Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 315Archive 316Archive 317Archive 318Archive 319Archive 320→Archive 325

Sherdog.com

http://sherdog.com

Is it reliable?

I found it completely unreliable and unverifiable. It has no about page. The website in question's person (mixed martial artist) profiles are all over the place, seems outdated and and have huge discrepancies between other reputable sources such as the sport organizations themselves, UFC, Bellator, One or their media partners like ESPN, CBS, Fox, BT Sport, Independent or even the Athletic Comissions that organize competitions. But nearly all of the Mixed Martial Arts-related content have sherdog.com as the main source instead of the reputable sources that were mentioned above. A few editors seem to enforce it as the sole reliable source for thousands of biographies of living persons and their infoboxes. Even more various reputable sources that contain high-quality recorded footages or images or statistics or commission reports are disregarded in favour of sherdog.com. Conor McGregor's Height section of the Talk:Conor_McGregor page have a rather more detailed discussion about its reliability.

The site is reliable. I guess Sherdog is "self-published" but it has a very good reputation among mma fans. Likely, like many data-heavy sites, it introduces minor errors in its data to discourage scraping and republishing. Ofc, not all stats are equally reliable; for a top fighter like McGregor, you can expect most data to be accurate, but not for a no-name fighter that fights in a regional league somewhere. Regarding the height, why can't you use a range? E.g 5 ft 8 in to 5 ft 11 in[3] ImTheIP (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Like you said, it's self-published. It has no about page. The data provided by the site tend to conflict other reputable sources' content although other reputable sources tend to share similiarity between them. Some of those reputable sources that I mentioned are ESPN, Fox, UFC, BoxRec, Independent, NSAC, BT sport, CBS, Independent. As an example, in McGregor and Alvarez's cases, those reputable sources' listings are also defintely closer to what other video footages and images provide. Sherdog.com on the other hand doesn't seem consistent or reliable. Especially considering they don't update fighter profile pages for decades, even after public becomes certain that data in most of those pages are clearly wrong. After an MMA competition where everyone can compare physical attributes for example. The most obvious example is the McGregor vs Alvarez match. As for using a range for height, weight etc., what should we do for a person that has 7 different listings for each attribute? Implementing height, weight, reach etc. ranges like 5'6 to 6'0 or 70 kg to 80 kg or 160lbs to 190lbs for every single person that has Wikipedia page would not be ideal and appropiate.Lordpermaximum (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's self published it has no business being on BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We've reached a consensus to disregard Sherdog as a reliable source and use the reliable, independent and secondary sources, such as The Independent and CBS in the case of Conor McGregor's height, in the Talk:Conor_McGregor page. The consensus was only for the height of Conor McGregor but I think it was a very lengthy and detailed discussion with a lot of sources which had the participation of 7 editors, one being an administrator, so that sherdog.com should be considered unreliable site-wide. Nil Einne also agreed to consider sherdog.com unreliable here and I also want to inform another administrator Woody who also found self-published sherdog.com which has no about page unreliable in the Talk:Dan_Henderson page after another lengthy discussion.

Does anyone including ImTheIp who found sherdog.com reliable here previously before the achievement of consensus for Conor McGregor's height, has any objections to sherdog.com being considered an unreliable source?Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I just learned thanks to Nil Einne that there's a strict policy to avoid any self-published source on BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Not only sherdog.com is an unreliable source, it cannot be used at all on BLPs because of the policy in question. This seals it.Lordpermaximum (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've an objection to finding it unreliable just yet - the previous discussion (11 years ago, IIRC) that found it to be reliable was flawed because it was literally three or four editors deciding it, after one asked the question, over a very short space of time, and that led MMA editors being able to declare "It's a reliable source, as agreed by WP:RS/N!". I understand your desire to move quickly on this, but there's no rush. And yes, I know that can be frustrating... I've learnt patience after having people stall decisions by creating 30-day Requests for Comment over issues that are obviously only going to go one way, but hey, patience is a virtue!
As to the substantive issue: lack of bona fides for sherdog, such as an 'about' page, and it's demonstrable lack of accuracy (whether deliberate or not) would preclude it from being a reliable source where other, more reliable, sources exist. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course Sherdog is a reliable source. I don't know where 'it's (sic) demonstrable lack of accuracy' has been shown or proven. Occasionally, sources differ slightly on things like height. It's hardly a crisis. In fact, Sherdog's just as likely right and the others wrong as vice versa. After all, it's the largest dedicated MMA database in the world. Before editors jump aboard here could we please consider that the vast majority of less high-profile fighters won't have a listing elsewhere. I would ask Lordpermaximum please to chill out a bit and stop saying things like 'We've reached a consensus' after two comments and 'that seals it' after three. Sherdog has not been shown to be unreliable at all. It's also a source that contains accurate method of finishes, provides a reliable and verifiable source of nicknames (more of an issue than you might think). Its strengths are massive and the fact that some other sources disagree on stuff that none of us knows anyway (not that it'd make any difference if we did) is no reason to conclude that it's wrong. In the McGregor example, if you Google 'Conor McGregor height' is says 5'8. Since Sherdog is also the source used for all infoboxes on MMA fighter pages, it might have been nice to inform editors that this discussion is taking place. I have neither the time nor inclination to comment further as I'd rather edit. There are lots of editors who edit MMA page regularly and their contribution should be sought. I have made my thoughts clear simply won't read and reply to another series of WP:BLUDGEON posts.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
My dear NEDOCHAN, Google lists Conor McGregor's height as 5'9" now thanks to our consensus, like I told you before that it would. Have a good day.Perm 20:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
More of than not, Google takes its profile information from English wikipedia so that's where Google took it from. The change in Conor McGregor's Wikipedia profile will soon reflect on Google also. We'll try to reach at least a rough consensus here as I don't see any reason why we shouldn't expand the consensus we've reached for Conor McGregor. Also NEDOCHAN, I remind you and others to stop using sherdog.com as a source on any BLP as it looks there's a mass violation of biographies of living persons (BLP) policy per WP:BLPSPS. It literally involves thousands of pages. I'll report it in WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, pretty soon. I'll RfC for deprecation of sherdog.com next as it requires immediate action because there's mass violation of BLP policy which is taken very seriously.Lordpermaximum (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Please don't ping me. You have absolutely no right to start telling another editor what source they can and cannot use.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


Sherdog is not self-published. Their "contact us" page is their "about us" page.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, "if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.". Sherdog.com is a clear example of that, it has no about page, you can't volunteer to be an editor and it's not clear who's producing the content since there's no author sign in their articles, pages etc.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it is clear from that link I gave that they have an editorial staff, radio staff, and writers (contributors). Their publisher is Evolve Media. There is no requirement that their editors be volunteers. Their news articles do have authors.[2] It may be an ugly site, but you didn't do your due diligence in looking up this stuff. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Having authors doesn't mean it's not self-published. Please read the quote from the policy again. Sherdog.com is a clear-cut example of a self-published site. Although the violation of BLPs is important, our main topic here is the reliability of Sherdog.com. We don't even know where they get their info from and according to archive.org, they very rarely update the profiles of fighters if at all which makes it outdated also.Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that the concept that the authors cannot publish an article without the approval of the editorial staff. The editorial staff is also not the publisher which is the company itself. Your reliance on WP:USINGSPS is misplaced since it is neither policy or guideline, and your arguments for strict adherence to that quote would render newspaper reporters to be SPS if their employer is the newspaper.[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

One instance of a fighter's height not matching what CBS and The Independent lists does not make sherdog unreliable. More often than not, sherdog lists the correct information. There isn't one individual authority that measures all fighters; they're measured by different people (networks or promotions) using different methods (a wavy measuring tape or stadiometer) at different times in different places. Common sense says there will always be discrepancies in such cases. Sherdog is as reliable as a sporting database can be when there is no single source to pool all its stats from. As for the site being self published, says who? I think the fact that their news section is filled with articles by multiple journalists says otherwise. – 2.O.Boxing 19:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a total outsider to this topic, but Sherdog is obviously not self-published, and it seems likely to be reliable:

  • it's published by Evolve Media, which has over a hundred employees per their LinkedIn page[4]
  • they have a seven person editorial team and a twenty-two person team of contributors[5]

Gbear605 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You and a couple others only cofirm the quote in WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works: "if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." What are we even debating here?Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Lordpermaximum, you're misapplying your quote - by your definition, all news agencies are self-publishing. Gbear605 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not my quote. It's a direct quote from WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." That's the quote you need to focus on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No doubt Lordpermaximum will still claim they are self-published because their website doesn't have an "About" page, even though it does. FDW777 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You should focus on the content and comment on the reliability of sherdog.com instead of reading my mind. About page is just an anecdote.
Sherdog.com is "completely unreliable" because it's self-published, they don't share how they get their information, their information usually contradicts other well-known reliable sites such as UFC, ESPN, Fox, Independent, CBS and those sources agree eachother and sherdog.com's "contact page" is the definition of ameteurish.Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You should focus on what you're being told, instead of saying what you think. Repeating the same mistake over and over again doesn't stop it being a mistake. There is zero to little support for your position, see WP:BLUDGEON. FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Please be civil and relax. In the mean time, check Proof_by_assertion, WP:RS and WP:V. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You should in turn checkout, WP:FORCEDINTERPRET and WP:STONEWALL Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Sherdog.com

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There are arguments both for and against the reliability of this source. Editors who considered the source less reliable cited lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while those in favor cited its agreement with ESPN as an indication of fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. Overall, however, the consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable, but does not count as a self-published source under WP:SPS. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Sherdog.com?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Reliable, in the absense of generally reliable sources
  • Option 3: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 4: Generally unreliable
  • Option 5: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User Notifications about the RfC:

  • Cassiopeia who voted for option 1, mentioned and pinged 21 other editors at WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog, and wanted those editors to ping other editors about this RfC. So far from that list only Gsfelipe94 joined the RfC and they voted for option 1.
  • FDW77 who voted for option 1, opened a section at WT:MMA and informed other editors of the RfC.
  • I voted for option 4, informed 4 of those who hadn't already participated in the RfC that were involved with the height discussions at Talk:Conor_McGregor which eventually reached consensus that I agreed with and had lead to this RfC as an expansion of the consensus. Out of those I invited, Cassiopeia voted for option 1, Bastun and Hunterb212 voted for option 2 or 3, GirthSummit hasn't voted yet. I also informed an administrator, Woody, who was involved with similar discussions at Talk:Dan_Henderson and voted for option 2 or 3. I also opened sections about the RfC at WT:BOXING, WT:SPORTS, and WT:WPBIO.

Please report invites, pings, mentions of any kind and newly opened sections that inform other editors about this RfC, so we can list them here in the spirit of transparency.Lordpermaximum (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

False Reports:

Anything below that is meaningful has already been covered above. Everything else is only disruptions and false reports that aren't related to the RfC.Perm 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot to add this fabulously neutral invite. But I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_(Sherdog.com) if we are to stop them from using sherdog.com as the sole source....lol. – 2.O.Boxing 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
All of this because of our first encounter at Talk:Conor_McGregor where I had shared my suspicions about you and your friends? I didn't notify that user there, first. I actually invited him before and mentioned him here as one of the 2 editors that took part in the consensus we reached atTalk:Conor_McGregor but had not participated here yet. What you took out of context was from a discussion about Tony Ferguson which wasn't even started by me. You didn't even post the entire discussion deliberately in order to remove the context and blame me again for something I did not do again. Please don't turn this into another war and let people get sidetracked, again. You're extremely disruptive under this RfC. But I know you don't care as long as Sherdog.com becomes a reliable source because of your personal vendetta.Lordpermaximum (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll strike it and put it this way then: I think there's an option for your thoughts such as "reliable in the absense of generally reliable sources" which seems to suit your opinions or another option if you like, and, But I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_(Sherdog.com) if we are to stop them from using sherdog.com as the sole source, are highly inappropriate comments to somebody you've previously invited to an RfC. And just to note, I have no vested interest in Sherdog whatsoever. I have never, in my 15,000 and something edits, used Sherdog in a citation. – 2.O.Boxing 02:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
You took them even more out of context to make me look even worse. They're cherry-picked from answers to a user that was bothered by the use of sherdog as the sole source. The discussion which I didn't start is here at User_talk:Hunterb212#Tony_Ferguson.Perm 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Background (Sherdog.com)

