concern, but the selection of sources is precisely one aspect of reliability (alongside the use of inflammatory or biased language) that I see as the relevant additional consideration. I had meant to note previously that many of those sought out for comment by The Economist are WP:QS as well as WP:FRINGE; you referred to the categories as though they were mutually exclusive, when in fact they overlap significantly. In your reply to my evidence you repeatedly noted that The Economist was sourcing statements that would not be DUE for inclusion in our articles: that is what I regard as indirectly supporting my substantive position on article content (though not my recommendation for RSN caveats). Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I will not be amending it here. Indeed, per my original vote I consider to be a generally mainstream, well-established magazine that occasionally is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED. However, you present four of the worse cases, and I agree they are WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED in these situations. Nevertheless, I find the evidence for that it is almost always WP:BIASED or that its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that requires a downgrade unconvincing. Besides, I consider WP:QS to be generally unreliable sources, many of the other sources you cited that report the story, e.g., Examiner, WebMD does not fall into this category. Given that you described my general viewing of the source as Various editors in this discussion have apparently !voted on the RfC question without examining any evidence beyond their own perceptions of The Economist as a reliable source in general, it is obvious that we will not come to an agreement so I will abstain from this discussion. VickKiang (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor and How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?

Just before It suggested..., The Economist states that when a lecuter told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness... and previously also refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I do not see this instance being in its editorial voice. This is not an example of editorial voice.

Moreover, sources that occasionally cite WP:FRINGE context are not always considered to be unreliable. E.g., on RSP, National Geographic, Science Based Medicine, and even Snopes are described as frequently covering fringe material.

Further, in the piece from I remain disappointed by the tone and intent of the article. My comments were taken out of context and used to cast doubt upon trans care, particularly the use of puberty blockers. Worse, Jazz Jennings was disrespectfully and erroneously portrayed as a puberty blockade failure, based solely upon her television portrayal. That said, the author conveyed to me that she is not against the use of puberty blockade but rather, interested in better informed consent, a principle upon which we both agreed. I did believe that my comments would be conveyed fairly. While the interviewee criticised the usage of the context, I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there.

On the fourth point, the current version of the FAQ states that Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others. However, consider an archived version early in 2021, I don't see any parts of the FAQ criticising ROGD as so. Similarly, in a September 2021 archived version at here I couldn't find info from the FAQ that contradicts The Economist's comment on ROGD. From what I see in the archives the FAQ has substantially changed from the 2021 versions to the 2022 versions. Do you have sources that demonstrate that prior to The Economist's reporting Marci had a directly contradictory view of ROGD? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The first issue here is becoming a bit ridiculous. It can by no means refer to the DSM, which cannot possibly have suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor. Only the content of the lecture could have done that, and this content (when a lecturer told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness) is presented in neutral narrative voice - as fact - by The Economist.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there - are you suggesting that the content of The Economist and the NYT on this matter are the same? Because I'm not aware of any issues using the NYT as a source on this, and I wouldn't expect the views of the interview subject to the the same concerning the two sources.

Finally, I'm afraid I'm not understanding quite what you're saying about archived versions of the FAQ. Are you suggesting that something in an old version of the FAQ confirms information presented by The Economist that became discredited by later versions of the FAQ? Because I was only referring to The Economist's interpretation of the Bowers interview, not to anything else in its article which may or may not have been up to date at the time. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. The Economist is a well-established magazine that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ~~Per Colin's excellent analysis, I acknowledge WP:DUE concerns on that editors would perceive it as a WP:BIASED source (though I personally disagree). Further,~~ WP:MEDRS should be preferred in medical areas. However, insufficient evidence has been provided to downgrade to additional considerations apply. Rephrasing a comment above iterating exactly the same points: WP:DUE states that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I regard that most reliable sources could be WP:UNDUE in an area, and acknowledge that in many examples provided above that The Economist is very occasionally WP:UNDUE and sometimes WP:BIASED. However, due weight is a consideration required for all WP:RS sources, while The Economist could be more biased/opinionated than the median WP:GREL these are not an additional considerations IMO that falls under additional considerations apply per WP:MREL that needs to be examined on a case-to-case basis. (This is of course my personal opinion, I'll try to abstain from commenting any further otherwise.) VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. This is a standard liberal WP:NEWSORG based in the United Kingdom. The Economist seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no WP:NEWSORG is WP:MEDRS, so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human biomedical information, much in the same way that we should not use the Washington Post and The Guardian for claims relating to human biomedical information. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The Economist is deeply conservative. Are you getting their economic position (economic liberalism) confused with their political one?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not confused here; the paper expresses both economically and socially liberal stances (and has done so throughout its existence). It is hardly a paper of deeply rooted social conservatism; the paper has supported decriminalization and legalizaion of drugs including (cocaine and psychedelics), supported same-sex marriage as early as 2004 (when six-in-ten Americans and about half of Brits opposed it), comments positively upon laws banning corporal punishment in children, supports the decriminalization of prostitution among other items. While they endorsed Bush in 2000, they've endorsed the Democratic candidate for President in every single U.S. election since John Kerry in 2004. Looking across the pond, their U.K. general election endorsements since 2001 have broken for Labour twice, the Tories twice, and the Lib Dems twice. Its editorial stance can be described as being radically centrist or classically liberal, but I'm not really sure how one could conclude that deeply conservative could plausibly apply as a descriptor for this publication's broad editorial and political position. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 3. One of The Economist's executives is Helen Joyce. Helen Joyce is the author of a book titled Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, has said that trans people are "a huge problem for a sane world" and that they are all "damaged", and has advocated for preventing even adult trans people from transitioning. We know for a fact that Joyce is at least sometimes editorially responsible for their coverage of trans issues, because she was openly the emcee of this series of editorials on trans identity. Because of this (and the general problems with WP:BIASED trans coverage in British newspapers), I believe The Economist is not reliable on trans issues, as a major figure in their editorial process demonstrably holds strong fringe opinions on this matter. Loki (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC) See amended vote below. Loki (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is not a book published directly by The Economist, but another book published by its executives. Could high-quality scholarly sources be provided that demonstrated Helen's reporting in news pieces is routinely inaccurate in relation to this topic? VickKiang (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the relevant argument is that her influence as editor had an impact on news coverage of trans issues by The Economist (the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a Blood-brain barrier than a water-tight compartment). Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware that you are compiling a list, so please ping me on Sunday once you get multiple sources directly criticising Helen Joyce's coverage instead of an assumption currently without much evidence. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a Blood-brain barrier than a water-tight compartment- we are asking about What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics? Opinion pieces seem irrelevant, and contradict the consensus at WP:RSOPINION. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, Helen Joyce was an executive editor for The Economist’s events business (whatever that means) since March 2020, and was a finance editor before that. She's not an executive, she's currently on a sabbatical, and she had nothing to do with the article being disputed here on WPATH.

She also had nothing to do with the series of editorials on trans identity that you link to (back then, again, she was Finance editor); she just wrote an article linking to all those editorials in one place; but didn't author any of them (each of them has a byline and an identified author).

I do obviously condemn her, but I don't agree that this remotely justifies downgrading The Economist. DFlhb (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that she's on unpaid sabbatical, and worked in the event space, I wouldn't say she's "a major figure in their editorial process". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
After the line Helen Joyce is the Finance editor at The Economist it does indeed link to various other pieces by numerous other editors. I couldn't see evidence that those other linked pieces are inaccurate and severely misleading. Of course, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is a rightfully critiqued book but it's published by Oneworld Publications, Simon & Schuster per the WP page, not through The Economist. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment A few sources I have found on the general issue with transphobia in the British press (not necessarily the Economist specifically):

CNN: Anti-trans rhetoric is rife in the British media. Little is being done to extinguish the flames
Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: Representing trans people in the UK press – a follow-up study (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
Xtra: British media is increasingly transphobic. Here’s why
Them: Meet the Trans Storytellers Fighting British Transphobia (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
PinkNews: Journalist Juliet Jacques on how UK media is trying to ‘crush’ trans people: ‘We’re not in control’
Gay Times: Meet the journalist navigating Britain’s anti-trans press
USAToday: The Roots of Anti-Trans Feminism in the U.K.
Vice: The UK Is So Transphobic That Some Trans People Are Leaving
Insider: The BBC and The Times are accused of stoking a 'moral panic' against the trans community

Loki (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we generally declare the press of the United Kingdom unreliable for coverage of transgender topics? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: @LokiTheLiar: As I said below almost all of those doesn't relate to the sources specifically. E.g., the CNN piece critiques The Times as According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment. According to her means that it is expressing another journalist's opinion instead of the CNN editors directly criticising it. The other example lists to an essay/opinion piece as I said below. The piece you linked from Insider, a marginally reliable source for news, links to this piece, letters to the editor. Letters, commentary, and opinion pieces should be regarded per WP:RSOPINION, I don't think we should, in a RfC about What best describes The Daily Telegraph's news coverage of transgender topics, link to pages criticising their opinion/commentary coverage. VickKiang (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Unreliable per se, no: I'm sure there are some exceptions. But since this is clearly a systemic issue I don't see what we gain from tackling it on a paper-by-paper basis. I do think that because of the systemic problems with the UK press, we should stop assuming that UK newsorgs that are reliable generally are necessarily reliable for trans issues specifically, and instead require separate evidence of that. Loki (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: It's certainly interesting to hear that you legitimately want to blanket ban the UK press on trans issues. Methinks we should ban the American press from covering overseas newspapers, due to the systemic issue of American newspapers thinking they are better than everyone else in the world (American exceptionalism). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which actually talk about that being a real issue in American newspapers? If you do then of course that is something we can discuss, if it does not then don't be disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Here's several about the New York Times. [27] [28] [29] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are opinion pieces, I'm asking for real sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Most of the sources in the original comments aren't real sources either. They're opinion pieces or interviews. Trying to declare the whole British media as being unreliable on the subject of transgender topics based on those sources is the same as what I'm doing, which is linking a bunch of opinion pieces attacking a newspaper that isn't even the subject of this discussion.