Sherdog.com has generally been used as "the sole reliable source" on thousands of articles which are related to MMA and mostly WP:BLP. In favour of Sherdog.com, all reliable sources such as The Independent, CBS, ESPN, UFC, Fox, BT Sport, BoxRec, Bellator, One and Athletic Commisions such as NSAC have been disregarded. Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And the point of this is? None of that has anything to do with deciding whether or not Sherdog is a reliable source. But anyway, no. Just no. Sherdog has not generally been used as "the sole reliable source" on thousands of articles which are related to MMA and mostly WP:BLP. I task anybody to find me at least a start class MMA BLP that uses Sherdog as its sole reliable source. – 2.O.Boxing 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's not clear enough, what that means is those editors who generally edit MMA articles favour Sherdog.com over other generally reliable sources. Those reliable sources have only been used when there's no info about that particular topic on Sherdog.com. For example if one editor references ESPN as a source in an MMA page, it will be reverted by some hardcore MMA editors in favour of Sherdog.com as the only source if sherdog has info about that. This is against the WP:RS policy and it's the main reason this discussion has been started in the first place. But I wanted to hear the community's opinion about the reliability of sherdog.com first so I opened an RfC about that first. That's why this section is titled "Background".Lordpermaximum (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
So, basically, your addition of this subsection has nothing whatsoever to do with evaluating whether or not Sherdog is reliable? Thanks for confirming that. – 2.O.Boxing 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, it gives some background to the discussions that were happened before the RfC since it's still under the main section. The starting point of these dicussions was pointed out at the top of the main section and this section only refers to that background. It's up to other editors to bear this in mind or not while evaluating sherdog.com's reliability but I thought it was important since it's going to affect thousands of pages because of the fact that Sherdog.com is relied upon very heavily in those articles.Perm 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Sherdog.com)

  • Option 4 - There doesn't seem to be any evidence for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS). It doesn't look like there's a detailed about page of any sorts and it seems to fit the criteria of self-publishing. Its fighter infocards looked outdated when I checked the history of those from archive.org. Its runners don't seem to share how they get their information; therefore I think it violates WP:V and makes Sherdog a questionable source. After checking other reliable sources that create MMA-related content such as CBS, ESPN, Fox, BT Sport, The Independent, BoxRec, UFC, Bellator, One and Athletic Commisions such as NSAC more in detail and making thorough comparisons, I found out that those reputable sources generally agree with each other, unlike Sherdog which has a clear tendency to contradict them. Besides that, none of sherdog.com's fighter profiles has any author mention. We know it's generally used on BLPs although it probably violates the BLP policy per WP:BLPSPS by likely being an SPS according to the definition in WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. Considering some editors' tendency to use Sherdog as the sole source on many BLPs without evaluating other possibly more reliable sources, it's dangerous for Wikipedia and makes the Encylopedia open to many lawsuits, in theory at least. Espcially if the runners of sherdog.com decides to manipulate Wikipedia by adjusting some of the information on their website since it's relied upon very heavily. We've previously reached consensus to disregard sherdog.com and use other reputable, likely more reliable sources instead at Talk:Conor_McGregor which eventualy had lead to this RfC. That page has detailed discussions about the reliability of sherdog.com if anyone's interested.Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."
  • Option 1 Addressing each repeatedly made incorrect point one at a time.
    • It's self-published No, it's not. It's published by Mandatory, part of Evolve Media, LLC. Self-published means "man with blog" or "man with website", not a publishing company with 150 editors and writers across more than 40 websites.
    • it has no true about page The about page is right there, and it lists the editorial team.
    • runners of the site don't share how they get their information and this clearly violates WP:V I can look at any newspaper right now and they won't say where they got their information from either, it doesn't make them unreliable. WP:V does not require a reference to have a footnote for every single piece of information.
  • Since there is no evidence to back up any of the other spurious claims made without evidence, I will simply dismiss them without evidence. FDW777 (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Not self published as per above. All the articles in the 'News' section are attributed to their authors. As for the fighter profiles not having citations for the information given or an "author sign" on the pages, that's just silly. BoxRec, ESPN, and Fox have been given as comparisons (besides UFC, which is a primary source, they are the only three out of the nine sources mentioned that have fighter profiles); just like Sherdog, none of them have citations for the information given in fighter profiles nor do they have an "author sign". Finding two or three fighter's profiles, out of thousands, whose heights are disputed and reported at different measurements by multiple sources is by no means a reason to deem a source unreliable. – 2.O.Boxing 09:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."
From this alone it's clear that it's self-published, thus it openly violates WP:BLPSPS and on top of that it violates WP:RS along with WP:V too, when we consider the other reasons in the first response.Lordpermaximum (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You've already been informed that what you're quoting is not policy or even a guideline. So the quote, which you've used three times already in this RfC, five times in the whole thread, and many more at the BLPN discussion (where far more experienced editors have disagreed with your interpretation of SPS as well as flat-out dismissing any BLP violation), doesn't hold much weight at all. You can copy and paste the same quote all you like, it won't make it any more relevant. Calm down with the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing. – 2.O.Boxing 12:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Please calm down and see Proof_by_assertion. The discussion you're referring to on the BLPN is still ongoing although you claim it's ended in one way. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I've struck my previous vote following more research. After trying my hardest to find some evidence for a reputation for fact checking, I couldn't find enough to personally satisfy my initial vote. There's multiple instances of reliable sources using Sherdog's fighter stats and match results, but there's also a few articles that discuss discrepancies in that area. And to my surprise I couldn't find a reliable source that discussed the site in detail. As for the news they report, I'd consider that generally reliable. There's a bob load of instances where reliable sources have accredited Sherdog with breaking an MMA news story that the reliable sources in question would cover a week or so later and Sherdog articles are repeatedly quoted in multiple reliable sources. – 2.O.Boxing 11:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not an SPS I have no opinion on the reliability of Sherdog since I haven't looked into that, and don't plan to. But I said above "if" since 2 editors had suggested it was an SPS. However now that I've seen more commentators and also read our article and looked into some other details, it seems clear to me Sherdog isn't an SPS. Some parts of it may be, e.g. obviously its forums but most of it doesn't seem to be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nil Einne, could you check Sherdog.com a bit and/or read some of the discussion that's going on here? I would really like everyone that participated in the discussions to choose an option no matter what it will be. I also added a very short background for why these discussions started in the first place. If you could read a bit more about it, do you think there's enough evidence in favour of sherdog.com to give it a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I and a few others claim there aren't. If there are not, thousands of pages are affected by it for the worse because of MMA editors' tendency to use it as the sole source. Thanks for participation anyways even if you don't want to choose an option. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Not an SPS per Nil Einne. No opinion as to it's general reliability, but even The Irish Times and other papers of record get their facts wrong sometimes. That said, Sherdog is not the sole definitive source for MMA stats, and other sites, equally reliable, can absolutely be used as sources, too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Bastun, I added a section about the background of these discussions and the RfC that highlights your concern. But it can be adressed indirecly here by this RfC so that we won't need another consensus for your and my concern about that, in the future. I think option 2 or 3 is close to your thinking so you can always choose option 2 or 3. I would really like you to choose an option, no matter what it will be if we are to reach consensus here. Thank you for your participation even if you don't choose an option anyways. Best wishes, Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Option 2 or 3. I would have questions over its sourcing and accuracty and all of those "staffers" listed on the 'Contact us' page certainly aren't full time, as linkein searches show. That said, nothing to stop it being used as a source. Just not exclusively. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: Not self-published, but I couldn't find significant evidence of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS). It may well be popular among MMA fans and have a small editorial team, but there needs to be significant independent evidence to make it generally reliable. It's probably usable but established high-quality sources (e.g. existing green WP:RSP sources) would be preferred. — MarkH21talk 15:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: It's the leading source for such data globally and there's no evidence whatsoever that it's not reliable. This RFC was started by an editor who thought it was self-published. It isn't.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: It has been made clear to me after stumbling into MMA pages during an edit war on Dan Henderson (see Talk:Dan Henderson for extended discussion about a similar height issue to McGregor above) that the MMA community places Sherdog above other sources but without any consensus or discussion as to it's reliability. This RFC is the perfect place to develop a consensus which can be used to justify it's inclusion going forward. I agree with MarkH21's thinking here above. It isn't self-published under our own guidelines but at the same time there isn't any evidence whatsoever that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS) which is what we need to deem it a generally reliable source. The page itself doesn't make this clear. Sherdog is not the sole definitive source for MMA stats, and other sites, equally reliable or green WP:RSP, should be used where available. (Note: I was invited/canvassed to participate in this discussion by User:Lordpermaximum with this edit but I was intending on bringing this site up here at some point) Woody (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the disclosure. I have issued a canvassing warning on Lordpermaximum's talk page.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It wasn't canvassing because Woody has participated in sherdog.com's reliability dicussions before. I suggest you to read this quote: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" It's from WP:CAN and that's placed under "Appropiate notification" section. If it was canvassing it wouldn't be your problem because Woody as an administrator would handle it before you or anyone else. I reverted your edit and I will report you for vandalism if you do that again in my talk page.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In the warning, I also included the links of who you selectively recruited to participate, not just Woody.[5][6][7] You should review WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:BATTLEGROUND again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is the place to discuss the reliability of sources when weighed against our policies and guidelines. Please take discussions of editors away from here. Let's try not to get side-tracked here. Woody (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)The wording was entirely neutral but the selection of individuals could be seen as trying to back up your point of view. Canvassing can be a pretty grey subject. I noted I was invited to this discussion to avoid any accusation of impropriety. @Lordpermaximum: next time I would give a neutral notification to key wikiprojects/editors that are closely related to the discussion eg WP:MMA (This has been done at WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog though the pinging of individual editors to this discussion is a bit borderline). If any doubt leave a notification at the beginning of this RFC to say who has been notified (similar to the many found at AFD). Woody (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Morbidthoughts, it's not true because I only tried to reach out to those who hadn't participated in this discussion at RSN. Others who were against my proposal in the beginning did participate here except just one editor who admittedly said she needed a week to reply to the ongoing discussions that started this RfC in the first place and she was very busy, just yesterday. Next time do your research properly.
  • Woody, please see above. He's just making an empty accusation and hiding the other side of the truth. Only 2 editors that participated in the previous discussion were'nt notified because one of them wanted us to give her some time, around a week. The other editor that I didn't notify was an administrator that involved in the discussions as neutral in the beginning and we were in the same side of consensus in the end. So if anything, I hurt my case by not inviting him/her.
Thanks to you I learned that they pinged every one of those editors that have been using sherdog.com as the sole source on anything MMA-related. He was blaming me for canvassing and then I learned this. It's funny though the one that pinged all those users is that one editor who said she needed time to respond to previous discussion in the talk page of Conor McGregor. It looks she simply tried to stall and deny consensus but she failed.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Per fellow editors comments. I believe Sherdog serves as a common ground for most of the information. Obviously they are not the ultimate guide to it. If we have other reliable sources, we should take that in account and use it as the most reliable option for that case. We use it as means to add fight results, but they're not always right. To me they are still a reliable source, but I never took them for the only option available. I believe such cases require discussion and people should be open to consider other sources as more accurate than Sherdog itself. That being said, Sherdog is definitely one of the most reliable sources in MMA media regarding database and news as well. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You probably didn't see my comment Gsfelipe94. Don't you agree me with me that your opinion sounds more like option 2? Choosing option 1 with those opinions sounds like a mistake.Lordpermaximum (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2: It is not a self published source, and it is written by sufficiently specialized people (I navigated here [8]) . The tone of the information is perfectly fine. Also, I don't think they need to disclose how they get information, as I have never seen this being required on any sort of newspaper. Overall, I think all three points of WP:SOURCEDEF are quite fine, with maybe the publisher being a little subpar. I'd say the website still qualifies under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Besides certain point have maked by other editors, I here add (1) Sherdog is largest independent MMA media site in the world and (2) Sherdog is the official content partner