As far as I'm aware, using sarcasm on a Wikipedia noticeboard is not disruptive. If it was, we'd have to block a fifth of our editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

On the whole, I think we should consider UK press as WP:MREL when it specifically comes to trans topics. Some sources are better than others, but as Loki has pointed out British media has an overall anti-trans bias that in some cases is impacting on their ability to accurately report on factual matters. Accordingly these sources should be more carefully scrutinised in this context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't do my usual breakdown here, but, similar to my detailed analysis of similar sources when it comes to the Telegraph discussion below, given my quick read of these links, I don't think they demonstrate any unreliability. DFlhb (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1: I don't see how the opinions of the events editor are relevant to editorial accuracy of the news division. The sources alleging transphobia in the British press cover accusations or of questionable quality. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:A960:7681:3CB9:A529 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Honestly I don't see the need for this RfC and I suggest a quick WP:SNOWBALL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
How can WP:SNOWBALL apply when the !votes are divided? Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 I do think snowball applies to all three RFCs. DFlhb (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Given the !votes for Option 2 and/or Option 3 in alll three discussions, I have no idea how you feel that WP:SNOW might apply. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Separate to the question of reliability is the question of bias, which some assert, and some dismiss as constrained to op-eds. But I think option 1 supporters should more clarify whether they consider the factual reporting biased or unbiased, to avoid causing the closer any headaches, or ending up with a "factual but potentially biased" listing at WP:RSP (which covers the news, not op-eds), as that may or may not match editors' beliefs. Personally, not only have I not seen evidence that its news reporting is unreliable, none of the proof of bias given about op-eds covers the factual reporting; I've read much of said reporting myself, and it seems matter-of-fact and neutral. However I'm open to new evidence,and I'd appreciate if option 2/3 supporters to link to specific articles they feel are biased, rather than by using academic sources that are commenting on the op-eds. DFlhb (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1: If editors want to question a specific claim/article that might be valid but to suggest an otherwise well respected source is somehow not respected for just this topic? No and the evidence doesn't support any form of downgrade. Springee (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Right; I'll remind editors here that even the very most reliable oulets on Earth sometimes publish nonsense, poorly fact-checked stuff, and factual inaccuracies, and WP:RS explicitly tells us that we exercise editorial judgment every time we use a source; that sourcing is context-dependent, and that we must consider whether a source is reliable for a particular statement. If you find factual inaccuracies in an article, who cares if it's the New York Times? We shouldn't include it. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. DFlhb (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 No evidence of unreliability, no evidence of bias. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X: Scrap RfC. This seems to be a case of someone asking a question on which they favor the status quo, without presenting any of the arguments that have been given elsewhere against the status quo, to drum up easy !votes on their side. Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Are you arguing that this RfC prompt is not neutral and brief? A simple question on the general reliability with respect to a topic, with a space below to allow for editors to discuss that, is both the standard RfC format for editors to discuss general source reliability and one that presents the question neutrally. I see no policy basis for including a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics in the RfC prompt; that is what the discussion among editors is for. The RfC is appropriately worded, and you have ample opportunity to present the arguments against the status quo in this discussion here; we need not scrap the RfC simply because the arguments in opposition to general reliability are not among the very first arguments presented. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
How can an RfC be neutral if it asks a controversial question with zero context? In particular, when it's a question where the argument against the status quo may not be one the average person—who knows only the source's overall positive reputation—is familiar with? Silence is not the same thing as neutrality. Think of it this way: There are respected academics who theorize that gravity is not a fundamental force. If there were an ongoing discussion on an article talkpage about whether we should cite a source that says that it isn't, and a participant then went to a noticeboard and said, with no context, "RfC: Is gravity a fundamental force?", would we see that as a proper RfC? I know I wouldn't. I would see it as an attempt to run up the score early and to sidestep an article-specific discussion of whether the given source is reliable in that context, by someone who knows that anyone asked that question out of context will say "What? Yes, of course." But maybe you have a higher tolerance for people gaming the system than I do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
A simple 4-option RfC prompt itself is quite neutral. Your example of someone going to WP:FTN to ask them "is gravity a fundamental force" is perfectly fine by me; WP:FTN is explicitly made to seek advice on whether a particular topic (such as the fundamental nature of the gravitational force) is fringe or mainstream. So long as the discussion is well advertised (which, by the nature of being on a well-visited noticeboard it is), I see nothing wrong with that sort of thing and I don't see why your example (or this RfC, for that matter) is anywhere near gaming the system.

People in this RfC, and in the two RfCs below, have been substantially discussing the claimed issues with the three sources and editors have been presenting arguments related to them. The notion that an RfC that simply asks the broader community to discuss the reliability of a source for a particular set of topics in its coverage is somehow non-neutral is frankly not well-supported. And the assumption that this is done to attempt to run up the score early or to drum up easy !votes on their side seems to be a weakly evidenced claim that the RfC creator is engaging in battleground behavior by merely asking this question to the community; I don't see their actions that way and I can't get behind that sort of sentiment at all. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
If you feel I'm casting aspersions, you are welcome to raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard. Gnu made a choice to start this RfC without so much as linking to the related ongoing RfC that they and I have participated in and that prompted these RfCs. I see no reason to pretend this was done for reasons other than to try to do an end-run around that discussion. The alternative would be to assume incompetence on the part of an experienced user, which personally I find more insulting than assuming intent. (And that you are, judging from your answer, generally in favor of abusing RfCs to manipulate consensus is irrelevant to the question of whether that's what's happening here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
With respect, I do think this is the appropriate noticeboard to note the relatively weak evidence presented that the RfC creator is acting in bad faith, as that claim of bad faith (rather than a reasonable assumption of good faith) is central to the stated logic of your support for Option X. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: without so much as linking to the related ongoing RfC that they and I have participated in and that prompted these RfCs -- what RfC are you referring to? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People § RfC: Eunuchs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X per Tamzin et al. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 Oh no, biased op-eds! Perish the thought![30] Adoring nanny (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X In retrospect I shouldn't have said anything but "non-neutral RFC" here. The person who nominated this wants it to be declared reliable. They are WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. As such, this RFC is premature: no discussion has been had on why these sources might not be reliable on trans issues. Loki (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X no FORUMSHOPPING, please. House Blaster^talk 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, while I understand the "premature RFC" arguments, this isn't FORUMSHOPPING, which involves "raising essentially the same issue" on multiple talk pages. The talk page argument that this stemmed from was about the inclusion of a controversy with several WP:RS sources (a question of dueness), not about whether these three outlets are usable on trans topics; that was just one of the argument that was brought up against dueness. DFlhb (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X this is just forumshopping a content dispute in a misleading manner and there's already an RfC going on in the article in question on whether it is DUE to include the information anyways. Silver seren^C 19:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(This comment chain was initially added to the RFC prompt, which wasn't quite kosher. Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, RFC prompts can't "argue" in favor of one option other others. Moving down so it can be discussed here:) DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Option X: This RfC is not presented in such a manner as to encourage informed discussion, and should be closed procedurally.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Further down, you say that the RFC question should contain arguments against option 1 (Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, no evidence of unreliability for facts has been presented. As for the claims that this RfC is forum shopping, many in these discussions have been arguing repeatedly, not just at the Standards of Care RfC but also at Talk:Mermaids (charity), Talk:LGB Alliance, and elsewhere, that these sources are actually unreliable and rejecting the consensuses documented at WP:RSP. They variously seem to expect us to take their word for it, or cite the same few op-eds and similar from 'progressive' American media complaining that British papers of record don't go all-in on their preferred policy of absolute gender self-identification. These complainants either need to stop making this disruptive argument or present a case to change the community's mind. After months they failed to do so, preferring to instead disregard RSP on individual talk pages, and so someone else started a discussion. They keep saying a discussion needs to happen, so let's have it. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X I agree with Tamzin that this RfC has not been presented in a way that encourages informed discussion. The context of the underlying discussions that lead to the snap creation of this RfC has been left out by the filer, which is interesting when you compare these three RfCs, with the related discussion on LBC News, also started by the filer. Uninvolved editors are being asked to ask blindly whether or not these sources are reliable in a specific context, without any information as to why they are being discussed as unreliable in that context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I would like to point out (controversially) that other editors voting Option 2/3 or Option X also expressed interest towards starting a RfC. E.g., on this very noticeboard in the LBC News section, Newimpartial stated that So far, the relevant discussuons are taking place at article Talk pages, where some of the HQ/academic sources have been presented in an ad hoc way. A number of editors have acknowleged that a noticeboard discussion will be required to amend the list entry; I would attribute my own procrastination on this to (1) my preference to treat The Times and The Telegraph together on this, so we don't see Times pickups replacing Telegraph coverage (as currently happens when either source runs with a Daily Mail story for example) and (2) my inclination to wait for the academic sourcing on this to strengthen further (as seems inevitable given recent developments in the UK), and a range of discussions at User talk:Newimpartial on the potential likelihood of taking The Times and The Telegraph to a noticeboard. Again, just an observation, I have no objectionns towards the Option X being included in the prompt though. VickKiang (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a dual RfC on The Times and The Telegraph will be necessary, as there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the anti-trans editorial bias from these publications has lead to issues that call their reliability into question. However I know I am still in the preparation stages for those discussions, so at best I see this RfC as a premature filing, and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready. Either way, this is not contributing to an informed discussion about these two sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a dual RfC on The Times and The Telegraph will be necessary, as there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the anti-trans editorial bias from these publications has lead to issues that call their reliability into question- I disagree that we should combine two distinct sources together. and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- I also happen to strongly disagree that this is a WP:FORUMSHOP attempt, as per that: It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions- these RfCs have only been asked at RSN, not at other locations. Moreover, it is a standard four-option choice with context additionally added, violates the neutral requirement, so I respectfully disagree. However I know I am still in the preparation stages for those discussions, so at best I see this RfC as a premature filing, and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- here I'm unsure if it's that you require more time gathering more evidence or that currently there is insufficient evidence yet, if the latter is true I disagree this filing is premature. Moreover, I should point out that Newimpartial stated they would provide evidence this Sunday. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I should also note for the lack of context issues- while it's better to have some context, they were added by Newimpartial quickly, and even after that there were still voters voting Option 1. Additionally, many past RfCs ending in downgrade/deprecation didn't have context, e.g., Daily Wire RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358, Daily Star at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311, New York Post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312, to give a few examples. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I have seen RFCs dismissed as not neutral because the initial poster added context. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, as someone who said something similar, I still mean to discuss the bias of the entire UK press as a whole here at some point. The problem with RFCs on individual papers is, well, look around you. Loki (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1/2 but I think it should not be logged at WP:RSP. Otherwise, we might be giving the impression that the source is particularly reliable about this topic, rather than just generally reliably genelist press. Which can also be summarized as Option X. MarioGom (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 The Economist is a reliable source, bias in opinion pieces is the nature of opinion pieces. For news articles claiming to be about a medical issue see WP:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. A top tier source, and the fact that we need to have this discussion demonstrates why the RSN process needs to be overhauled or abandoned.

I note that editors opening an RFC are forbidden from presenting arguments for or against the status quo as part of doing so, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsuitable RfC: the dispute seems to be about the article Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, specifically this edit: citing the Economist. This appears to be an issue of WP:DUE / UNDUE, and thus this RfC is not an appropriate way to resolve it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading the related discussion, it's quite clear that some editors party to it believe that The Times, Telegraph, and Economist are not reliable sources on the topic of trans issues, which itself is a question of reliability; the source discussion is not simply about whether or not the sources are WP:DUE. On top of that, the extent to which a source is reliable in a topic area affects the extent to which it is WP:DUE, so community discussion on The Economist will help to resolve that part of the question given that its reliability in this topic area is explicitly contested by an editor in that discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes and No… IF consensus is that these sources are not reliable, THEN we can say that the content cited to them is UNDUE (because reliability is one of several factors in determining whether content DUE/UNDUE). However, if consensus is that they are reliable, we can not say that the content is DUE (because Reliability is not the only factor in determining whether content is DUE/UNDUE… we have to look at the other factors as well.)

So… while these RFCs are a necessary step in resolving the DUE dispute… they probably will not be the final step. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is not helpful and comes across frankly as naive. I suggest you read some of the trans conflict articles and consider how a "Community consensus vote of approval: ABC is reliable for transgender topics" will be used to game the system. How do you weigh *silence? When a story is only covered in anti-trans articles, by anti-trans journalists and, in the case of the Telegraph, an extremely anti-trans newspaper. When the only coverage of an issue is extremely biased, which makes claims like saying mainstream medicine is "extreme" and arguing for mainstream health-system clinics to close down and those are the only sources. There isn't an "other side" of "reliable sources on the topic" to cite. There's just the hate side. If the Telegraph can pump out hundreds of anti-trans articles a year, what would Wikipedia look like if we included them all? Because that's what approval here will encourage. -- Colin°^Talk 19:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. No evidence has been provided of false reporting by this highly reputable source. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. It is and has always been a reputable source. (Imagine if the reliability of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Financial Times,The Spectator, and every highly regarded newspaper and magazine everywhere were to be questioned here because they had a controversial editor or author on board, or had published an article or opinion considered controversial!) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 Yes, this is a reputable source, reliable for facts, and no evidence suggests it would not be reputable for a specific topic. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 Clearly a reliable source. The arguments presented above that it is not a reliable source on these topics are unpersuasive and misdirected, and the arguments that this RFC is procedurally improper are misconceived. This should be closed as WP:SNOW. The same rationale applies to the other two sources. Banks Irk (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Did you read the analysis I provided, or did you figure a "gut check" would suffice?

Also, I don't see how WP:SNOW could apply in this situation - have you read it, recently? Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It's possible for people to read what you have written and still believe you are wrong. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
That is entirely true. In fact, I would argue that without reading what I have written, no-one can truly know whether they believe me to be wrong or not. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read your analysis. As I said, I find the arguments presented against these sources to be unpersuasive and misdirected. That would, by necessary implication, include your arguments as well. And, yes, I have read WP:SNOW. It applies directly to this situation; other editors have also invoked here it as well. I regard these two questions as bordering on an insult. Now, a question for you: have you read WP:Bludgeon recently? Banks Irk (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This discussion appears to fail "the snowball test" at WP:SNOW, which specifies If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause. The result of this filing is already not unanimous. WP:SNOW also specifies that cases where there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement are not good candidates for a SNOW close. So I am struggling to see how the criteria for a SNOW close are met in this instance.

As far as my previous comment is concerned, I'm not sure you should interpret either question as bordering on an insult. After all, my suggestion that you might not have read my 14,000 characters of analysis could reasonably be interpreted as implying that you have better things to do with your time... Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 3; for transgender topics, the Economist's writers and editors or whatever combination is the case have increasingly ignored and defied reliable, scientific consensus on the subject of trans health in favor of sensationalizing. The problem is worse than just one opinion piece here or there. P-Makoto (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Option X See my responses to the Telegraph and Times of London RFCs. Bowler the Carmine | talk 02:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 No evidence provided that it's unreliable. DoubleCross (‡) 14:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1, in pretty much the same sense as I outlined in the RfCs below on the Times and the Telegraph. It's not especially reliable, but it's generally reliable for factual content. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Scrap the RFC 1. Trying to derive an overgeneralization 2. Trying to do so based on conformance to one side of a political debate. 3. Conformance to one side of a political debate is not "reliability". North8000 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Bias on one topic has no bearing on the use of this newspaper as a source of factual information. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 - bias does not equate to reliability, and WP:DUE does not deny a viewpoint weight on the basis of subjective judgments as to the quality of the view. nableezy - 18:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Extremely reliable. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. The evidence presented for any other option is very weak. EddieHugh (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 - The Economist is a top-tier [WP:NEWSORG] and is reliable for factual reporting for all topics, including transgender topics. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Option X per Tamzin. Starting three simultaneous RfCs, taking a huge amount of space on a popular noticeboard, and a huge amount of volunteer time, in order to try to make a point in specific contexts, should result in a temporary topic ban from opening RfCs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Myths and images of the "enemy" in historical science and textbooks

1. Source: A. Yunusov. Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan

2. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#Indoctrination_in_schools

Hello community! I hope you're doing well! From this page of Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute it is clear that "Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan" is a report presented by the Arif Yunusov at the International Conference "Memory Wars?" 2009. Questions are: Is presentation at scholarly conference sufficient to consider Arif Yunusov's report as reliably published? Is it acceptable to use it as a source for Wikipedia, and if so, what type of source is it? Primary? Secondary? Other?

There is no distinction between Arif's report and any other report presented by an individual contributor at any other conference. Arif Yunusov's report, in my opinion, should be regarded as his own opinions, because it was not published by reliably scholarship, and so did not go through the process of fact-checking and accuracy checking, nor was it peer reviewed, however, I'd want to know what the community thinks.

Thanks, 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Historian Arif Yunus is reliable, and he's more than qualified to talk about Armenia/Azerbaijan. He and his wife Leyla Yunus, described as "Azerbaijan's most prominent human rights campaigner", were jailed for allegedly "spying for Armenia" [31], 15 months later allowed to leave for the Netherlands.

"Mythen und Feindbilder in der Historiographie und Schulbüchern für Geschichte im unabhängigen Aserbaidschan" is a legit publication of materials presented by Yunus - who's also Head of the Department of Conflict and Migration Studies at the Institute of Peace and Democracy [32] at a conference Internationale DAAD-Tagung „Krieg der Vorstellungswelten?“ Der Zusammenhang von Schulbuch und Konflikt im postsowjetischen Zentralasien, Südkaukasus und Moldau, Braunschweig, 12.-18.07.09, available online at Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute page. Written by Yunus and published by Georg Eckert Institute, the source is reliably published by an academic institution. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Gregory Wilpert

Can Gregory Wilpert's books be used as a source in Wikipedia without attribution? He is the owner of Venezuelanalysis (generally unreliable per WP:RSP), was the director of Telesur English (unreliable per WP:RSP) from 2014 to 2015 and is currently an editor at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. They're used in many articles about Venezuela and Venezuelans, and I want to know if an author's involvement with unreliable sources (and what made them be considered unreliable) can affect the reliability of the author's other publications. Hegsareta (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilpert has been published widely in peer-reviewed journals on Latin America and has contributed to many books on the topic published by reputable publishing houses. He has a clear pro-Chavista perspective, which is no worse or better, for our purposes, than having a clear anti-Chavista perspective. Or, indeed, a position intermediate between the two. However, there is an active community of anti-Chavez users on this website who really, really don't like him and object vehemently to any pro-Chavez sources being used on wikipedia. And even the consensus around Venezuelanalysis being unreliable is not particularly strong, tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd say assess case by case. Generally, involvement in bad sources is not a good sign, but that doesn't mean every text they contribute to is unreliable. A lot of it would be opinion, which we should use with attribution if it has due weight thanks to publication in a reliable source. If it's a factual claim made in a peer-reviewed article, we can usually use it. If it's a thinktank publication, we should apply a large pinch of salt, as we probably would for thinktank publications in general. Can you give any particularly difficult examples? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I just realised the question is specifically about books. I think it might depend on the publisher: if it's a reputable publisher, might be usable, but with some caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Looking for an example, I see Economy of Venezuela (which has a bunch of flagged bad sourcing) cites a book of his published by Verso. I'd say a book published by Verso should be treated something like an opinion piece in a larger left-wing magazine; it's not robust scholarly peer reviewing, even if some its authors are major academics and experts.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Also worth looking at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration, which has lots of problematic sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

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

It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here. WP:ABOUTSELF exception applies. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Are publications associated with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (SEBGM)

No — yet another pseudomedical advocacy group. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No Same rationale as XOR'easter.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Generally No Like any WP:SPS they can be used for (some) information about themselves but definitely not for the truth of things they assert. Loki (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No Not an actual scientific organization, though they pretend to be. Should be treated as any other pseudoscience group is. Ie not reliable and there needs to be a really good DUE reason to even use them with attribution. Silver seren^C 01:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No It's quite fringy. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Strong no - their publications oppose the opinions of multiple legitimate medical associations. They are political publications, not medical ones. Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No no advocacy group is a WP:MEDRS source. Yes for aboutself etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes - an "international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers." Clearly not "pseudomedical" as baselessly described by a couple editors. - LilySophie (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Baselessly? Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously not. Pseudoscientific junk. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No and WP:SNOW close. Nobody is arguing that we should be using WP:SPS in articles. This is an RfC designed to make a WP:POINT. It's not even an interesting or even controversial point. It's to prove some arcane point in the above discussion on The Economist because at some point in that discussion the reliability of SEBGM was argued about. As Newimpartial said, Also, I meant to point out that your description of James Cantor and other Genspect devotees as subject-matter experts strikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once. Congratulations, you have successfully WP:POINTed that out with something that could've been a single RSN post and not a full-blown RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not - Does not conform to our standards for expert consensus organizations, is ideologically based, and disagrees with the mainstream consensus on this topic. Analogous to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No, only for WP:ABOUTSELF, and even so only when clearly qualified that they are an advocacy group that fights against medical consensus. Should never be considered reliable under WP:MEDRS guidelines. --Jayron 32 14:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Depends on what "associated with" means in this context; a paper written by a qualified researcher associated with the group and published as a peer-reviewed review paper or meta-analysis in an otherwise reliable journal probably meets WP:MEDRS. If this RfC is narrowly construed to items directly published by the society, no, they should not be used for facts about transgender medicine, as this is an advocacy group and not WP:MEDRS; it should not be used for biomedical information. For non-medical topics on trans issues, it's an advocacy organization and we generally should not be using it as a source for facts in Wikipedia articles as such, certainly not to support contentious material about related BLPs. It's obviously reliable for its own opinion as a primary source, but that's a tautology and not really relevant analysis standard here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
No. Without prejudice of it being used with in-text attribution, when WP:DUE. Same as with Genspect. MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (SEBGM)