of ESPN reported by Sprot Illustor. As ESPN is considered reliable - reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS), and they partner with Sherdog (use Sherdog's coentent) that would make Sherdog a reliable source. (3) Sherdog is not a self publishing firm for it is own by Evolve Media LCC, thus Sherdog is not a self publishing company. (4) There was also discussion in the past in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with the outcome that Sherdog is a reliable source - see here and this RFC would be the updated version. (5) overall, Sherdog do meet in term of content/tone/NPOV, WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:SOURCEDEF. (6) Site note: Sherdog is voted by MMA fighters the leading source of breaking news, fight reviews and in-depth features sites - see HERE. Cassiopeia(talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • There's no outcome that found Sherdog reliable before. The link to that RSN discussion shows it was almost a decade ago it was attended by a couple editors who were like "it looks kinda ok" and that was all about it. As for the ESPN deal, the link states it was made 13.5 years ago. It also says "As part of the agreement, ESPN will highlight exclusive, in-depth Sherdog content contextually within ESPN.com, including news, interviews, videos, event listings, and more. ESPN.com's new Mixed Martial Arts section index will also feature Sherdog's Fight Finder module, which allows users to search the largest fighter database online for stats and personal information. Sherdog's weekly online Radio show will be offered at ESPNRadio.com and for download via the ESPN PodCenter." None of those things that were mentioned in the quote are found on ESPN right now and they haven't been found on ESPN for years. ESPN (along with other reliable sources) and Sherdog have been contradicting each other for a long time and any time you can check for those discrepancies between them, now or then thanks to archive.org. So bearing all of this in mind, it's pretty clear that deal wasn't for a lifetime and it ended a long time ago. Probably years ago.Lordpermaximum (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that deal wasn't for a lifetime and it ended a long time ago. Probably years ago. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is not permitted. Do you have a source to say that it probably ended years ago? To add to what CASSIOPEIA said on fact checking; the UFC's The Ultimate Fighter series used Sherdog as a source for checking contestants records, as seen here. "You MUST have a minimum of 3 Professional MMA fights to be considered. All records will be verified on sherdog.com & mixedmartialarts.com. If we cannot verify your record on either of these sites you will NOT be eligible to tryout." The world's most prominent MMA promotion seems to think that Sherdog has a good reputation for fact checking. – 2.O.Boxing 13:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • An insignificant news article from 2.5 years ago which was about TUF entrance which is not considered an official UFC fight. As for other acussations, it doesn't even worth answering. As an administrator already pointed out "This discussion is the place to discuss the reliability of sources when weighed against our policies and guidelines. Please take discussions of editors away from here. Let's try not to get side-tracked here."Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Cassiopeia, for 1) above, do you have a source rather than an assertion? For 2), that article you've cited is from literally ten years ago, and that same article also states that UFC had pulled Sherdog's press credentials; and also that they hadn't had access to the UFC for most of the preceding five years! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Bastun First of all, I come and comment here in good will. UFC is a private company and not a sport organization like FIFA, as such they do what the want - we all remember well Ariel Helwani and his associates were pulled form UFC press credentials for being just doing their job as good journalists would and should do. The source is from Sport Illustrator and being pulled the credential has nothing to do with the source reliability and independent. I have placed my vote and for those who disagree, they can give evidence/comment/guidelines of why they think Sherdog is not reliable or independent. I am rather sad to see one inch height different of Conor McGregor in source would lead to so much uncomfortable and unpleasant discussions in so many articles and editors' talk pages. Do note content of the MMA articles come from many different sources and the infobox which is an optional is sourced by Sherdog. Those parameters in the infobox (such as style, stand, trainer, rank, university and etc) which could notvbe obtained from Sherdog fighter profile would need to sourced elsewhere if info is added. This is just a normal practice in other sport as well to use a sport specific database in the infobox / game /sportsperson record / results. Changing a fighter height for one more inche higher is not big deal, but it would effect thousands of thousands of MMA articles in Wikipedia would not only the height but the fight records, team, fight out of, nick name and etc. If it does not effect in such a big scale, I would not comments for I have invited to settle a numbers of edit warrings/content dispute and it was not pleasant just to read those comments from editors for some of them were not there to discuss/understand/collobrate/support each other/learn from each other but just fight, troll just because they wanted to win the arguments due to the fighters are from their countries/same ethnicity/just riding the hype train and lack of Wikipedia guidelines and communicated as if they are in twitter /utube. Stay safe Bastun and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I just asked for a citation for 1) above; I didn't and don't doubt your good faith. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
2.0 boxing's comment clearly refers to the reliability of the source and none of it relates to you or any other editor. They're right, only WP:OR is behind your argument re ESPN.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly what NEDOCHAN said. I'm addressing your argument, which is original research, which is policy. But anyway, all fights within The Ultimate Fighter series are officially sanctioned bouts, promoted by the UFC. So the requirement that a fighter's record is confirmed by Sherdog relates to an official UFC bout. Which gives credibility to Sherdog's reputation for fact checking. – 2.O.Boxing 13:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: I believe Sherdog is somewhat reliable in the sense that it is up to date with match statistics and fighter's records. However I believe the info such as height and weight of fighters is not always the most accurate. Comparing Sherdog to ESPN's website you will find that ESPN lists the height and weight measurements of most current fighters in the major promotions such as UFC and Bellator just like Sherdog does. And it updates these measurements after every weigh in. Sherdog on the other hand does not update these measurements therefore you have outdated information such as some fighters being listed at different weight classes than which they currently fight in. So in my opinion a compromise would be to use ESPN stats for height and weight of any fighters whose information is available there, and match records and stats for fighters unavailable on ESPN's website still be cited from Sherdog. Hunterb212 (talk) 7:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 I lean towards option 1 because I generally use sherdog for fight information and results because they get that basic information correct. It appears there may be less reliability in their height and weight statistics. It certainly isn't self-published and the fact that McGregor's height varies depending on the source is not that unusual. Many athletes in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL have official heights and weights that are generally believed to be incorrect. My doctor's office measured my height differently in successive visits in the past year, but it doesn't make them unreliable (though it might say something about my posture sometimes). Note that option 1 says "generally reliable" not "always correct". Even the best media sources make errors. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I hadn't planned to comment here, but I'm rather alarmed at the idea that we would accept Sherdog's figures regardless of what other sources say. I don't have a problem with using it as a handy go-to source for information that would be hard to get elsewhere, and even with a general agreement that it is more reliable than (insert name of alternative MMA database here), but when multiple RS like the Guardian and CBS all say one thing, and Sherdog is the only source saying something else, we surely have to go with the other sources - we can't have a situation where the content at a bunch of BLPs can only come from one source, regardless of what others say - no source is that reliable. GirthSummit (blether) 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I've come across this issue once or twice before - this modestly-staffed entity (it looks like a small core staff and a range of enthusiastic part-timers, nothing wrong with that) does keep a massive database, mostly, as I understand, robust but it seems updating is not always done - and then the odd stat (like the height of Conor McGregor) is just perhaps off (weights change per fight, styles and finishes shift, but not height). I see no problem in using it, but it cannot be some "unique source" for MMA BLPs - however, especially for less-known fighters, it may be their only solid listing. NO clear evidence of major problems has been given, ertainly not against the 10s of thousands of data points it supplies - and it seems the MMA area is a bit "hot" in terms of debate, a pity, and something which I see has made a straightforward discussion hard. So I believe it can be considered Generally Reliable, but capable of being over-ruled by other RS - and as a side benefit, I believe this process also reminds that while a WikiProject may make recommendations, no project can declare that some source is "the only source" for something, nor does a Project "own" the content in its area of interest (which may cross multiple other projects anyway); none of this takes away from recognition of the hard and often rather thankless - but critical - work done by WP MMA or any other project or contributor. SeoR (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to say I think this is a superb response from SeoR.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments

Really? You've started discussions at two different noticeboards (which are still active), both of which are currently showing consensus against your opinion that the source is unreliable and somehow a serious BLP violation, and now you open an RfC? This is getting a bit daft now. This all stems from you saying sherdog is basically shit because you found a video source that says Conor McGregor is 5'11, contradicting sherdog. Shall we also start an RfC to attempt to get CBS Sports and The Independent deprecated as well? They also disagreed with your video source after all. – 2.O.Boxing 23:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are two different topics on two noticeboards. One is about the reliability of sherdog.com, the other you mentioned is about the BLP policy violation on one particular article. They have loose connection. One of them stems from sherdog.com being the sole source on thousands of BLPs with its very questionable, unreliable data which violates WP:RS, WP:V and the other stems from one particular website's self-publishing identity which violates WP:BLPSPS on a BLP article... If you want to response on the reliability of Sherdog.com, please do. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this is madness. Lordpermaximum is now going through and editing their old comments retrospectively and therefore riding roughshod over the discussion and replies. This cannot be permitted. Admin attention is required and I think ANI might be necessary.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I edited my vote comment without changing my vote to make it more precise after getting new information from everyone involved, and made multiple consequent edits to fix grammar mistakes and typos because admittedly I'm not a native English speaker. Because of that I often try to fix my comments later because I generally realize those mistakes later. I don't even get what are you acussing me with here? But I'm not surprised since you're doing that all the time because I don't agree with your opinion.Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What's your first language out of interest? I am an EFL teacher so am curious.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to ask another editor about their first language, and they are, of course, under no obligation to answer. In any case, there are several editors participating here who do not appear to have English as a first language - and that's fine! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I edited my vote comment without changing my vote to make it more precise after getting new information from everyone involved...which is something that definitely should not be done. Other editors will read the comments and votes in the RfC. There's no need to refactor your comment to include other people's points, especially when you haven't looked into those points yourself. There's also the bludgeoning issue which is rather tedious. You don't need to reply to every comment you disagree with to repeat your points over and over and over again. – 2.O.Boxing 13:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Lordpermaximum reads WP:STICK and does something more productive instead of the constant arguing here, since there is absolutely zero support for their claim is self-published. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You should tell that to your friend Squared.Circle.Boxing who had extremely disruptive behavior under this RfC and tried to damage it as best as he could.Perm 04:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It was too long.Perm 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ link
  2. ^ link
  3. ^ 5 ft 8 according to Sherdog[1], 5 ft 9 according to his trainer John Kavanaugh[2], ...
  4. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/company/evolve-media-llc/
  5. ^ https://www.sherdog.com/contact

New Musical Express / NME / www.nme.com

Does New Musical Express (NME) [ https://www.nme.com/ ] meet the requirements of WP:BLPRS?

Claimed to be a reliable source for BLP information at Talk:Cavetown (musician)‎#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity.

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer

Article at NME. -Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable This a decent source for music related news. GPinkerton (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Context matters, this is the “contentious” content in dispute:

    When NME asked about his talking “openly about things like sexuality or mental health” he replied, “You’re allowed to just have a mental illness or be a certain identity, there doesn’t have to be anything further than that. You can just be.”

    • "Cavetown: Bedroom-pop hero building worldwide community". New Musical Express. 2020-07-10. Retrieved 2020-11-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • I’d say it’s quite reliable for these direct quotes, what was asked/answered. Gleeanon 04:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • NME is pretty solid, but this looks more like an UNDUE issue than a RS one. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    (Also for @Newslinger:.) That’s a fair assumption, however after reading every reliable source available from the last twelve months Cavetown has a very active conduit with his fans via YouTube, he has a solid reputation for being transparent and very emotional. He writes songs about his anxieties and issues, and his younger fans flock to his concerts. A good article, and this one is already a good size at least, would certainly have this or something very similar. Gleeanon 09:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the due weight of the excerpt above, other than that it needs to be evaluated separately from its reliability. My comment is only to confirm that NME, including its interviews, qualifies under WP:BLPRS. — Newslinger talk 09:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. That was indeed the question I wanted answered. The WP:WEIGHT argument is being discussed in the RfC and does not concern this noticeboard. All I wanted to know was whether New Musical Express (NME) [ https://www.nme.com/ ] meets the requirements of WP:BLPRS in the context I mentioned. That question has been answered. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • NME is a well-respected British music publication, and is generally reliable, including for biographies of living persons. I don't see any reason to distrust the accuracy of this NME interview. Due weight is another question. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • NME is not perfect, but it's an RS in its area, and doesn't have a history of undue gossip content about BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable within its area of expertise, keep in mind that as always if a claim about a BLP can only be found in a single source then its best to err on the side of not including it regardless of the quality of the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What Guy said. Reliability is not in dispute, due weight is. feminist (talk) | Americans, unite 03:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I found it Generally Reliable in its area but just like David Gerard said, it's not perfect.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ABC News and FiveThirtyEight