Question - what prompted this RfC and the one above it on Genspect? Is anyone anywhere, or any article, using this in anything other than an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The question was most recently asked (by Springee) here. It has previously come up in this discussion, among others. Newimpartial (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So basically you aren't answering my question but instead are creating a pointy RfC. It's clear you have a strong POV on this subject and are willing to make that POV clear with many, many edits. That said, if three different British news sources, each well respected, are now all "anti-trans" then perhaps the issue isn't that they are magically unreliable in this one area, rather that they don't agree with sources you like. As for these groups, they are advocacy groups and thus their comments, right or wrong, should be largely treated as self published like just about any other advocacy organization. Springee (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing that their statements should have the same status as, say, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health? Or are you distinguishing between advocacy groups and professional organizations, and classifying Genspect and SEBGM as advocacy groups? I also feel compelled to point out that, in terms of social epistemology, the difference between WPATH and SEBGM is not accurately characterized as WPATH being a source (I) like and SEBGM not being one. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It does seem to me that WPATH is an advocacy group. It describes itself as the "World" professional association, but its members seem to be almost entirely from the United States. According to its own website, "Professionals include anyone working in disciplines such as medicine, psychology, law, social work, counseling, psychotherapy, family studies, sociology, ..." so it is certainly not composed of qualified physicians. In general this whole subject arouses strong opinions on multiple sides, and perhaps is not yet mature enough for an encyclopedia article at all. Insulation2 (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy groups should all, largely be treated the same way. We don't cite them directly. We have to wait for RSs to cite them and then we only cite what the RS cited. Springee (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you consider WPATH to be an advocacy group, then? Because I don't think consensus reality (or community consensus) agrees with you about that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WPATH is affiliated with and subserviant to several regional organizations including the ASIAPATH, EUPATH, and USPATH. "majority citizenship of membership" is not how we determine the reliability of an organization. See, for example, the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) whose executive membership also comes mostly from the US. But we still respect their classifications when it comes to species differentiation and naming of viruses on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And in terms of answering (your) question, you were raising the question whether the groups platformed by The Economist, which I characterized in the discussion above as "FRINGE", were in fact to be considered reliable. That isn't a question to be answered by my personal opinion but rather community consensus, which can be ascertained on this venue. Nothing POINTey about it - I'm not sure whether you've actually read WP:POINT recently, given your statement here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you were claiming the Economist was fringe because you didn't like the groups they agreed with. That doesn't make the Economist fringe. It may mean that the particular claim of even an otherwise fringe group shouldn't be treated as such. Anyway, it would be best if you didn't bludgeon the discussion so much. Springee (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In this discussion I have only responded to your comments when they addressed me directly; I don't think BLUDGEON applies to that. And yes, if The Economist consistently cites spokespeople representing FRINGE groups on a certain issue, that makes them FRINGE on that issue. If the magazine consistently platformed conspiracy theorists concerning the 2020 US election, that would indeed make them a FRINGE source on that topic. This seems self-evident to me. Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're really revealing your own bias here, Springee. And not in the pro-science sense. Are you really claiming WPATH is an advocacy group? Following from your statement here, are you saying that the actual academic sources calling out the bias of British newspapers in this subject area don't matter because said newspapers are reliable no matter what? Silver seren^C 03:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you say so. Look, even the American Cancer Association should be treated like an advocacy group. We should be very careful about directly attributing views to any such group. As for the academic sources, we would have to look at them on a case by case basis. I think you and Newimpartial are trying to take comments to an illogical extreme. The discussions above certainly have not shown that we should treat these UK based sources as unreliable for this topic in general. That doesn't mean specific articles/claims can't be found to be unreliable. However, we should also be careful that we aren't discounting such claims simply because we don't agree with them. Springee (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Springee, are you referring to the American Cancer Society or the American Association for Cancer Research? The former is indeed an advocacy group, but the latter is a professional body of experts. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the ACS is what I was thinking of. Yes, they are a professional organization but one of the things they do is advocate for their cause. Springee (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The activity of WPATH corresponds to that of the AACR, not the ACS, so I'm afraid the analogy you are making here doesn't really support your position. Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you say so. Not that this supports your case for claiming the UK media sources are unreliable for trans issues which is your stated reason for opening this set of POINTY RfCs. Springee (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand my reason for filing, then. I simply want the community to decide whether these sources are reliable. You suggested above that because The Economist platforms them, that maybe they are seen as authoritative - if the community were to support that view, I wouldn't want to be out of touch with consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no, this is a POINTY RfC. Would you have even bothered were it not for the fact that your arguments aren't swaying unconvinced editors above? Springee (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT isn't just about having a point, it's about disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In fact, the thing it specifically suggests you're supposed to do if you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia standards is express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard.

I think Newimpartial pretty clearly does have a purpose behind this RFC, but that purpose is clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia: namely, preventing people from trying to smuggle in terrible sources. And they clearly had reason to do so, because you, specifically, suggested that those terrible sources were not so terrible after all. Loki (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to someplace where this source was being used incorrectly? Newimpartial's RfC confuses if an advocacy group's claims should be treated as reliable with if they are correct or not. Thus a not reliable answer here doesn't answer if the ideas stated by the group are fringe or not. Yes, this is a POINTY RfC. Springee (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What? If an advocacy group is not known to be a reliable source (except as a source for his own views) then its claims should not be treated as reliable. If the conclusion of this filing expresses a community consensus that its views are not grounded in science, then that is worth knowing. No WP:POINT whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to citing the opinions of advocacy groups, their own publications are actually the single MOST reliable source possible. Other sources (reporting on their views) may omit details present in the original - or may introduce their own bias, thus misrepresenting the opinion expressed in original. This is why we have WP:ABOUTSELF to begin with.

However, reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion. We ALSO have WP:DUE WEIGHT. We have to ask whether the view of the advocacy group significant enough to mention (and if so, how much article space do we give it?… a short sentence? A full paragraph? A sub-section?). THAT depends on the specific context… which article we are talking about? which statement by the advocacy group? The same statement might be DUE in one article, and completely UNDUE in another.

The flaw with this RFC is that it focuses on reliability when it should be focused on DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have ideas on how to formulate filings to address DUE WEIGHT in particular? I'm thinking not just of these two sources, but also The Economist on the same issues (where it relies on experts drawn from these two groups). Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start by showing where these organizations have been used as sources for a disputed claim. If editors aren't citing these sources then this RfC is a waste of time. Springee (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you clearly expressed the view (above) that if The Economist is presenting these sources as reliable we should revisit whether the community regards them as such. That's all I am doing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Genspect

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

It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here. WP:ABOUTSELF exception applies. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Are publications and declarations by Genspect reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Genspect)

No, they are so far from the science that they cannot be taken seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Too broad - For medicine? No. But what is meant by “transgender topics”? Please be more specific. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The language, and hence the intended overall scope, of this filing is identical to those for The Economist, The Telegraph and The Times above. If specific examples would be helpful, I would be happy to offer relevant diffs. :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The wording of the others mentioned is of the form "What best describes ...'s news coverage of transgender topics". EddieHugh (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No They have a position that is in opposition to evidence-based care and is unwavering. A Suitable source for medical topics would base its positions upon the latest evidence, rather than having a fixed position.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Generally No They're absolutely not a reliable source by themselves. Stuff they put out can be used as a source for the fact that they said something or that they believe something, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. Loki (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No Similar to asking if the Heritage Foundation is a reliable source. You can attribute statements from them, I suppose, though DUE considerations would come into play in such a case. But, otherwise, no, not a reliable source for any medical or scientific topic. Silver seren^C 01:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Strong No They can be attributed in limited DUE instances where proper, however for general reliability of transgender topics and medicine, definitely not. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Strong no - their publications oppose the opinions of multiple legitimate medical associations. They are political publications, not medical ones. Skyerise (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No, generally contrary to medical consensus on the topic. They would be reliable only for attributed positions of the organization itself, but not for general factual statements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No no advocacy group is a WP:MEDRS source. Yes for aboutself etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone ever seriously proposed using things published by Genspect in an article, or is this just an RfC to make a WP:POINT about The Economist/The Daily Telegraph/The Times? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Presumably Stella O'Malley was making such a proposal in her comments about Wikipedia coverage of transgender topics documented here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: It sounds like when Stella O'Malley said Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Times that she wished to have articles by The Sunday Times included on Wikipedia (the subject of an RfC we're currently having). Regardless, she said this on the Genspect website, not onwiki. We do not need to have an RfC every time someone complains about Wikipedia on their website. This is a waste of time and so my !vote is No with a WP:SNOWCLOSE per WP:SPS.

That being said, this shouldn't be construed as endorsing your fairly obvious plan of action to designate otherwise reliable newspaper articles as unreliable sources because they use a quote from Genspect. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously, that is not my plan. But when an otherwise WP:RS decides that it is going to reserve essentially all of its news reaction/"expert" commentary on a topic for sources known to be unreliable and to be associated with a certain extreme viewpoint on that topic, that form of bias is worth noting, innit? If we were talking about 2020 election denialists or holocaust skeptics, I find it hard to believe we would be seeing so much "but BOTHSIDES!" sentiment. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: It's certainly a bold choice to compare Genspect to people who deny the Holocaust. Is that hyperbole or do you really believe we should treat them as being in the same category? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Today I was alleged by an IP editor to have "multiple learning disabilities" because of my gender identity. Genspect holds essentially the same view, which is also that expressed by a recent ex-admin at RfA. The factual basis of gender identity is not really any more in doubt in the RS literature than the factual basis of the holocaust or the 2020 US presidential election, in spite of what certain editors and admkna would prefer to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
No, excepting only limited use per WP:ABOUTSELF, and even then only when qualified that they are a political advocacy group that works against prevailing medical consensus. Should not be considered WP:MEDRS. --Jayron 32 14:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
No, items published by GENSPECT should not be used for facts about transgender medicine, as this is not WP:MEDRS and it should not be used for biomedical information. For non-medical topics on trans issues, it's a partisan advocacy organization and we generally should not be using it as a source for facts in Wikipedia articles as such, certainly not to support contentious material about related BLPs. I don't know what "declarations" means in this context, but they are certainly reliable for their own opinion if that's what it's getting at. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (Genspect)

Like any other advocacy group, they are reliable as a primary source for statements as to the views of the organization (per WP:ABOUTSELF). The issue isn’t (or shouldn’t be) whether they are reliable, but rather how much WEIGHT to give their views (if any). That is a function of WP:DUE, and is better discussed at WP:NPOV/N. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This. It should be treated as any other advocacy group. MarioGom (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Interesting Engineering

Do editors consider Interesting Engineering to be reliable source?

It started out as a now-defunct blog on Blogger, and my understanding is that blogs generally aren't considered reliable. However, the online magazine (in its current form) has been used as a source for major media outlets like The New York Times and BBC. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64, they seem to be a reliable online engineering publication with offices in New York and Istanbul. They hire journalists, have editors, and have a fact checking policy. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know. I wanted to use it to cite a statement a while ago but wasn't sure if it was considered a reliable source. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Proceedings of Hungarian association

Is Proceedings of Hungarian association a reliable source for history topics, including history of the USSR, or it is an SPS? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific example of where this source is being used currently? Curbon7 (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Malta Today and The Malta Independent

A question has arisen whether Malta Today and The Malta Independent are reliable sources. I don't know enough about either to know for sure. The resolution of the edit request at Talk:Henley & Partners#Restore section that was deleted improperly rather depends on the answer. At first blush these look like reasonable sources to me, and both are notable, but experience with notable but unreliable publishers in the US tells me to seek more input from people more familiar with Malta and its media outlets. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking the shitshow of that page history, I can't even tell where the claim that these two newspapers are not RS comes from or which specific articles are being referred to. Both newspapers appear to be pretty clearly reliable, broadly. Specific articles may be placed advertisements, but this generally does not reflect on the reliability of the source if it is clearly marked as a paid article (for example, CNN marks when they're running a paid article, The Times of India frequently does not). Curbon7 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I linked above directly to the discussion in question, which cites both of the articles specifically (first two sources used). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah I didn't see the refbox. Looking at the sources, I don't see too big a problem as far as reliability. There are some weasel words in the articles ("an innovative partnership") but these articles seem like reporting on a current event rather than a paid article. Curbon7 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I know Malta Independent as the newspaper Daphne Caruana Galizia worked for, which strongly suggests to me it is a good source, including on business matters in Malta. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

nerima-kanko.jp

Is (was) this a reliable source? Saw it mentioned on Kyōhei Ishiguro's page and while it doesn't seem particularly untrustworthy to me, from what I gathered on their twitter they're officially an advertisement agency for the Nerima ward in Japan. The site has since been majorly redesigned or passed hands or something and most of the old articles have gone defunct (the source on Ishiguro's page needed to be swapped out with the web archive) which also does not fill me with confidence with regards to their reliability. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the website, it is both currently and formerly run by the tourism department of the government of Nerima in Japan (see the footer in the old website [33] and the about page in the current one [34]). I personally feel it should be okay as a primary source provided it doesn't give any controversial claims contested in secondary sources and that it can be used with care as long as its use satisfies WP:PRIMARY. Link20XX (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. The website definitely passes the sniff test, just wanted to make sure. Thanks for linking the expanded guideline, didn't know about it. Cheers 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Do sources at List of war crimes have to use the term "war crimes"?

Because the first few that I checked on the first Pakistan listing didn't, nor did a few others I checked. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes… accusing a nation of committing “war crimes” is an extraordinary claim, and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This brings up a minor but critical nitpick: a nation can't commit a war crime. By definition, war crimes are done by individual soldiers independently of the nation. Conflating war crimes with crimes against humanity would be original research, which the list in question seems to do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
IMO, no. It's way too pedantic to require that. For example, "massacre", "torture", "intentional targeting of civilians", or similar terms commonly understood to be war crimes would work fine. Furthermore, I don't see anything inherently WP:EXTRAORDINARY about a claim of war crimes. For some countries, they are perfectly normal. Though some cases might need stronger sourcing than others. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Massacres, mass killings, and other actions, while commonly among what make up war crimes, cannot be called war crimes in wikivoixe withoit a source explicitly calling it, otherwise that is introducing OR and us likely against NPOV. Calling an event a war crime is a serious allegation and definitely one that cannot be determined by WP editors. Masem (t) 14:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I still think that's too pedantic. Different words and phrases can say the same thing. You might see "Kriegsverbrechen", "massaker an Juden" or "Ermordung von 10000 Juden". What if a source says "Die dritte Panzerdivision massakrierte 1000 Zivilisten. Dies war eine kriminelle Handlung." None of those, including "Kriegsverbrechen", explicitly uses the phrase "war crime". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I just want to expand on the impracticality of requiring "magic words" for inclusion. The article Nanjing massacre might also reasonably be titled "Nanking massacre", "Rape of Nanjing", or "Rape of Nanking". All terms refer to the same event. Would we not accept all as synonymous? What should be the status of Iris Chang's book "Rape of Nanking"[35], which is a widely-distributed and highly-detailed description of the event? To me it seems obvious that Chang is a terrific source for the article, even though she uses "rape" instead of "Massacre", and "Nanking" instead of "Nanjing". I would not want the usability, or non-usability, of her work to depend on whether or not a user noticed that yes, on page xxx, she did in fact once use the term "Nanjing massacre". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm with you here, Adoring nanny. I don't think magic words are necessary and the phrase "war crime" or a cognate (like "Kriegsverbrechen") need not appear in a source to describe it as such. The border between summary and original research is not always as distinct as we might like. That said, the sourcing would still have to be very clear (e.g., "this action was in direct violation of international law" or some such) as it is clearly a serious accusation. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Compared to terms that describe the type, scale, and tradegy of the event, like massacre, "rape of...", and so on, "war crimes" carries a potentially legally binding accusation to it. It is not a type of synonymous term that you describe above. Masem (t) 14:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure that the inclusion criteria for this list have been well defined.The UN and the ICC have definitions as to what constitutes a war crime so I think we need not rely on "commonly understood", that's a bit vague for inclusion criteria. Since many cases don't get to court, informed sources (historians, legal experts) are needed to back up any claim in addition to it fitting the inclusion criteria. If it is a war crime (potentially), I don't see that such experts would not just say so, at least for crimes in modern history, WWII and after, say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I say definitely yes because otherwise we're veering into original research. It would be preferable to see the term used in peer reviewed articles for historical events like the ones described in the Pakistan article, but, I guess, some leeway is ok as to which sources are actually used. Particularly for ongoing or recent events.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I would say not universally so. It is far too pedantic to disallow something which is described by synonyms of "X", or which meets the definition of "X", but where the source doesn't use the magic word "X". This should be true of any topic. There may be some disagreement over whether something does or doesn't meet such definitions; but if so then WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS applies; if consensus determines that something meets such a definition, then there is nothing wrong with including it. --Jayron 32 16:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I think I'm more or less in line with Jayron and Dumuzid's perspective, that generally we should require a direct mention of war crimes but can potentially infer the same from RS coverage that does not explicitly use that phrase if it is sufficiently clear from context. I would quibble with the examples that Adoring nanny brings up above, as while it is generally an extraordinary claim to accuse someone of war crimes, war crimes by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are abundantly well-documented and established, and editors would generally have no trouble substantiating such claims even if not every source specifically calls it a war crime. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Right. Just as an addendum, I think it's pretty hard to imagine a source describing a war crime with sufficient clarity to describe it as such without using the phrase or a variation thereof, but it is certainly possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Even if the magic words "war crime" were used, it should come from a competent source, not merely a "reliable source". Torture is always a crime, but in your example of Maqbool Hussain even taking everything in the given sources as fact it is possible that this is not a "war crime". International law in the area is complex with varying interpretations and may not follow what most would consider justice. Of course that argument would more often used be used for denial of war crimes. Using magic words or not both accusations and denials should come from competent sources, which journalists most likely are not. fiveby(zero) 17:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I think they do, at least in a larger sense (we don't need to get pedantic about it saying "X was a war crime" if its a book about war crimes, coverage under the umbrella in that case would be enough). Its important to remember that "crime during a war" =/= war crime. Journalists in particular throw about the term so much that its lost much of its meaning for non-academics... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, Fiveby, and Horse Eye's Back. There should be a very high bar before calling something a war crime in Wikivoice. There should be a general academic consensus that a specific incident meets the criteria of a war crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Torture, massacres, intentional targeting of civilians, etc., aren't necessarily war crimes. We shouldn't use the phrase unless the sources do, because it has a specific meaning, as do "crime against humanity" and "genocide", these are not synonyms. A source saying that somebody massacred civilians isn't enough to say "war crime" in wikivoice. I don't believe there are RSes that cover war crimes but don't use the phrase, just like I don't believe there are sources about genocide that don't use that word, or sources about horses that don't use the word "horse", etc. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
To be a bit more technical: if more than one source is given for an event listed as a war crime, at least one of them of sufficient quality should explicitly call it a war crime. It isn't necessary for all of them to use that name. Zero^talk 01:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think realistically we want a majority of sources to be able to call something a war crime, at least in Wikivoice. If, say, only the WAPost called an action a war crime but no other major RS used that language in covering the same event, then we would only be able to include the WAPost's assessment with attribution. Masem (t) 03:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I would be slightly cautious about this because it's easy to produce huge numbers of documents that only mention something in passing; what matters most are the ones that go into depth on it. Additionally, how an event is referred to can differ over time - contemporary accounts of a battle might not reference war crimes that happened there (possibly even because they weren't known, but possibly because the journalists were being extremely cautious at a point in time when things were not well-known and evidence was limited) - but if later academic coverage comes to a clear consensus that it was a war crime, we should cover it as such. And that leads into a final point - sources are not equal in weight. If there is a clear, unambiguous academic consensus that something is a war crime, we must call it such even if eg. news sources do not do so. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I would say mostly yes. There may be a few situations where they use words that unambiguously have the same meaning, but especially for lists (where we have limited ability to include context), we want to be extremely careful. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the lists are covering from Hague Convention of 1899 to present, and during that time there are significant changes in international law as to the nature of the conflict and those protected as well as what would be considered a crime. What is the intention of the list, to present to the reader the incidents that would now be considered "war crimes", or those that would violate the laws at the time and only by signatories to the treaties? Urkun is on the list but i am not sure that would fall under the Hague Convention, but might be described by a source as being a "war crime" under today's standards. fiveby(zero) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I was going to say something very similar to the last post. This is the advantage of requiring the source to state explcitly that it is a war crime - it sidesteps that and other WP:ORish issues. DeCausa (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
War crime is a technical (legal) term for certain type of actions. To constitute a war crime, the action must fulfil certain criteria and, importantly, be determined as such by a competent court. It's wrong to call something a war crime in wikivoice where there have only been allegations or accusations. It's akin to calling someone a murderer: we can use this term only after the person has been found guilty in a court of law. Same for war crimes IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the magic word "war crime" isn't necessarily needed. Any violation of the laws of war — where it is clear and unambiguous that the was the laws of war were violated – can be described as a war crime without reliable sources. For example: the 2011 Helmand Province killing, where a British Marine carried out a field execution of a wounded Taliban insurgent, can be uncontroversially described as a war crime despite the tenor of the debate regarding it in the British public and press. Sceptre (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
A reasonable criterion for inclusion, which has been more or less consistently followed in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is that 1) in principle, the source must use the words "war crime" to describe the incident; 2) however, this is not strictly necessary if the incident, as described by sources, uncontroversially qualifies as a war crime (e.g., torturing a prisoner of war). By the way, in compiling a list of war crimes, the problem of anachronism must be solved. E.g, the indiscriminate bombing of cities did not qualify as a war crime prior to the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva conventions; should we describe the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc., as war crimes? I believe we shouldn't. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Concur with Adoring_nanny and Sceptre. If the source describes things that are uncontroversially classified as war crimes (within the proper timeframe), then we don't need the magic words "war crime" to appear in the source. Our job as encyclopedists is to summarize in our own words what the sources are telling us, not to just plagiaristically parrot them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think the source must use the term "war crimes" in most cases. This is sufficient because such pages do not have to be only about war crimes proven in a court (there are few of them), but any events that have been discussed in RS as possible war crimes because such discussions (including what exactly constitutes war crime) are clearly on the subject. Should the participants make conclusions based on their own interpretation of Geneva conventions and what is constitute "war crime" in cases when the source does not explicitly discuss possible "war crimes"? That depends. Sometimes, this is plainly obvious, and there is strong consensus. Then "yes". In other cases this is not at all obvious, which leads to prolonged disputes. In such cases, I would say "no". My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
No, additional considerations apply - First, is the RS an authoritative body whose determinations are legally binding or is it just some source that has a personal opinion ? Second, if an authoritative body makes a decision for something that is a war crime but does not literally say 'war crime' -- it is still a war crime. Third, the existing list has many entries that were not brought to conclusion by trial and no final determination was made -- so even a charge seems sufficient. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