When looking around the perennial sources list, I noticed two of my personal go-to sources for American news are missing, those being ABC News and FiveThirtyEight. I can't find a lot about them in the noticeboard archives either. Is that simply because nobody has disputed their reliability and that they can be considered generally reliable, or is there more to it? ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No one has disputed them, and you probably know this but for future readers, generally reliable does not mean always reliable, nor reliable for every conceivable purpose (see eg,, context matters, and general newsorg) -- and some content on 538 is written fast reaction blog style and so probably should be a bit wary on that in the way it is handled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Well put. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with this as well. Spudlace (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Both are generally reliable. 538 does a lot of analyses. Those should generally be attributed as "According to a 538 analysis..." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Both are generally reliable. Agree with Alanscottwalker's qualification about FiveThirtyEight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ABC News should be treated as reliable like the other major network news desks. 538 should be treated as something like an expert opinion site. That is, a 538 report by itself doesn't establish weight for inclusion in an article but if a RS discusses the findings of a 538 article/report then we should generally consider it worthy of attributed inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
ABC News is somewhat generally reliable. FiveThirthEight needs additional considerations because there are many articles that contain POV analyses.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Magnus Dominus: Are you asserting that FiveThirtyEight articles contain a point of view or that Wikipedia articles that cite FiveThirtyEight articles include a point of view? ElKevbo (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The former. Even some statistical analyses have a little bit of skewed view on any given subject depending on editor.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The point of view of a publication typically has little if any relationship to its reliability. WP:NPOV applies to Wikipedia articles, not to cited sources. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

islamansiklopedisi.org.tr

not being in English is not a valid objection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say non-English = unreliable. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
"That website is non-English". I am saying this is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You said it is not verifiable, it is because the website doesn't have a google translate button weirdly, but you can easily verify by using google translate. The website is well written and is backed with sources below. And as I pointed out, the article doesn't say its own opinion about Khalajs being Turkic origin, but pointing 4 other scholars, what they think, they only say that it is a Turkic tribe. Beshogur (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable per WP:SPS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment:@Wario-Man:, @HistoryofIran:, that's what you think. Islam ansiklopedisi has several internationally known scholars, among these Semavi Eyice with 440 articles, Halil Inalcik with 39 articles, Erhan Afyoncu with 26 articles, Ilber Ortayli with 8 articles. You can not claim this encyclopedia is unreliable, just because it is in Turkish, you can easily verify it with using translate. Beshogur (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please read the rule I posted instead of vaguely saying 'that's what you think', which is far from helpful. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
How are they an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." No relevant sources, whether it by Bosworth, Minorsky, Frye, (i really dont want to compile a full list here, u get the point) does not cite islamansiklopedisi in their work. Major sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Islamica does not cite them either. Literally none of these relevant sources do. In my almost 8 years of editing Middle Eastern/Caucasus/Central Asian topics I've not stumbled upon this website one single time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I asked how are they an SPS, not if it is allowed as an SPS. You have failed to answer that with the above. SPS does not mean "does not cite experts", an SPS has no editorial oversight. Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published. So how does this fail that?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Well then. Regardless, my point still stands. Nothing that points out that is actually reliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Based upon it being an SPS, which it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't make it reliable. An SPS or not, surely it would have been cited by others if it was indeed reliable? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you read everything ever written on the subjects they cover?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This isn't really going anywhere.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You can see here, dozens of books citing IA. Beshogur (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you stop putting words in the mouth of other editors?! What did I think?! I can't verify that source because it's not in English. Wanted to see if that non-English content passes as WP:RS or not. Being English or non-English is not the main reason but the website, its content, and authors are. That's the reason why I posted the issue here. That's the reason why this very specific noticeboard exists. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man:, I checked that article, it only points that it is a Turkic tribe:
As I said, the article mentions only "Turkic tribe", not their own opinion about "Turkic origin". If it's about verifiability, you can easily verify it with using google translate. Beshogur (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I've seen people do that in Facebook groups too, doesn't make them reliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you elaborate exactly what isn't reliable on that website? Wario-Man says "I didn't say non-English = unreliable", so what is the problem? İslâm Ansiklopedisi is a book of 44 volumes written by well known scholars. Beshogur (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to read my first comment up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

So its not an SPS, its language is irrelevant, so what other objections are there?Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

SEMAVİ EYİCE associate professor (1955) professor (1964) director of the Chair of Byzantine Art History (1963-1990). He gave lectures as visiting professor at Hacettepe (1972-74), Bochum (1974), Sorbonne, Genève (1976) universities and Collége de France (1976). He counts as an accademic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Halil İnalcık counts as an academic. as does Erhan Afyoncu.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wario-Man, this is not a SPS, nor an unreliable source. It's a 40 volume book, just is its online version, backed by known academics. Also Please read my edit above, what the source actually says about the origins of Khalajs. Beshogur (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this your first time posting on this noticeboard? Because it seems you don't get my points. Let me clarify it: A source may be reliable in some topics but may not be considered reliable/expert in the other topics. I want to see can we use that specific link as a source on an article about an ethnic group. And are all of islamansiklopedisi.org.tr content and articles reliable or not? Or does it depend on the topic, authors and some other factors? I have already read all comments here. I wait for other editor's opinion because I need this discussion for the future. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This can be applied to other sources as well. For now I didn't found anything controversial on TDV IA entries. As I said, that user's interpretation is wrong, read my comment above again please. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In the case of using islamansiklopedisi.org.tr, WP:VER is of major concern. First who is the author(which was not included in the reference), a quote in English to prove this supports what it is citing(also not included in the reference). These would be my concerns.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear:, actually, when you ask a citation from the website, you get something kind of this "ENVER KONUKÇU, "HALAÇ", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/halac (12.11.2020).", it's not about the website but that user's mistake. And as I explained, the exclusion of a google translate button makes it that it isn't verifiable, but you could easily use google translate to verify. Below the articles, there are primary or secondary citations. Beshogur (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, asking for a quote for the relevant information is simply part of WP:VER and should be provided by the editor that has placed the reference, since this is English Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree on that users edit was not constructive at all, but this IA isn't a SPS. Beshogur (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

SiliconAngle

In the context of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaux_Avedisian, I was asked to start a discussion of SiliconAngle.com here. I think it is a bad source. It is widely used across Wikipedia, but they are always propping up emerging technology, and they even admit it in their tagline ("emerging"). They are not critical at all, and there are even obviously sponsored articles with IBM hashtags in the title. Somehow I can't find articles about other companies with hashtags in the title? --Ysangkok (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  • lol, it's got a top-of-the-front-page "blockchain" section :-D Somewhere between "questionable" and "generally unreliable" IMO, and definitely not something we could use to base notability on. That said, tech press is often pretty bad, SA is just further down the tech press trash barrel - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Counter-Currents.com for music

Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored this source to Follow God and Water (Kanye West song)

For Water, the source supports that "The outro of the song features ad-libbing." For Follow God it is one of several redundant sources which mention that the song uses a trap beat.

Counter-Currents Publishing redirects to Greg Johnson (white nationalist). This website is a blog published by Johnson which mainly pushes pseudo-intellectual theories about race, white genocide, an ahistorical view of "Western Civilization", and that sort of thing. There is no indication I have found that this blog is more reliable for music specifically than it is for anything else. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to offer my point of view. This is that the source in question is not one to be considered unreliable for music claims because any bias it has due to Johnson's views on certain subjects is entirely unrelated to music, plus it is not a violation of WP:SELFPUB. It will be interesting to hear what other people have to say though. --K. Peake 20:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB falls under the "Sources that are usually not reliable" subheading. As that page says, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. So is this white nationalist's blog post really the best source for this across multiple articles? Neither use of this particular source was attributed or contextualized. Who is Scott Weisswald? How would readers know why his opinion would be significant? Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not every single writer for a website needs to have detailed information about them to have their articles classified as suitable to be cited; there are multiple authors for reliable sources like NME, The Guardian and Rolling Stone that have no articles and lack detailed info but are viewed as fine for citing. --K. Peake 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
What? Are you saying that Counter-Currents Publishing is as reliable for music journalism as Rolling Stone, NME, or The Guardian? I hope that's not what your saying. If neither the author nor the outlet are reliable, then the source is not reliable. Nothing about this website shows a reputation for accuracy or fact checking. That, alone, is enough to remove it. Even setting that aside for some strange reason, the problems with citing a white nationalist blog for info about a Black musician's religiously-themed work should be screamingly obvious. It is not wise to assume anything on this website is competent or truthful. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Polling results from gamaan.org

Google Maps

Google Maps, Google www.google.com/maps

List of road routes in the Northern Territory

Hi

DIPL hasn't released a single map with alphanumerics on it. So the only way to know is through OzRoads or Expressway. OzRoads is no longer updated and Expressway is only updated when someone has a photo of it that's non copyrighted.

So this leaves us with Google Maps as the only choice to update things.

Thanks, Thent1234

Thenorthernterritory1234 (✉) 10:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "update things"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This request is somewhat disingenuous, Thent1234 has been adding information to List of road routes in the Northern Territory using Google Maps as a reference. This has been called into question as other editors do not consider Google Maps to be a Reliable source. The question of whether or not there exist some other sources has no bearing on whether Google Maps is an RS. It is conceivable that there is NO RS for the information that Thent1234 wishes to add to the article, Google Maps does not gain RS status by default. - Nick Thorne talk 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC).

NT does something called "progressive replacement" for their alphanumeric system (i.e. alphanumeric markers are put when signs are replaced) there are no other sources so this is the only way to do it.

Thent1234 (✉) 02:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article; WP:V is a core policy. ElKevbo (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities and sources

This list still needs a big cleanup and is very difficult to maintain. A lot of the problems are because people ignore the criteria, ie continuously inhabited city, and either add towns , ignore habitation breaks, or just date a city to the first Neolithic habitation, not understanding that the dates stated need to be when the village/town whatever became a city. This is often difficult to establish, but it's either established or the list is just a list of continuously inhabited geographical areas. Recently an IP has been trying to add[9] Sayram as 2nd century BC with this source[10], Kashgar with [1], and Derbent with [2].

They date Sayram to 2000 BC with the comment "The city of Sayram was believed to have been mentioned in the Avesta, with Sairima possibly meaning Sayram. Evidence of an early plumbing system has been found around Sayram and Transoxiana." But this is all discussed at Sayram (city)#Earliest history and is an untenable date.

Kashgar at 2nd c BC perhaps, but not on the basis of the image of a 1617 source. Its article says, without a citation, that the Book of Han "which covers the period between 125 BCE and 23 CE, it is recorded that there were 1,510 households, 18,647 people and 2,000 persons able to bear arms." So maybe with a proper citation.

As for Derbent, its article uses what despite the url is a Russia Today source saying "RT travels to the country’s southernmost and oldest city." The article also says "the first intensive settlement in the Derbent area dates from the 8th century BC" - not city, although I can't see a source. The listing uses "Šahrestānīhā Ī Ērānšahr: A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History." as a source, but the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr was written a thousand years later, thus not really a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

List criteria that rely on literal interpretations of a word ("city") are pointless and irritating because who cares if it's a large town vs. city - suggest change to "population centers". The word "continuously" is another irritation, if there was a war and people fled the city for 6 months back in 2000 BC, does that disqualify it? It raises questions as to what this list is really trying to achieve ie. a trivia game on who can treasure hunt for items that fit a literal set of criteria. And what use is that. How do we say "List of the oldest population centers that have been inhabited nearly continuously". This could be the first sentence, clarifying the title which is merely a placeholder and not the list criteria. -- GreenC 02:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=iLsWAAAAQAAJ
  2. ^ Daryaee, Touraj (2002). Šahrestānīhā Ī Ērānšahr: A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History. Costa Mesa, California 92628 U.S.A.: Mazda Publishers, Inc. pp. 14, 18. ISBN 1-56859-143-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Added to watchlist. I immediately noticed the early date claimed for Genoa, on the basis of a short paragraph on a museum website, which just says that an excavation found Neolithic remains (hearths, food remains and tools). It's the same problem with most cities, that a small settlement eventually grew into something recognisable as a city. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC at China–United States trade war

There is a RFC about the background section of the China-United States trade war article that may be of interest. Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 5#RfC on the background section Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN

I wished to discuss on the reliability of ESPN with my fellow editors. I believe that it is generally reliable for sports content. Please comment.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admit I haven't given their reliability much thought in the past as I don't frequent sports articles, but I have never seen anything to indicate they wouldn't be reliable.. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for not making myself clear. But, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and you can't find ESPN or any other sports websites, while Entertainment Weekly is on the list. It's the fact that sports is considered more important, when compared to the entertainment sector. Soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo has the most followers in Instagram, and most likes in Facebook. This shows the impact of sports in the world. But there is not even 1 source related to source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So I thought that it should begin with the prestigious ESPN--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing to say that are not reliable for sports news. Nor am I aware this has ever been questioned. As such I am ot sure we need to include them in RSP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven when Entertainment Weekly is present there, then why isn't ESPN--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, I was not asked about putting it there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe because it has been regularlyy raised here [[11]]?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, thank you so much for joining the discussion. I would like to state that Entertainment Weekly is not the only source, I would like to mention. Gamasutra is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for video games, Playboy for entertainment and lifestyle and The Hollywood Reporter is also there for entertainment. Websites like IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are also there. Then why can't ESPN be there.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven please continue in the discussion. I also request other editors to join in this discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not a right or a privilege, its a necessity, so we can go whenever its raised "look at RSP"). I see no need for it to be there, its not being challenged. That really is all I have to say on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Atlantis77177 I think you are confused about what RSP is for. RSP is not for commonly used sources, it's for controversial and commonly discussed sources. So Oxford University Press for instance is widely cited but not in RSP because almost no one doubts it's generally a RS for the topics it covers. Since there's little controversy that ESPN is generally reliable for sports news, it may not need to be in RSP. (t · c) buidhe 15:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As others have suggested, this isn't a matter of "Why isn't ESPN on this list?" so much as "Why does it need to be on the list?" I can see why Playboy is listed, for instance, from challenges from the puritanical "OMG bare boobies so it can't be RS!!!" brigade. But who is challenging ESPN? Anyone? Anywhere? This sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Ravenswing 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@buidhe @Ravenswing @Slatersteven I apologize for my error and thank you for correcting my mistake. But, Couldn't ESPN added as generally reliable to let all editors be sure that it is reliable.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I thank @Ravenswing for his response, but I request other editors to present their views. Could I add ESPN as 'Generally Reliable' in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to assure that all editors are able to assert its reliability by viewing the page.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If the decision was mine to make I would say "no". RSP is for commonly discussed and often challenged sources. ESPN is neither. In fact, I don't see anyone challenging it being reliable for sports news. You can easily link to a discussion in the RSNB archives if you need a link to establish reliability. No need for an RSP entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Train Collectors Association website?

In Carlisle & Finch, I've used http://www.tcawestern.org/ to support several historical statements about defunct companies. Would this be considered a RS? It seems like it meets the requirements of an expert source under WP:RSSELF, but I'm not sure. This is headed towards WP:GAN; if the sources are dubious, I'd rather be shot down here than at GAN. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an SPS (A club page) so I doubt it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
So, this one requires a little bit of inside knowledge about the model train world, but my vote would be generally reliable for non-BLP type information. That web site looks like condensed 1997, but the organization is most definitely a group of experts with regard to toy trains. All that said, I am of course but one insignificant voice among many. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say they are very reliable for information on trains and toy trains. They run the Toy Train Museum and Library in Strasburg PA.[12] IMO that makes them an expert source. Also see[13]. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not how we define it. We need reputable sources to acknowledge them as experts on this matter. Also, toy train knowledge doesn't infer authoritative source of information on real deal. Would you take advise on automotive concerns on experts of matchbox cars? Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. (Full disclosure: I worked at Mattel as a project engineer and know many of the said experts on matchbox cars personally). Mattel hires world-class experts on automobiles to design Matchbox and Hot Wheels. That's one of the ways they manage to pull in over a billion dollars a year in revenue. They also hire world-class experts on fashion to design Barbie's clothes. You don't see these experts used as references because Mattel pays them top dollar to not publish the results of their research, but they are indeed experts, and if they did publish they would get it right.
Unlike the case of Mattel, where they pretty much know everything about the vehicles that become matchbox cars but then have to compromise to meet cost, durability and safety (no small parts that can come loose, for example) requirements, toy train collectors make authenticity a much higher priority, and the people who make the toy cars and engines really are experts. And their museum is a big deal in the toy industry. See National Toy Train Museum and Toy Train Reference Library --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.

Such as Socialism, Federalism, Anarcho-capitalism, Libertarian socialism, Anti-capitalism.

Source: These are all the same thing as far as I know. Is An Anarchist FAQ explains what this book is.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171006003544/http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQIntro
https://www.worldcat.org/title/anarchist-faq/oclc/182529204 by AK Press

Is this a reliable source that should be used? Graywalls (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement of opinion about a philosophy, so it's not more or less reliable than other opinons. In the articles I looked it it was appropriately attributed. Spudlace (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a dearth of good sources on anarchism, and the Anarchist FAQ is pretty highly regarded. It has a wikipedia page: An Anarchist FAQ, which has a section showing how it is seen as reliable by anarchists. The frequently cited version here is now offline, but it is available here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-08-17 BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It's fine for "about self" purposes but if there is a disagreement on some issue then this source needs to be weighted against the quality of other sources. In general if there's a high quality source that disagrees with An Anarchist FAQ, the other source takes precedence. Volunteer Marek 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?

Deprecation discussions are generally touchy subjects. Wikipedia allows a wide variety of sources, and it has been noted at times that a source may be reliable for some purpose, and questionable for another.

In this discussion, opinions are grouped as follows:

Seven editors have opined that the source is generally reliable, these being User:Betty Logan, User:Wee Curry Monster, User:The C of E, User:Guest2625, User:Andrew Davidson, User:FOARP, and User:Magnus Dominus.
Two additional editors have opined that the source may be generally reliable, or that additional considerations apply, these being User:Cambial Yellowing and User:Ortolan57, the latter being conditioned on citation to the print edition.
Five additional editors have opined that the matter is unclear or additional considerations apply, these being User:Markbassett, User:GreenC, User:Mysteriumen, User:Mike Peel, and User:Epiphyllumlover.
One additional editor, User:Peter Gulutzan, has opined that this is a bad RfC, which I read as opposing deprecation.
Two editors have opined that the source is generally unreliable, these being User:El komodos drago and User:Lordpermaximum.
Four additional editors have opined that the source is generally unreliable, and/or should be deprecated. These are User:Bobfrombrockley, User:Vici Vidi, User:Nightfury, and User:Elmidae, with the latter two seeming to lean towards deprecation.
Lastly, twenty-three editors have opined that the source should be deprecated, these being User:Hemiauchenia, User:Iesbian, User:David Gerard, User:ReconditeRodent, User:Slatersteven, User:Headbomb, User:Dave souza, User:Guy Macon, User:Stifle, User:Devonian Wombat, User:buidhe, User:Guerillero, User:Boynamedsue, user:JzG, User:Autarch, User:Aquillion, User:ItsPugle, User:Downfall Vision, User:Kurtis, User:Albertaont, User:Toa Nidhiki05, User:Calton, User:Valjean, and two additional editors, User:Bilorv and User:Newslinger, have stated that the source should be treated the same as the Daily Mail, which is noted to have been deprecated.

There is therefore a substantial consensus that the source under consideration is at least generally unreliable, with more than two-thirds of participants joining in the opinion that the source can or should be deprecated.

Numerical dominance is not by itself enough to effect such an outcome. There must also be a reasonable basis for the outcome in policy and fact. Here, those supporting deprecation generally point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source. It has also been noted that any point of fact cited to the source should be citable to another source have less questionable factual reliability. Proponents of the reliability of the source point to it having editorial process is separate from it's deprecated sibling, note that the items characterized as fabrications can be explained as errors, and dispute whether the proclivity for errors is particularly different from that of other sources that are generally considered reliable. There has been no discussion of any substance to the effect that the source may be generally reliable for reporting in some areas, and unreliable for reporting in others, or that the work of specific reporters may be reliable than that of others.

Given the substantial participation, and the permissible basis for supporting deprecation, there is a clear and substantial consensus that the source is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. To the extent that the source is in use in articles for the support of assertions, editors should make reasonable efforts to find an alternate source for that assertion when removing this source. BD2412 T 01:53, 16 November 2020 (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.

The applicability of the Daily Mail ban to the Mail on Sunday has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly):

  1. The Daily Mail (including its website) was proscribed in 2017 in an RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. There was no mention of Mail on Sunday being subject to this ban.
  2. This ban was reaffirmed the following year: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail. Again, there is no mention of the Mail on Sunday.
  3. The examples brought forward that led to the ban came from The Daily Mail or Mailonline, not the Mail on Sunday from what I can see.
  4. Mail on Sunday is not just a sunday edition of The Daily Mail, it is editorially independent i.e. different editors, different writers. Occasionally they even adopt opposing positions (such as on Brexit). They are different newspapers but with a common ownership.
  5. Mailonline publishes content from The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and its own stuff.

The question of the Mail on Sunday has been raised on several occasions:

  1. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP:Dailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday the prevailing opinion (summarised by Andy Dingley) is that the ban does not cover the Mail on Sunday namely because it is not stated to apply.
  2. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Daily_Mail_(sigh,_yes,_again) Newslinger also notes that Mail on Sunday is unaffected by the ban.
  3. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday? we have a discussion that explicitly tackles this question, but does not explicitly answer it. Mazca observes that the two publications are editorially independent. He also comments that there is an argument that MoS shares many of the same reliability issues as its sister publication, and that the ban that applies to the online platform acts as a "de facto barrier" to MoS.
  4. We now have a situation with David Gerard purging Mail on Sunday references from Wikipedia: see [14], [15], [16] just for a few examples. There are dozens more.

I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the Mail on Sunday shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is argument. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite Mailonline then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the Daily Mail ban explicitly applies to the Mail on Sunday or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard.

I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: @Yunshui, Primefac, Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, Vanamonde93, and Ymblanter:.

I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the Mail on Sunday or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the Mail on Sunday?? If the ban is to encompass the Mail on Sunday then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As the asker of the clarification request, I understood the result of the discussion as: “MOS is not included in the DM RfCs, but may suffer from the same issues. A new RfC will be required to come to a determination on its status.” Obvious question is: what until then? If it’s got the same reliability issues, we wouldn’t want it being used on wiki, and I doubt there’s much community energy for an RfC on this niche case. I think it’s thus appropriate to treat it with questionable reliability, but not as explicitly deprecated. But I don’t care enough either way. Someone like Newslinger may be better placed to answer the procedural issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your concerns. I have seen David Gerard's newest approach to the Daily Mail topic. He has now proceeded to strip anything published by the DMG Media company in the past two week. He his now removing the Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, and Irish Mail on Sunday. The reliable source noticeboard needs to deal with this topic, since numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process. Since, the reliable source noticeboard is what is providing the cover for these actions, the board needs to be very precise about the decisions it is taking. And as far as the Mail on Sunday, no it is not included under the Daily Mail deprecation. Many of us editors who create the content obviously have access to outside newspaper databases and do not need to use the website www.dailymail.co.uk --Guest2625 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This seems like an overly procedural argument. If they have the same reliability, why the need for endless debates on it? According to WP:RS, part of the core content policy, unreliable sources should not be used (with narrow exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here). (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Also note that there is no assumption that a source is reliable, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to restore disputed content is to show that the source is reliable. So I ask, what is the evidence that Mail on Sunday, Irish Daily Mail, etc. are reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have we not just had this very discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source is what the last discussion said, and your laughable content (which is probably 99% good) flies in the face of reality.

numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing dailymail.co.uk is indeed a barrier to citing the Mail on Sunday. But it is a technical barrier. In the same way if Wikipedia were only to insist on hardcopy citations. It is misguided to suggest that the MoS is not reliable purely because some of its content is reproduced at MailOnline. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to suggest that it is not reliable because it is plagued by the same problems as Daily Mail. In fairness I am putting a simple question to the administrators who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: does the consensus also apply to the Mail on Sunday? Some of you may consider this overly procedural. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't be asking if an editor were not deleting vast amounts of content on entirely procedural grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If anybody in that discussion had made that "barrier" argument, it would have been countered, just as Betty Logan has done, by saying there is a print edition. But nobody did make that argument, or anything remotely similar to it, so "barrier" is not a reflection of consensus, it is merely the closer's opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the MoS is a reliable source for anything? Reassuringly, the Sunday Mail doesn't seem to be subject to the restrictions, but as it's a tabloid I wouldn't tend to think of it as a RS. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated.

I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back after without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting WP:BURDEN, and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about WP:DAILYMAIL rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people.