wordhippo.com

An online thesaurus of unknown authorship, not much used on Wikipedia, but seen on a talk page to support a claim that the plural of "narrative" is "narrative" in "commonly used contexts". (It is a collective noun, which may agree with plural verbs in some varieties of English, generally British, but that is something different, not explained on the site.) It is also used in WP main space to support a WP:BLUESKY set of synonyms for the article's topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wordhippo authorship is nonrelevant. Re proprietorship, the site indicates it was built by Kat IP Pty Ltd, a company based in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia.
A linguistic distinction between naratives (explicitly plural & collective noun) e.g., "conflicting narratives" versus narrative (implicitly plural & mass noun) e.g., "their life stories in narrative are exaggerated" may be beyond the scope of generic thesaurases and might well be beyond the interest (if not, the comprehension) of ordinary readers. The Wordhippo site suffices the interests of an average reader.
An opinion that "watercraft, also known as a water vessel or waterborne vessel" represents a WP:BLUESKY set of synonyms is a textbook case of Ipse dixit. On the contrary, those synonymous terms, together with the Wordhippo cite, support statements that were challenged or questioned elsewhere (and in rare cases, expounded) in the pertinent article and in other outside sources.
The watercraft article isn't the proper venue to debate the contextual implications of using watercraft versus watercrafts in a given context. Nevertheless, the Wordhippo site gives grammatical guidance for anyone who wishes to argue the saliency of a particular use. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In this case, authorship does matter. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. The division of KAT IP Pty Ltd responsible for wordhippo looks like an app developer and vendor. As demonstrated by the gibberish that could plausibly lead an "average reader" to believe that "one narrative, several narrative" is proper English of any variety, whoever they hired to build the app are lexicographical lightweights, definitely not worthy of being regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.

I did not see a "citation needed" tag on the synonyms before the appearance of the wordhippo source. If you know of a place where they "were challenged or questioned elsewhere", kindly show link(s) to it; otherwise, ipse dixit right back atcha. (This paragraph is out of scope here in RSN, and may be answered at Talk:Watercraft.) Just plain Bill (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's not conflate authorship with reliable publication process. Speculate all you want about the motives and abilities re Wordhippo as a publisher and whatever authors are responsible for its contents, but apply the same speculation to sites like Oxford and Merriam-Webster, whose authorship is similarly unknown to those who don't work there (or those who don't otherwise have collateral info about its editors) and who similarly have an online financial model based on webhosting other entities' ads.
The synonyms were challenged starting here, based on their singular versus plural manifestation. The discussion dragged on at Talk:Watercraft#Singular/plural until ThoughtIdRetired submitted this edit resulting the last stable version pertaining to your interest re synonyms.
Discrepancies re synonyms are also evident in the Types section if the watercraft article: "Most watercraft may be described as either a ship or a boat. However, numerous items, including surfboards, underwater robots, seaplanes and torpedoes, may be considered neither ships nor boats." Key term is may be since the underlying issue relates to a synonymous versus hypernymous relationship re the various meanings. That same issue is where Oxford, Merriam-Webster, WordHippo, inter alia, can't agree.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you honestly think wordhippo is in the same league as Oxford or Merriam-Webster? Not even close. Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the reliability of wordhippo.com, not those well-established dictionaries. Do you have any basis for claiming wordhippo's publication process is reliable?

If you want to conflate citations for watercraft synonyms with that article's plural/singular kerfuffle and pontificate about that at length, do it somewhere else. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems impossible to discover Wordhippo's editorial methods for ensuring that their entries are accurate. Without that, they do not meet the criteria for an RS. I think we classify this as a self-published source.

Incidentally, Wordhippo's site does contain, in a relatively unobvious corner[36] some interesting provisions and disclaimers, including language that might be a limitation on our ability to discuss their content, since they refer to personal use only. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ensuring the accuracy re methodology is up to the readers. Being self-published and accurate aren't mutually exclusive. Wordhippo's disclaimers are standard boilerplate. Regardless, the cite has a "Cite US bit of info, and its entries are nonetheless subject to fair use implementation. Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Remind me who initiated the interest in authorship. Then explain what metrics to apply when determining what league a cited source might be in. I won't mention how I've logged, as of today, 1,229 internal inconsistencies at one of those sites. Hint: it ain't WordHippo. And, remind me again: Who raised the issue about synonyms, and who asked for the pertinent links? Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do I detect a bit of legal training there, User:Kent Dominic, in ignoring the question that you cannot answer? The key point is that we have no idea how Wordhippo goes about ensuring the accuracy of their content. By way of comparison, the OED is known to have robust procedures that are occasionally mentioned in the press. Furthermore, they are the product of a well-recognised publishing house, the Oxford University Press. Wordhippo do not have the benefit of a recognised publisher, as they are self-published. We need to know more about them. If we do not know how Wordhippo work to achieve accuracy, they are not an RS.

Your Ensuring the accuracy re methodology is up to the readers seems to put the burden of accuracy on the person reading the source – I presume by "reader", you mean the Wikpedia editor. If that is the way you suggest Wikipedia works, then what is the point of the source in the first place? It doesn't work that way. If you mean that the editor who wants to use a source should demonstrate that they are an RS, then that is correct, the burden on them is to come up with the evidence of methods to check accuracy. We do not seem to have that here.

The issue on their legal stuff is that they say they are for personal use only. Does that preclude a Wikipedia editor from using them (think of the number of views some pages get)? At the least, is a valid question. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What relevant question did I ignore? It's beneath me to reply to bandwagon rationale re how many ppl like Site A or an argumentum ad verecundiam re how many ppl revere Site B. Some things can be judged valid per se. Let's not disparage Site C because it doesn't have the tradional laurels.

Here's the only salient point: The watercraft article intitally equated watercraft and certain vehicles. I objected primaily to the use of a mix-matched singular-to-plural case, which risked conflating a synonymous relation versus a hypernymous relation. Someone (whom it was I don't recall) objected to the lack of a cite in the lede that finally achieved consensus. I provided the Wordhippo cite because it contains the largest corpus of synonyms for watercraft among all of the sites I've seen AND it takes into account divergent meanings of watercraft in a way Merriam-Webster and Oxford address only summarily. The accuracy of the synonymous terms, as listed at Wordhippo and as judged by anyone who's even minimally educated, speaks for itself. The comparably larger volume of the terms, vis-a-vi Merriam-Webster and Oxford, is self-evident to anyone who's even marginally able to read.

Re the burden of proof whether a cite comes from a RS: There's no WP rule that says the onus is on the editor who provides the cite versus one who challenges it. Regardless, I didn't cite WordHippo to imply that the site on the whole is a RS. I'm just saying now that I continue to believe how the cite in question withstands rigorous scrutiny. And, yes, it's for you and other editors to decide whether to agree or disagree with that assessment.