I would suggest that even if the MoS is not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is WP:POINTy behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My primary concern is your interpretation of the RFC consensus. I have raised this same issue with you prior to this latest incident: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_299#dailymail.co.uk_reversion:_eyes_wanted. Your contribution history shows you were engaged in a purge of the Mail on Sunday and justifying it using the Daily Mail RFC. I don't see any attempts to locate an alternative source or raise the issue on the talk page. Removing content in this manner is destructive. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If you ever think unreliable tabloids are a suitable source for material about living people, you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing, and what constitutes "destructive". You appear both unable and unwilling to back up the content you want to edit-war back in, under WP:BURDEN - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You keep calling it "unreliable" but I have not seen any evidence for that position. During the Daily Mail RFC examples were presented of The Daily Mail or its website fabricating stories. Are you able to provide such examples of the MoS doing so? THis IPSI report (page 18) shows that in terms of upheld complaints it is comparable to other other publications in its category. The Sunday Times had more complaints upheld than MoS but I don't see you objecting to that title. It is fairly obvious to me that your actions are motiviated by an agenda against The Daily Mail rather than any objective assessment of MoS's reliability. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a closer rather than someone who had an a priori opinion on the source; no, the DM RfCs do not extend to the Mail on Sunday, and citing the DM proscription as a reason to remove the Mail on Sunday source isn't appropriate. Conversely, just because it isn't proscribed by the DM RfC does not make the Mail on Sunday a reliable source by default, and the spirit of WP:BURDEN still applies to any content that it is used for, in that the person seeking to include that content needs to demonstrate verifiability. To be honest, for contentious material sourced to the news media, I would want multiple corroborating sources always, unless the first source is of unimpeachable quality. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    I've already spoken (and answered) this exact question, but to (again) reiterate, I'm with Vanamonde on this: the RFC related to the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail only. The fact that they share a website is problematic, but if a reference is for the Mail on Sunday then it is inherently not a reference for the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Agree with Vanamonde and Primefac above - The Mail on Sunday was not covered in the RFCs, and it can be argued seriously (and probably correctly) that it is a fundamentally different source. Therefore the DM RFC does not cover the Mail on Sunday. If you think that the Mail on Sunday is a bad source that should be deprecated or otherwise restricted, you are free to open a fresh RFC to find consensus on that. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    I still stand by my comment at User talk:Primefac/Archive 29#The Daily Mail RfC, Again, i.e no unless MoS is part of DM the RfC on the latter does not apply. That's a separate question than whether it's a good idea to use MoS as a reference for something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    I also agree with Primefac, Vanamonde and Jo-Jo, and will add that this bulk rating of entire sources without any context to use editorial judgement needs to stop. News sources are not medical journals, or academic sources - they are instantaneous news on the internet with clickbait headlines, and they are all vying for the same ad $$$ using clickbait. Judging entire sources without specifics or context directly conflicts with NPOV, V and RS. Atsme 💬 📧 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Mail on Sunday

What is the reliability of The Mail on Sunday?

  • 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

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Mail on Sunday)

Even for news stories, there's no separate subdomain for MoS stories and the bylines say "for Mailonline", the only way you'd be able to definitively know whether it was a MoS story would be by checking the actual physical newspaper, which wikipedians aren't going to be citing anyway. The TV&Showbiz section which editors find to be the most problematic is displayed right with the news on the MoS section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The MoS has its own separate domain, https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/, but it's only been cited 11 times per mailonsunday.co.uk HTTPS links HTTP links, and provides no separation from the TV&Showbiz section https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html, which appears to be the same as the rest of the mailonline, and the website functions as more of a mirror than anything else. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
As I write this on a weekday, The content of mailonsunday.co.uk is identical to that of dailymail.co.uk, making it for all intents and purposes a mirror of MailOnline, and so therefore mailonsunday.co.uk should be added to the deprecated domains list regardless of the outcome of the RfC. If the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated, it should be allowed to be cited as a print reference only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I regard Mail on Sunday reliable for the following reasons:
  1. It has editorial oversight. independent from The Daily Mail and the website.
  2. It has been established that the DM ban does not apply to MoS.
  3. During the Daily Mail RFC, examples of the DM fabricating stories were presented. I do not recall any from the MoS.
  4. Other reliable sources reference it.
  5. The number of complaints upheld by IPSI report (page 18) is comparable to other publications in its category that are generally regarded as reliable sources. The Sunday Times, for example, had more complaints upheld than MoS.
  6. MailOnline (which is already proscribed) is a separate entity. It houses content from The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday but also publishes its own content. This does not confer unreliability on the MoS. This is nothing more than a technical barrier and the print edition can be cited directly.
It may get things wrong occasionally but no more than other comparable titles. No evidence of it fabricating stories has been presented and an objective measure shows that its level of accurate reporting is comparable to other titles deemed reliable. The arguments presented in the above discussion invariably boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Sunday and daily editions and the website. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a couple of lists now of egregious fabrication - please address these (with more case by case specifics than "I feel like it's no worse than others"), even a little bit of this sort of thing seems a massive red flag that would rule it out as being treated as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no lists of fabricated stories, just lists of stories that were proven to be factually inaccurate. For example, the story about a "Muslim" gang attacking a van was not fabricated. The incident happened! The MOS was forced to adjust the article because the religion of the perpetrators was based on conjecture. The story about climate change that was prcolaimed "fake news" wasn't fabricated if you look at the article, it was simply inaccurate. Again, the level of complaints upheld against it is not significantly different to other titles, such as The Sunday Times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
They've been provided right here in this discussion - fabrication of claims, extensive fabrication of quotes, etc - but if you want to pretend they don't exist and think "lalala I can't hear you" and "but whatabout that other paper we're not discussing" is a refutation, you can certainly stay with that. If you want to discuss the Sunday Times, you should start an RFC on that. (And if you didn't actually want to discuss the Sunday Times, then your discussion of it so far is indistinguishable from throwing up chaff.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the meat of Betty's argument isn't so much that there isn't any incorrect information, just that there isn't any more incorrect information than papers we tend to consider reliable. They aren't saying they 'feel like it's no worse than others' but that there's empirical evidence that it isn't. Bringing up other papers we consider reliable isn't irrelevant. The problem is that the empirical evidence presented is extremely flimsy: the IPSO report is on the number of articles which received complaints, not how accurate they are. The report itself says "newspapers with the highest circulation [...] received the most complaints." It doesn't tell us anything. I was unable to find any empirical reports on the reliability of the Mail on Sunday specifically (if there were any I imagine there'd be no discussion), and all fact-checking websites treat it alongside the Daily Mail. Wikipedia seems to be alone in considering it separately. I think the false information already presented is egregious enough to warrant Option 4 and if other sources we consider reliable have done the same we should stop considering them reliable too. Iesbian (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You're making this seem a lot more reasonable than it is. An outlet that bases significant information on conjecture is not reliable. Other outlets we consider reliable don't do that. Iesbian (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
These are not fabricated stories. They are stories containing inaccuracies. Statistically speaking, the MOS on average contains no more inaccuracies than something like The Sunday Times. It had two complaints upheld in 2018: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1823/ipso-annual-report-2018.pdf#page=10. Should we proscribe The Sunday Times as well because five complaints were upheld over the same period? Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The false claims are central to the story in every example I've given. IPSO only deals with cases that get referred to them by members of the public and the inaccuracies they investigate can vary in severity which is why we're looking at specific examples. If you can find similarly many examples of egregious journalism in The Times, we can have a discussion about them as well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
False or misrepresentative claims usually are central to inaccurate stories. I am not defending these articles. I am pleased the beautician won her case! But are any of your examples more egregious than this sequence of Times stories: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43887481. It is worth noting that of the 69 stories that received complaints only two were ultimately upheld. The remainder were either not taken up, resolved through other means, or IPSO found in favor of the MoS. I take on board your point that the IPSO cases are just a sample and not a comprehensive vetting of MoS's output, but that is true of the other publications they have ranked too. I think these examples would carry more weight if this were a discussion about a class of sources i.e. a discussion about raising the bar on what constitutes a reliable source. But this is not about raising the bar; it is about purging one particular source that sampled evidence shows is not disproportionately worse than rival titles in the market. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Third anniversary of fake news story in 'The Mail on Sunday'". London School of Economics – Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. 1 September 2017. Yesterday was the third anniversary of one of the most inaccurate and misleading articles about climate change impacts on the Arctic that has ever been published by a UK newspaper. On 31 August 2014, 'The Mail on Sunday' featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.
  2. ^ "Mail on Sunday apologises for 'Muslim gangs' attack immigration van story". The Guardian. 20 September 2015. The Mail on Sunday has apologised for and corrected a story that said "Muslim gangs" were behind an attack on an immigration enforcement van in east London following a complaint to the press regulation body Ipso.
  3. ^ "Fake News: Mail on Sunday Forced to Correct 'Significantly Misleading' Article on Global Warming 'Pause'". DeSmog UK. 18 September 2017. The Mail on Sunday has been forced to publish a 659-word correction to an article alleging a scientific study exaggerated the extent of global warming and was rushed in an attempt to influence the Paris Agreement negotiations. [...] The UK's press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), today ruled that the Mail on Sunday had "failed to take care over the accuracy of the article" and "had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements".
  4. ^ "'The Mail on Sunday' admits publishing more fake news about climate change". Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. 22 April 2018. 'The Mail on Sunday' newspaper has been forced to publish a statement today admitting that two more articles it published last year about climate change were fake news. It is the latest humiliation for the newspaper which has been misleading its readers for many years about the causes and potential consequences of climate change.
  5. ^ "British journalists have become part of Johnson's fake news machine". openDemocracy. 22 October 2019. In other words, the Mail on Sunday splash that Downing Street was investigating Grieve, Letwin and Benn was fabrication. Fake News. There has, however, been no retraction from The Mail on Sunday. As far as the newspaper's readers are concerned, the story remains true and the senior British politicians behind the Benn Act continue to be investigated for suspicious involvement with foreign powers.
  6. ^ "Mail on Sunday made false claims about Labour's tax plans". The Guardian. 9 December 2019. The Mail on Sunday (MoS) falsely claimed that Labour was planning to scrap a tax exemption on homeowners, in a prominent story that has since been used by the Conservatives as part of their election campaign. [...] The erroneous article was published in June, and the press regulator ruled on the inaccuracy in November. The MoS must now publish Ipso's ruling on page 2 of its print edition and on the top half of its website for 24 hours. But because the paper sought a review of the process by which the decision was made, publication of the correction has been delayed until after the election.
  7. ^ "Beautician's libel victory over false Mail on Sunday story". BBC News. 28 February 2020. A beautician who tried to take her own life after a newspaper published lies about her business has been paid damages for libel by the publisher. [...] Ms Hindley complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that the coverage was factually incorrect and it found in her favour. The regulator got her a correction, which was supposed to appear on page two of the newspaper but ended up on page eight.
  8. ^ "Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise". Carbon Brief. 5 February 2017. accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data [......] What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data ...
  9. ^ Rose, David (4 February 2017). "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data". Mail on Sunday. the newspaper's claims [....] went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact...
  10. ^ Office, Met Office Press (29 January 2012). "Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012". Official blog of the Met Office news team. Today the Mail on Sunday published a story [which] includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science [.....] to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him ....
  11. ^ Office, Met Office Press (14 October 2012). "Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012". Official blog of the Met Office news team. An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it' It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, ...
  • Option 4: There are dozens of examples of Mail on Sunday fabrications, but I will list just one, featured in Vogue: Meghan Markle Responds to a Set of Tabloid Rumors --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017. The list from David Gerard below is over-the-top with its accusations, e.g. being in fifth place for complaints just ahead of The Guardian doesn't show anything as others have already indicated, and there were no "fabricated claims of anti-Semitism" (the Mail on Sunday did not say Mr Livingstone was anti-Semitic), etc. But the lists do show that Mail on Sunday publishes corrections, and (see WP:RS) "publication of corrections" is a good signal. They are sometimes forced by IPSO but that is a good thing too, the British newspapers that refuse to join IPSO are the contemptible ones if that's what matters. Mail on Sunday is a "well-established news outlet" so WP:NEWSORG tells us it "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", so voting to censor it is a demand to violate WP:RS. Option 4 should not have been proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Here is the article Peter Gulutzan is referring to: Ken Livingstone stokes new Labour anti-Semitism row after dismissing problem as 'lies and smears peddled by ghastly Blairites'. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Bad counting. Peter Gulutzan at 01:22, 13 September 2020 wrote "The list from dave souza above looks like 11 transgressions until you notice that 7 are about the same David Rose article in 2017" The list was started with 7 items by ReconditeRodent at 10:56, 12 September 2020, and I added four items, two of which were articles covering the same incorrect article by David Rose already covered in item 3 on the list, and mentioned along with other incorrect articles of his in item 4 on the list. I'd already researched it independently, so added my items and tried to indicate two were on the same topic, but evidently not clear enough. In total, the list of 11 items covers 12 transgressions, that is 12 separate articles published by the MoS, some of them repeating false claims by David Rose. Appreciate it's a bit complicated, so miscounting is understandable if rather careless. Hope the following list helps to clarify things. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

list for clarification:

1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.

2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015

3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction

4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online."
Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.[1][2]

5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'"

6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election.

7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages.

8 article and correction as 3

9 article and correction as 3

10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mail on Sunday (6 August 2017). "IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS: Sasha Wass QC". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 13 September 2020. Following an article published on 9 October 2016 in the Mail on Sunday, headlined "Revealed: How top QC 'buried evidence of Met bribes to put innocent man in jail'", Sasha Wass QC complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
  2. ^ Mail on Sunday (24 September 2017). "IPSO upholds complaint by Max Hill QC against MoS". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 13 September 2020. Following publication of an article of headlined "The terror law chief and the 'cover-up' that could explode UK's biggest bomb trial", published on 5th March, Max Hill complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required The Mail on Sunday to publish this adjudication.
  • Option 2 - depends on context and whether the discussion is conflating items. The article says this the largest WEIGHT such publication so seems a bit much to exclude it, and seems in the category of popular press so I’m thinking it reasonable to cite for that context and folks are trying to consider it outside the context it would/should be used. Seems obviously “Generally” reliable in the sense of usually having the criteria of editorial control and publication norms and accessibility, and the bulk of stories factual correctness is not in particular question. I don’t think anyone here has put it as the category of 3 generally self-published or blog or sponsored pieces. Category 4 seems excessive - false or fabricated doesn’t seem a correct characterization if people are having to go back to 2012 and 2014 for cases to discuss. Also, much of the discussion above seems to be confusing https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/ with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ or that none of these are actually The Mail on Sunday. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Categorise the same as the Daily Mail: there's no substantial difference between the two paper's journalistic values and fact-checking processes, and hence this RfC should not be able to override the stronger, more global consensus to deprecate the Daily Mail. As a second resort, if we are to categorise the Mail on Sunday differently then we must categorise it as option 4 per the compelling evidence presented by ReconditeRodent and David Gerard that it is established practice at the paper to lie and suppress corrections wherever legally possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – 2 - Requires scrutiny but a respected paper that has done much serious reporting unavailable elsewhere. The majority of advocates for "deprecating" the MoS are the same "it's the Daily Mail" line even though it in fact has its own website i.e. Mail on Sunday and a totally separate editorial staff. Ownership by the same company has little if any relevance. Basing your vote on carefully ignoring the facts seems unreasonable to me. Cambial Yellowing❧ 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, same or substantially the same editorial policy and authors. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an incorrect statement. It has been stated multiple times that the Mail on Sunday is its own independent newspaper. This means it has its own staff, journalists, and editorial board. Please read the Mail on Sunday wikipedia article to inform yourself about the newspaper. These are the "authors" as you call them of the Mail on Sunday:
Peter Hitchens
Rachel Johnson
Olly Smith
James Forsyth
Robert Waugh
Piers Morgan
Craig Brown
Tom Parker Bowles
Chris Evans
Ruth Sunderland
Sebastian O Kelly
Liz Jones
Sally Brompton
Sarah Stacey
Mimi Spencer
Jeff Prestridge
John Rees
Ellie Cannon
Jane Clarke
Katie Nicholl
Oliver Holt
Stuart Broad
Patrick Collins
Glenn Hoddle
Michael Owen
Nick Harris
Andrew Pierce
You have also chosen option 4, which means that you are stating that these journalists as a group are involved in writing "false or fabricated information". You have provided no proof of your statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The Mail on Sunday has a completely separate editorial oversight, staff, office and so on. They are completely different newspapers that compete with each other, but simply have a similar name. I do, however, see the risk of their content being hosted on the MailOnline/DailyMail.com, as they do not have their own website. In which situation I would endorse Option 2 with the condition that the Mail on Sunday remains a reliable source but that the print edition must be the one cited, with online links unacceptable. Ortolan57 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, just as completely divorced from the truth as the regular Daily Mail, despite being nominally seperate. They clearly have the exact same record of lying constantly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 No evidence that this source is any more reliable than the regular DM, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Remember, the onus is on those who are arguing the source can be used to demonstrate that it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 Although the MoS may not be in Breitbart/National Enquirer territory it is clearly generally unreliable as per above comments. A note on comparisons of complaints: if we look at the nature and scale of the inaccuracies in the MoS presented in the lists above and below, and not just how many there were in a given year, it is clear that most of them are serious and relate to central news stories not just marginal human interest stories (major inaccuracies about electoral candidates not corrected until after election, major mischaracterisations of data about climate change) and also that they fit into a pattern of repeating false allegations as part of an ideological campaign (e.g. around climate change, where false statements were repeated despite earlier corrections) or systematically misrepresenting religion/ethnicity (e.g. to generate clickbait buzz by plugging into anti-Muslim panic), and not simple mistakes such as mistyping the number of arrests at the Appleby fair. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 since not proof has been offered to show the Sunday edition of the mail any more reliable than the daily --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I wouldn't want anything on Wikipedia based solely on a MoS article, it is too unreliable. If it is valid information it will also appear in more reliable papers like the the Guardian or the Telegraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Putting aside the paper's politics, all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. Large parts of what the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) content are reliable and well-written and were the same content published elsewhere we wouldn't even question it - such as this for example [17]. This pogrom of Daily Mail content has already seen sources being blindly removed even when for our purposes they would be reliably sourced and well-written and it's often to the detriment of articles - and anyone who questions this is shouted down. Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis, I am firmly opposed to blanket pronouncements such as this related to mainstream media. WCMemail 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Apparently you're fine with the "fabrications" of the newspapers you judge to be reliable? Please quit this obviously disingenuous and facetious line of argument - the output of a media outlet should be judged as a whole and not based on cherry-picked examples. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The argument "but whatabout these other newspapers that aren't the topic here" isn't regarded as a useful argument on RSN. If you want to discuss those, you should start an RFC about them, listing their fabrications. This discussion is about the Mail on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Responding to "but the MoS is not less reliable than the Sunday Times according to the metric that you've chosen to ban it" with "then you should start an RFC on banning the Sunday Times" is clearly not an argument made in good faith. We all know that the outcome of such an RFC would be a snow-close for "Option 1" and a possible trip to ANI for whoever chose to waste everyone's time by proposing it. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
David you clearly chose not to read my comment, so I will reply to your strawman with emphasis added. "all wikipedians should recognise that newspapers should never be our first choice for sourcing content and we should prefer neutral academic sources. Use of newspaper sources should usually be a last resort and guided by exercising good judgement. .... Editors should be allowed to exercise judgment on a case by case basis. You appear obsessed by the Daily Mail and removing any reference to it, often to the detriment of article quality and blind to the reliability of the article. You would remove this for example and are you suggesting that an opinion sourced to David Attenborough becomes unreliable simply because it is published in the DM? WCMemail 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This argument essentially boils down to trying to exclude anyone who was in the (substantial) minority in the DM Ban RFC from ever having a say in any future issue related to banning media. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I question who this IP is @FOARP: given he seems to have only started editing this year so how can he know about whom said what back when? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall having participated in a previous RfC on the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm merely questioning the particular argument being used here. Given what The C of E has said in the past, supporting option 1 is consistent, but given their premises, I can't see what relevance the publication's editorial independence could have. Perhaps The C of E can clarify.
But I don't see how what I'm saying would exclude anyone who participated in the past RfCs from having a say here. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a clear attempt to daisy-chain RFCs. "But you didn't agree with the concept of these RFCs so you can't vote Option 1 in this RFC" the argument goes, resulting in a more extreme and less balanced result. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (preferred) because it shares DM staff, history of fabrications, and has the same website as the Daily Mail, complete with "sidebar of shame" and its obsession with objectifying (see also "all grown up"). Failing that, then go with print edition only as no worse than the average tabloid, but still best not to use because tabloid. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard, convincing? Not sure: depends who you're trying to convince (and obviously here I exclude Brian K Horton and his hosiery drawer). The bar to inclusion means that most of the churnalism on the website doesn't make it into print. The print edition is exactly as biased, and has undoubtedly printed some egregious bollocks, but the level of oversight is at least marginally higher. But you'll note that is my second choice, because my strong preference is to exclude altogether. You cannot trust anything you read on the Mail websites, and that fatally undermines any claim to journalistic integrity for any of its output IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
fair - I'll certainly agree that if there was an Option 4½, Mail Online would warrant it - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC (or Option 1 if the RFC still goes ahead) - These "let's ban media outlets we don't like" have no link to any actual issue in an article on Wikipedia. They always turn into a forum-style discussion on the perceived good-ness or not of the source itself rather than its reliability in relation to any subject matter. Editors should be free to decide what sources they use through consensus on a case-by-case basis, rather than these pointless blanket bans. Comparisons to reliable sources with exactly the same failings that the news outlet to be deprecated displays are always batted away with "why don't you start an RFC on banning the New York Times then?" (or similar facetiousness). The outcome is pre-determined as soon as the typically right-wing nature of the publication to be banned is highlighted. Rampant double-standards abound especially between UK and US publications. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Seeing as your issue is with the writ-large deprecation of sources generally, isn't that an argument better suited to WT:RS to have Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Deprecated sources amended? I don't see how it's relevant here when we're trying to apply the existing guidelines. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I oppose these blanket bans of regulated media with well-established editorial teams based in countries with robust freedom of speech, then I also oppose banning the MoS and hence am voting on those grounds. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
hence am voting on those grounds These discussions are not votes; so you appear to be declaring that your statement here is explicitly not about the MoS as a source, and hence meaningless in the discussion. The process of deprecation was itself ratified in an RFC; if you want to remove it, then you would need to run an RFC to do so - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You're trying to make any opposition to this steady banning of sources invalid ab initio. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I note you haven't answered my point below about your deletion campaign deleting even WP:ABOUTSELF statements by the MoS (explicitly allowed even under the DM 2017 RFC close) which is a prime example of how this isn't about content, or what has been specifically decided in RFCs, but about getting something you can use to justify a mass-deletion campaign against a publication you dislike. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Your other question is you whatabouting the issue - this is a discussion of the Mail On Sunday, not of me. If you have a point to make about the Mail On Sunday, it needs to be a point about the Mail On Sunday. If you can't make a point about the quality of the Mail On Sunday as a source - and you've just said above that you're not making a point about the Mail On Sunday, you're trying to reverse the idea of deprecation of sources, which is an action that's been ratified at RFC. You can keep on trying to flail about to distract from the point, but if you're not addressing the question then you're just making noise. You don't even understand that this isn't a vote, so I can't say that you are even proceeding in bad faith, but you don't appear to be proceeding competently - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is totally inappropriate. If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is).
2. Comparisons with other sources are NOT irrelevant to this discussion, and telling editors to 'go start an RFC about The Times' or whatever is flat out disruptive. GENERAL RELIABILITY is RELATIVE. We should not be applying different sets of standards to sources we don't like than the sources we like. Furthermore, your 'suggestion' is a non sequitur, and is clearly in bad faith, because every one of us knows that will NEVER happen. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with FOARP. It's unfortunate because blanket bans will come back to haunt us in the future for a number of reasons. This is not to say there are not problems with sources, but every source article should be evaluated and never site banned. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 As per ReconditeRodent. Autarch (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per others, they make corrections and the volume of problems is not severe. -- GreenC 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - generally reliable newspaper. The Mail on Sunday had a relatively low number of complaints based on the ipso statistics. The number of complaints was similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. It’s a respected newspaper that has a number of notable contributors. Other newspapers quote it. The paper is conservative leaning so care is required on political topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, prefer 4 I kept being surprised that this was still being employed as a source following the Daily Mail deprecation. Tabloids are bad sources, and this is on the bottom layer of tabloids, sharing staff and large amounts of content (and apparently its philosophy and veracity) with the Daily Mail. The above examples of fabrication and evasion require some pretty dedicated scampering to ignore. We are an encyclopedia and must be able to exclude material that has a high chance of being misrepresented or made up. If an item is of wider impact, we can use one of many other sources; if it is MoS exclusive, we run the risk of it having been blown up into some chimaera in order to add another five points to the headline size. Do not need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The list of issues above is persuasive. The reason why full depreciation rather than unreliability is called is twofold. First, the "errors" highlighted above are all in one direction and all reflect the biases of the Mail's owners (its "errors" are inevitably stuff that eg. downplays global warming, paints Muslims or Labour in a bad light, bolsters the Tories, and so on); this, combined with the tendency to slow-walk corrections or neglect them entirely, suggests that, regardless of the (still uncited?) claims of editorial independence, it is subject to the same forces, in the same way, that make the Daily Mail itself unreliable. Bias is acceptable in a source, and occasional errors are not an issue; but repeated errors, in the same direction, which consistently reflect the biases of the owner suggest a systematic problem that makes it hard to justify using them as a source - there is simply every reason to think that their overriding goal is to advance their owners' political agenda at the expense of fact-checking or accuracy. Second, they fit the same criteria that made depreciation of the original Daily Mail necessary in that they are clearly not reliable due to the above, yet a vocal minority of editors insists that it can be used - and not merely that it can be used, but that it is somehow an exemplary source (note how the opinions here split between overwhelming numbers of people favoring depreciation and people saying it is generally reliable, with so little in-between.) That is the sort of situation that requires a decisive conclusion, since it is plain some people will continue to try and use it as a source everywhere unless there is an unambiguous decision saying they can't. Finally, in case it comes up - given that this discussion focuses on the parallels between the Mail and the Mail on Sunday and how those seem to stem from its ownership, I would suggest that whatever decision we reach here ought to apply to any outlets owned by Daily Mail and General Trust, at least by default (Metro, the other major paper they own, is already listed as generally unreliable.) It is clear from these discussions and the examples above that the root problem is the owners and not the individual editorial boards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic.