It's irrelevant how Wordhippo got and vetted the goods on its site. Whatever baraometer suits an editor's taste for being "well-recognized" is similarly irrelevant. I suspect a site like Etymonline is not nearly as well-recognized as Merriam-Webster and Oxford, yet those two (*ahem*) "RSs" routinely skirt the boundaries of plagiarism in using Etymonline's source material. Who publishes Etymoline? Who writes and edits the stuff there? I, for one, couldn't care less. Same goes for WordHippo, for the Glossary of Literary Terms, and for Literary Devices and Terms, to name a couple of my own lesser-known go-to sites that you might not approve as reliable sources. Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's go through this as a numbered list:
(1) The relevant question is "what evidence do we have that Wordhippo is a Reliable Source?"
(2) As a general principle, if any content in a Wikipedia article is challenged, it is the role of the person supporting that content (not necessarily the one who added it in the first place) to justify its presence in the article. You see this in WP:BURDEN. I presume that you would not question that ensuring that a source is an RS is part of the "demonstrate verifiability" stipulation that you will find at that link.
(3) Your statement "The accuracy of the synonymous terms, as listed at Wordhippo and as judged by anyone who's even minimally educated, speaks for itself" seems to say "if a source agrees with me, then it is a Reliable Source". That is not the way that Wikipedia works, because otherwise it would simply be full of editors' opinions, rather than the verifiable facts that are the basis of this encyclopaedia.
(4) As to how to determine if something is an RS, look at WP:RS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

'Twas the same one who called a content dispute at Watercraft out of scope for this thread, and suggested that part of the discussion continue at that article's talk page. Metric? Just a funny smell coming from a nondescript LLC with an app dev and marketing department, and the app itself launched in '08. Nameless authorship is a red flag not yet offset by a history of publication. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Skip the blathering argumentum ad verecundiam and answer these two questions: (1) Was any info inaccurate re the Wordhippo cite given in the Watercraft article? Do you know of any RS that provides as much info as Wordhippo on the topic. Regardless, if your underlying concern is the lack of need for any synonyms in the lede, you might voice that concern on the watercraft talk page rather than tilting at Wordhippo's windmills. Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A relevant part of the WP:RS guidance is that sources are expected to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think that it would perverse to argue that Oxford or Merriam-Webster do not have such a reputation; conversely, I see no evidence that Wordhippo has such a reputation. On the question of whether it is a reliable source for questions about the use of words, I would say no, unless evidence is presented that it has garnered that reputation. Otherwise it's just another random website, put together for commercial gain by people of unknown levels of expertise. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
As for cherry-picking a relevant part of WP:RS, I'll concede not only that WordHippo, the Glossary of Literary Terms, and Literary Devices & Terms lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy attributed to Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Columbia. I'd hasten to add, however, that one's unfamiliarity with a given source doesn't exclude one's prerogative for due diligence in applying the WP:RS guidelines wholesale.

To cherry-pick another part of the guidline: context matters. "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I did my due diligence in this case and found the WordHippo site vastly surpassed the reliability of Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Columbia re terms that are analogous to or associated with the term, watercraft.

I'd caution against any assumption that the reputation of an Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Columbia makes it impervious to WP:RS challenges. Let's not debate the slippery slope questions of when those publications' abilities and activities (hampered, IMHO, by their online presence, quick lexical turnarounds, and ever-increasing reliance on webhosting revenue) impair their WP:RS cache. Let's not debate the slippery slope matter of when a WordHippo, Glossary of Literary Terms, or Literary Devices & Terms might cross some nebulous threshhold of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Let's not impugne the WP:RS guidlines for failing to mention that using common sense is an indispensable factor that ought to be at work in making an associated determination. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Have you anywhere set out the method by which you did your 'due diligence' to test wordhippo's reliability in this arena? That might be persuasive; merely asserting that you have done so is not. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: mass rape and rape as a weapon of war

WITHDRAWN

As suggested by editor, this is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. Moving it to WP:ORN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. One deals with NPOV and DUE, but the other one is about sources, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the Claims of intent section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the multiple sources already present in the article, there’s about a whole dozen additional sources given in this discussion [37]. Gitz6666 is just wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of wasting people's time, it would be nice if at least one of the sources you shared were to directly state that rape is systematic/weaponised, instead of attributing that opinion to specific individuals or talking about "fear" and "allegations" of rape being systematic/weaponised in Ukraine. This would give you an argument to conclude that we can also state this with wikivoice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out already [38], pretty much all the sources do exactly that. Your inability to parse the sources is your problem, not everyone else's. That is exactly why you're wasting other people's time. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz. Yes, you waste other people's time. This is RSNB, but you did not even bother to specify any source you are asking about, and you did not challenge any source here as unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, sources are detailed in the article. They are not unreliable. But IMO they don't support the claims on "mass rape" and "rape as a weapon of war". Therefore, the lead section fails WP:V. However, you're probably right that RSN is not the appropriate place for this discussion: if I'm not wrong, this topic better fits ORN. If so, unless anyone objects, I'm inclined to close this discussion and open an identical thread there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Can Blogs be Reliable?

If an online news publication (which may be considered a "blog") holds congressional press credentials, publishes investigative news material, and is cited by sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate in official correspondence, is that site a reliable source? I am asking because FloridianPress.com investigated financial ties between AHA International School and a Chinese education company in the wake of the U.S. government leasing the property to house migrant children. The article seems to be relevant to the AHA International School's history, particularly its closure and subsequent use of the property, yet when I attempted to include it as a citation, it was removed as an unreliable source. Any assistance would be appreciated. Jejasi (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of such publications is discussed in WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
An answer that rote is unlikely to help resolve the specific conflict raised. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Side note, a source that doesn't fulfill the RS criteria is not categorically excluded from Wikipedia, it just doesn't count as fulfilling requirements (such as wp:ver) for a source that does meet the criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Floridian press was spammed into articles by an account likely connected to the website, which is what caused initial removal. Looking at the site, there's no policies to be found that show any effort at reliability is maintained. Slywriter (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG? jp×g 14:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

History of Transylvania

This is about [39]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Is CUFOS a RS?

Hi, Is Center for UFO Studies considered a reliable source for List of reported UFO sightings? CUFOS is an " international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers", and has a huge database of UFO cases. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Source used for two different articles

I'd like to get some thoughts on whether a source some of us want to use at [[Southern Television broadcast interruption] and Bob Tomalski should be considered reliable. The source is an investigative podcast [40]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My view is that one podcast is not enough. It is WP: PRIMARY, and has almost no coverage outside its own promotional material. I've reverted edits enough times to be close to 3RR though my view remains that I'm on the right side here because of policy. doktorb _words^deeds 21:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources"

Is the person who produced this podcast directly associated with the event in some way or related to Tomalski? If not then it's not primary. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't allow, rightly, a single YouTube video as WP:RS. We rarely permit a single tweet. There is no fundamental difference with a single podcast; it is the sole, solitary, only source to claim something is true. It has no secondary validation from traditional media to prove notability. It's just a self-published audio file, that's surely WP: PRIMARY.

If not, what stops any wannabe podcaster from hiding behind the "I'm not related" get out clause? We wouldn't call a YouTube video acceptable without secondary sources or media coverage, I know that. doktorb _words^deeds 03:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What you are saying is totally disconnected from WP:PRIMARY, the policy you are citing. Twitter and Youtube are irrelevant to the discussion. Again, please explain why this podcast is PRIMARY, using the actual language from the policy. It's not PRIMARY just because you say so, you need to make a policy-based argument. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

doktorb _words^deeds 03:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The term "self-published" is being thrown around a lot here. Where is the "self-published" line drawn? The podcast has multiple people involved with it, and it is published by a named, identifiable company who publish a number of other podcasts as well. By that standard, the Wall Street Journal is also "self-published" - and arguably also Original Research. Yet nobody seriously attempts to disqualify them from Wikipedia on that basis. So why here? Bonusballs (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't allow, rightly, a single YouTube video as WP:RS this isn't true. A YouTube video by a reliable source is just as reliable as any other publication by them – a video on e.g. CNN's YouTube channel would be considered reliable. WP:RSPYT explicitly says Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Nor is a podcast a primary source. I haven't looked into this particular source but it's neither true nor helpful to dismiss podcasts in general as inherently unreliable, self published, or primary – some are all of these things; some are none. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I wrote this on the talk page, but I consider what the podcast is to be more important than the fact that it's a podcast (or just one podcast). This is a podcast that appears to have gotten little-to-no attention in other reliable sources, so we don't have any reason to think it's reliable for such a claim. Without anyone else talking about it, and without some sort of well-documented expertise of the people involved, it's indistinguishable from a random YouTube video in terms of reliability. It's fairly recent, so it may be picked up by some press soon, but for now I'd say omit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My observation is that many of the reasons so far cited for removing the (referenced, sourced) material from the articles tend to not actually be correct. First the claim was that "a TV program" (it's not a TV program) accused someone on the basis of Facebook posts (not entirely, that was purely one lead and other evidence was cited.) The podcast goes into much greater depth and explains in detail how they researched and came to their conclusion. WP:BLP was cited even though the subject died more than two decades ago. Then further reverts claimed that the edits were "self-promotional" despite there being no promotion and no link or WP:COI between the wiki editors and the podcast. Next claim was that there was "zero evidence" despite the evidence being clearly present and the very subject of the cited source. WP:BLP was then raised again to justify further deletion, saying that the material was defamatory - again, the subject died more than two decades ago so this cannot possibly apply - and then repeating the claim that the podcast was "self-produced" (it isn't) and not notable. Now we seem to have settled on WP:PRIMARY which appears to be defined as 'original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.' And it is again hard to see how this applies since the subject died twenty years ago and none of the people involved with the podcast appear to have been directly involved with the event that is the subject of the article - the broadcast interruption. This podcast appears to be published by a small but recognised producer of multiple popular podcasts, researching an event from history, showing their work in great detail and explaining clearly how they came to their genuinely noteworthy conclusion. This isn't someone making something up in their bedroom and linking to a YouTube video they made. The fact of this modern day investigation and its conclusion bringing new light to a 45-year-old "unsolved mystery" is, I believe, inherently noteworthy in and of itself. There seems no reason to Assume Bad Faith and immediately take the view that the podcast is an Unreliable Source. It seems perfectly possible and legitimate for the article to report the notable fact of the investigation and its conclusion without being seen to be endorsing or validating it. It is self-evidently relevant and easily Verifiable that the claims which the article says the podcast makes, are indeed made within the podcast. I really am at a loss to understand why anything here is even slightly controversial, let alone deserving of so many attempts to fill a shopping trolley full of wiki rules in the hope that one of them might stick. Bonusballs (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at other policies and think that WP: Independent might work here. There is only the podcast to go from, no independent verification or secondary coverage. We wouldn't trust a single source at the best of times and maybe I've found the policy to back this up. doktorb _words^deeds 11:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this just underlines my mention of the 'ruleshopping' that seems to be going on here. My reading of WP:Independent is that indepdendent sources are not only valued but positively required in Wikipedia articles, and, again, it doesn't seem to me to be an argument to prohibit the source. It is surely not controversial to neutrally mention in an article the easily-verifiable fact that a source has reported something that is of direct relevance to the article subject. Bonusballs (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:Independent is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. It's just one person's interpretation. Again, please cite a policy or guideline that prohibits podcasts, whether it's the only source covering an event or one of several. Or explain in policy or guideline terms why this podcast should be considered unreliable. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases "articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see WP:V) The podcast checks the boxes for independent and published, but I cannot see any sign that there is any editorial oversight/fact-checking, let alone a reputation for it. If I have missed this editorial oversight, please link to it. This is to key point. To all appearances it is self-published, and while the creator has academic credentials, they are in theology and not related to this topic. As a questionable source, it is "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead" see WP:QUESTIONED. As a result, it cannot be used in this context. If it is a major development in the mystery and thus suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will get picked up by other, reliable secondary sources. Wait for them. Slp1 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, good points are made here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

https://partylike1660.com

It appears to be a website with 16th-17th century French royalty tidbits? I found no name to attribute the authorship of said website. I found nothing referencing the information under each topic. Is this a blog?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The author appears to be called Aurora Von Goeth, and she has written three books about 17th century France, but I can't find much more about her. Her works seem to be pop history, I can find no evidence of any background in academic history, and I can't find any reviews of her works in the mainstream press or academia. As best I can tell, it's a personal website by someone who doesn't come close to the threshold for self-published expert: no evidence of being a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hill Rag

Is Hill Rag considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and would it be considered a high-quality source for a featured article? I am currently using the following article from Hill Rag in the Alice Tangerini article. I have been debating for a while now to do further work on the article, but before I make any decisions regarding that, I wanted to get a clearer understanding about the use and appropriateness of this citation. I could not find Hill Rag in WP:RSN archives, but apologies if I had somehow missed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a local newspaper, likely reliable for basic facts but at FAC you might be questioned about it. Googling hasn't brought up much of use to me, but if you can show that other reliable sources make use of it, that would help demonstrate reliability. (But even if it were impeccably reliable, a FAC reviewer might well query using it to support e.g. raised in Kensington, which looks to me like overinterpretation of what the article actually says...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I could not find a lot of information about the newspaper either, and its site is not very encouraging. I found evidence of editorial oversight on the main page for the publisher (Capital Community News, Inc.), but that is admittedly a low bar to clear, and I have not really seen it cited in any substantial way in other sources (at least in my Google searches).

I appreciate that you pointed out the Kensington bit. I wrote the article back in 2017/2018 and I have admittedly not really looked through it since then. I think this citation is probably a case where it would be preferable to find stronger sources. You are correct in that it should be fine for basic facts, but it is less than ideal in the context of a FAC. I wanted to get a clearer read just in case other editors are in a similar position, and I believe this conversation has helped a lot with that. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dards and Gilgit

Could somebody familiar with the topic area give me a read on [[41]] as a source for ethnology of the people of the Gilgit area? To me it looks...self published, but possibly by experts (?) I can go either way though; just trying to improve the sourcing of an article. If somebody thinks not, I just won't use it. Thanks for any brainpower applied to this question. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

tracesofwar.com

Any thoughts about this website, particularly in the use of the biography [42] on Heinrich IV, Prince Reuss of Köstritz? Some considerations: (1) it's used on hundreds of WP articles, so obviously some people seem to have judged it reasonable. (2) The organization STIWOT publishing it looks basically legitimate to me. (3) The disclaimer [43] is not exactly a strong claim of seriousness, but also not just "we post whatever anyone sends us, don't blame us for it". (4) The specific article [44] lists the deprecated website thepeerage.com as one of its sources. In light of (4) I was inclined to remove the source in this one article, but I would welcome other views. (Also if anyone wanted to look at the other sources there -- royaltyguide.nl seems clearly hopeless, for example, and I'm not sure what's going on with the "worldroots.com" source.) --JBL (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Are Mercator Institute for China Studies and London Review of Books reliable?

I was previously translating the Industrial Party (China) to the English Wikipedia, but one experienced Chinese Wikipedia editor (User:Fire-and-Ice) took issue with my citing LRB and Mercator as reliable sources in the article, especially regarding the misuse of translation in the image. I want to know whether these are reliable under this topic, or I should make a significant change? Thanks for your opinion. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the LRB needs to be assessed on a case by case basis as they publish a range of opinion pieces from both experts and non-experts, both in their print edition and their blog. If I understand correctly, the cited piece is from a series of lockdown diaries by Wang Xiuying, about whom very little information is available. I wouldn't see a reason to distrust it, but it might be sensible to include attribution if it was the only source. Here, it appears to be used simply to confirm that gongye dang should be translated as ‘the technology party’ or ‘the industrial party’ and refers to techno-optimism. Doesn't seem controversial? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Actually not only that, LRB source was also used to imply that the Industrial Party support advanced technology and that is one main concern. User: Fire-and-Ice said on Chinese Wikipedia:

“

English Wikipedia said London Review of Books is a "literary magazine", rather than an academic journal. It is also not possible to say China after Covid is an academic source.

”

I would say I am not that familiar with the reliablity of LRB so I decide to put it here. Another concern is that Fire-and-Ice states that the source (actually, all the sources within the article) could not imply that Industrial Party is relevant or in support of technocracy. Again, I'm not that familiar with technocracy so I would also like to put the question here. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

LRB is indeed literary but it often includes academic commentary and original reporting. In this case, it's hard to judge as they give no information on the author. If it was the sole source for something controversial, I wouldn't use it, but if it is one of many sources saying broadly the same thing it seems fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Gōngyè 工業 is invariably translated as "industrial" in normal usage. Translating it as technology would be unusual. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: It is. Yet Mercator does translate the term into "Technologist" at its front page. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

~~No, it is not.~~ Just as I said before, "this picture put democratiers under 自由派 (liberals), humanist under 全球派 (globalists), party warriors under 自干五 (ziganwu)". So democratiers, humanist, party warriors, market lovers, equlity advocates, technologists and other words, all are labels or descriptions, not translations. Fire Ice 03:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fire-and-Ice: It seems that you have misunderstand it. What I mean here is "It is (unusual). Yet..." ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Fire Ice 01:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Racket

Hi. Is Racket acceptable for transcribing a menu in Owamni? This local paper seems to be the only source for "the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn." The full context is Also served are sandwiches—arepas heaped with ground elk, sweet potatoes and pepitas, or turkey, or the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn. I think it's used for just straight reading the menu. Thank you either way, and happy holidays. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this about this edit? I don't think the explanation in that edit summary makes sense, and I agree with you (I think) that the Racket is a perfectly reasonable source for the uncontentious statement being cited there. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, JBL. I wouldn't have said a word except Racket was started by former editors of City Pages (that died in the pandemic). I'll try the talk page. Happy Christmas. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sahara Press Service

Hi, with regards to the Sahara Press Service, would it be fair to use in-text attribution? Especially with regards to Western Saharan clashes (2020–present), as this media is owned by the Polisario Front, who is a belligerent in the clashes, and is very obviously biased towards them with many articles not having clear authorship information. The same argument can be made with Maghreb Arabe Press, but this isn't currently the focus of this discussion. Thank you! :) NAADAAN (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Floridapolitics.com

This source seems to have been used quite a bit recently, especially to report endorsements in US Elections. Looking at the site, I see no statements about editing policy and it looks like it may just be a glorified blog. Seeking opinions on whether this is a reliable source.

2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida is a page that the source is used extensively. Slywriter (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Floridapolitics.com has been publicly accused of being a "pay-for-play" blog. Most recently, NPR exposed the site and its publisher's association with scandal where Florida Power and Light paid the site for favorable reporting. In fact, the publisher admitted the site does not adhere to ethical journalistic integrity standards. "Peter Schorsch acknowledges he doesn't observe traditional journalistic practices when deciding what to cover. In an interview, Schorsch says he practices "combination journalism": He says Florida Politics' coverage is not dictated by advertisers, but it often gives them favorable coverage. And, he says, sometimes he gives them more coverage."

Hope this helps. Jejasi (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

For trivial coverage, like candidate lists, campaign finance, or certain campaign coverages, (i.e. where it's sourced in relation to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida), it seems to be fine. For controversial topics or topics related to companies, it seems better off avoiding. Some reporters also appear to be more reliable than others. Curbon7 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Some reporters also appear to be more reliable than others?" I disagree. No matter the reporter's apparent credentials, when the editor in chief is taking money from directly from candidates and instructing his reporters on what to cover, how much to cover, and how to cover, the source should not be considered reliable. The publication admitted they uphold limited or no journalistic integrity standards. There are likely other more reliable sources that report on the same information and it is better to use those sources. Jejasi (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of him taking money from candidates; in fact, stating that uncited amounts to a WP:BLP violation, and quite a bad one. As I stated above and judging based on that NPR article: seems fine for politics, seems not fine for companies. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be "no" mention of him taking money from candidates in the NPR article. But a simple FEC search shows that multiple federal political campaigns paid Extensive Enterprises Media (owned and operated by the publisher, Peter Schorsch, and is managed by "Florida Politics LLC") (according to official Florida business records). Additionally, take a look at this https://www.transparencyusa.org/fl/payee/extensive-enterprises-media-llc which shows some of the money Extensive Enterprises Media receives from political campaigns and PACs. It's quite extensively documented that Florida Politics is a pay for play blog which pushes out material for their paid advertisers - being companies, lobbying firms, political candidates, or whomever. And he admits it.

In his own words, "I’ve got political and lobbying clients...I don’t think what I do can be construed as journalism." He was also under criminal investigation in Tampa a few years back for basically extorting clients, although no criminal charges were filed he "acknowledged offering to remove negative content from saintpetersblog.com in exchange for money." https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/no-charges-to-be-filed-against-blogger-peter-schorsch-after-sheriffs/2170329/ (Saintpetersblog.com was rebranded as floridapolitics.com.

Not sure why you're so defensive over FloridaPolitics.com, and I am not violating anything by offering some advice on here. Jejasi (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Update photo of the president in Burkina Faso

On the main page about Burkina Faso, it should be the photo of the last elected president Rock Christian Marc Kabore or the photo of the current president captain Ibrahim Traore. But you used the photo of the former president Blaise Compaore who was ousted from the power by the people in 2014. Therefore, we are just asking an update for historical truth and your own credibility. Respectfully, 2600:4040:219D:2C00:30D7:E4CA:4C28:D367 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia… no need to ask someone else to replace the outdated photo, you can Fix It yourself! Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)