It's not complicated for me. The complaint statistics of the the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday are the same. The Sunday Times has also made a number of significant corrections. All this information was provided below. What the Sunday Times does better is that it has a more sophisticated writing style, since it targets the professional upper class. The Mail on Sunday is targeted towards the middle class. Option 2 I certainly can understand, since this is similar to how many American editors view Fox (which has some parallels to the politics and biases of the Mail on Sunday). Even option 3 would be understandable for people who cannot bear any publication which makes an error. But option 4 would mean the newspaper is worse than a self-published source. It would mean the highest selling Sunday newspaper, which won newspaper of the year in 2019 and has a number of notable writers, cannot be even used for its review of a theatre play which is gross and absurd. Fortunately, what is happening with the British media market on this board cannot be done to the American media market which has a much larger and more diverse pool of Wikipedia editors who use it. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Whole heartedly agree with this view. That the editors who have actually used the MoS as a source have not been notified is a legitimacy issue with this RFC. That they are excluded is an inevitable product of this RFC being completely divorced from actual content issues with articles. Engaging with the actual use of the MoS on Wiki would mean acknowledging that a lot of the present use (which is not high) is simply WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g., the edit by David Gerard linked above where he deleted even the mere mention that a book had been MoS book of the week, claiming that this was justified by the DM ban which explicitly allows "about-self" use), or completely uncontroversial. The double standard between UK and US media outlets, let alone between UK outlets and those of China or Iran, is as palpable as it is absurd. Responding to clear evidence that the MoS has had no more complaints upheld against it than the Sunday Times with "well then you should start an RFC to ban the Sunday Times" is not arguing in good faith. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - I would think that because The Mail on Sunday is just the weekend branding of Daily Mail that it'd fall under the existing restrictions there, but nonetheless, they still seem to have a desperate use of trigger words, sensationalism, low-quality fact checking and having been the source most sanctioned by UK regulators (source which says "The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday...") three years in a row (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It has been explained multiple times that the Mail on Sunday, Metro, i (originally a sister newspaper of The Independent), and also Daily Mail are all separate newspapers. This means that the newspapers have separate staff, journalists, and editorial boards. These different newspapers are published by DMG Media which itself is owned by the media company DMGT. It is normal for media companies to own multiple titles. See for instance Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns Dow Jones & Company (publisher of 'of the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch and Barron's), News UK (publisher of The Sun and The Times), and book publisher HarperCollins.
Also it is not clear why you provided links to two blogs about the IPSO statistics, when below is the complete IPSO table for 2018. The table clearly shows that the Mail on Sunday did not rank poorly. Please uncollapse the green bar below that says table and trust your own eyes. The only thing I do want to quote from one of your blogs is the following:"Sunday Times Forced to Admit to Fake Antisemitism Smears". That sounds like a major faux pas that the Mail on Sunday's competitor made, just like that little faux pas that the New Statesman made in regards to the Roger Scruton interview that we just discussed on this reliable source board. It is unfortunate that generally reliable sources sometimes make faux pas. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Guest2625: Would you be able to link to the discussion that ended in a consensus that the staff etc are different and that there's absolutely no commonality between the two? I think you'll also notice that the source I provided is from 2019, not 2018. Associated Newspapers Limited, which owns Metro, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online, even says in their annual report that Mail Online shares editorial content, lawyers, and replies to complaints to IPSO on behalf of Mail on Sunday. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the Mail on Sunday explains that it is its own newspaper. It is stated there that the newspaper has its own staff and editor. The blog you provided is from 2019; however, it's referencing the IPSO complaint statistics from 2018. This is a quote from the blog:[18] "In terms of total number of sanctions, the top seven reached 90 between them across 2018. This is slightly better than 2017’s total of 115, but up on the 62 offences committed in 2016." As you'll note the blog's most recent numbers are the 2018 IPSO statistics, which are provided in clear detail in the table below from the 2018 IPSO report on page 18. So for clarification again, the chief editor of the Mail on Sunday, as stated in the Wikipedia article, is Ted Verity and these are the current writers for the newspaper:
Peter Hitchens
Rachel Johnson
Olly Smith
James Forsyth
Robert Waugh
Piers Morgan
Craig Brown
Tom Parker Bowles
Chris Evans
Ruth Sunderland
Sebastian O Kelly
Liz Jones
Sally Brompton
Sarah Stacey
Mimi Spencer
Jeff Prestridge
John Rees
Ellie Cannon
Jane Clarke
Katie Nicholl
Oliver Holt
Stuart Broad
Patrick Collins
Glenn Hoddle
Michael Owen
Nick Harris
Andrew Pierce
Since the owners of the Mail on Sunday have multiple papers, it would not be surprising, if they used the same legal staff for the different papers. I read the Associated Newspapers Limited 2019 annual report hereand here, but I wasn't able to find your statement about sharing editorial content and complaint reply in the report. Could you provide me with a link to the annual report that you read and the relevant page number. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 How much confidence can really be taken from a debate where even basic pertinent details, such as whether or not the Sunday edition has a separate editorial staf , cannot seemingly be settled a priori? I note too, the complete lack of impeccable sources like the Columbia Journalism Review. These have been used when debating the reliability of Fox and the New York Post in this foraaa , so their absence here, given the claims that basically cast the MoS as a step change worse, rings alarm bells as far as the potential for bias goes. Jack B Williamson (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Jack B Williamson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The Columbia Journalism Review is a US based outlet and generally doesn't cover the UK press so the lack of coverage by that outlet is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    I have struck the contribution from the boring sockpuppet. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I think generally news media shouldn’t be considered reliable by it self. Citing facts from news is not how it works in the real world. You need to also consider other sources. A body of news sources together give weight, but it is still in the news. I read newspapers and enjoy, but that is mostly because I think. The narrative that we need to fact check the media is a construction. This RfC I think is created to ease some admin work, and that is perfectly OK. They already banned publications that can easily be mistaken, because of the architecture of the web address. I understand it’s a mess. I don’t like the options. I think option 1 and 4 are divisive provocations for the trenches. And option 2 and 3 are vague. What does even option 3 mean? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 It is clear that the Mail on Sunday, while technically independent editorially, shares ownership and agenda with the Daily Mail. While this alone is not enough to deprecate the paper, it is relevant because the Mail on Sunday also appears to share the bad habits of fabricating claims about living people and publishing lies, bad information and untrustworthy speculation. I am sure that they often publish good and true information, but I am also sure that they publish outright false information which, I believe, they often know to be untrue. For the use of the MoS as a source on Wikipedia, they surely therefore have to be considered unreliable and deprecated. It would be inconsistent to come to any other conclusion. I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail as well as the MoS make their 'mistakes' in a very particular direction, which is aimed propping up the Conservative party (and perhaps occasionally offshoots of it) and putting down Labour as well as any right-wing movement which may become a threat to the Conservative party. Downfall Vision (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Aquillion and others. Gleeanon 06:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 – Notwithstanding ReconditeRodent's links, which would be reason enough by themselves, the Mail on Sunday should still be excluded due to its association with the Daily Mail. Even if it were more reliable than its parent newsletter, the fact that it's owned by the same company will inherently detract from its credibility as a source. Kurtis (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This argument about deprecating a source because of company ownership makes no sense. Rupert Murdoch's News UK owns The Sun and The Times. Do you feel that The Times should be deprecated because Wikipedia has deprecated The Sun? This is the argument that you are making. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This argument actually makes complete sense in my opinion. Perhaps an unconventional view, but I would argue that indeed The Times should be viewed with suspicion given its shared ownership with a deprecated source and perhaps should be seen as unreliable based on that fact alone. It is not that The Times should be deprecated because The Sun has been deprecated, but that The Times should be viewed with suspicion based entirely on its strong association with a deprecated source. I think we should set the precedent that when media outlets share ownership, they should be viewed to share reputation. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire obviously do not take issue with their papers printing falsehoods, so why should we trust them? In the same vein, the MoS shouldn't be deprecated only because of its association with the Daily Mail, but it should be viewed as unreliable based on that fact alone. Separately, the MoS should be deprecated because it has be shown to have published multiple falsehoods and lies. I think Wikipedia could benefit from a more suspicious outlook on news media in general. Downfall Vision (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, this is the argument under which the MoS is basically getting taken down: guilt by association. Stating that THE newspaper of record - The Times - should be banned, basically just because it's British and leans to the right politically. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I probably should have made this clear from the start, but I was referring more to the fact that there is significant overlap between the editorial control over the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Murdoch does own the Times, but he makes it clear that he has no control over the stories they print. Kurtis (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 the Mail on Sunday may technically have different editorial staff but clearly has very similar outlooks on how a paper should behave. The editorial oversight does not appear to be 'meaningful' and the opinions often seem to be on the fringes of British politics. On the other hand, where it is worth citing viewpoints from columnists especially where they are part of a significant minority it should be considered reliable for their opinions. For example, Hitchens is a experienced foreign commentator who has won the Orwell Prize and as such his views on Syria may be worth mentioning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I agree with most of the other voters. It's owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. Although their editorial stuff is different, it looks like it has the same quality and the tendentious writing Daily Mail has.Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: This needs to be the end of it. No more Daily Mail discussions. It's not an acceptable source, ever, and anything in its domain is unreliable as well. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That people keep raising this topic is not, at all, a logical reason to block a source that is not the Daily Mail nor managed by the same people. It will also not end the discussion because the people who keep raising this topic can not stop raising it - they simply move the goal-posts. Hence the recent discussion on the DM in the past being an RS because banning the DM of recent decades wasn't enough for them. Additionally, saying "we should ban this source to stop discussions about banning it" is essentially a WP:BLACKMAIL position.
The only thing that will end these discussion is requiring an actual link to an actual issue with the actual content of an actual article that is actually on Wiki, since none of these discussion are related to article-content and none would go forward if it were a requirement. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not even remotely a blackmail position, for starters, it isn't threat and it isn't tied to the outcome of the RFC. It is perfectly fair for editors to be left with a bad taste in their mouth from past Daily Mail discussions, not least because it published an article slamming the editors that !voted for its removal the first time. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with FOARP. No argument has been provided in this opinion for deprecation. In this request for comment, two flawed arguments have been presented for deprecation: the mutual ownership argument and the cherry-picked complaint argument.
The mutual ownership argument states that because the Mail on Sunday is owned by DMGT, which also publishes a deprecated newspaper, that the Mail on Sunday should be similarly deprecated. This argument is flawed when it is realized that the Mail on Sunday's competitor the Sunday Times faces this same issue. The Sunday Times is owned by News UK, which also publishes the deprecated newspaper The Sun. No one is proposing to use the mutual ownership argument to deprecate the Sunday Times.
The cherry-picked complaint argument presents a few complained about articles from the newspaper (in the past ten years the Mail on Sunday has published over 400,000 articles) and then concludes that the newspaper should be deprecated. This argument is flawed given that the full IPSO complaint statistics have been presented below. The full set of complaint statistics indicate that the Mail on Sunday had few complaints and ranked similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. No one is proposing to use the cherry-picked complaint argument to deprecate the Sunday Times even though a number of cherry-picked complaints against it were presented below.
Just to re-emphasize the flawed nature of the second argument, let's use the argument to cherry-pick the IPSO complaint database on another competitor the Daily Telegraph. Here's is a set of serious article complaints against the Daily Telegraph: multiple cases of falsification to inflame hatred towards Muslims,[1][2] falsification to inflame racial hatred,[3] multiple cases of falsification to label others as antisemitic,[4][5] falsification to smear environmentalists,[6] distortion to harm the Labour Party,[7] multiple cases of falsification to support Brexit,[8][9] blatant antisemitism (article stated: “Only three countries on the planet don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”, and listed: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.),[10] numerous cases of bad science.[11][12][13][14][15] Does this board really plan on deprecating the Telegraph. We should avoid bad science (i.e. the cherry-picking argument) and use the full IPSO complaint statistics that have been presented below. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources

References

  1. ^ "Resolution Statement: Complaint 00682-15 Burbage Parish Council v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Resolution Statement 00420-19 Lewisham Islamic Centre v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Resolution Statement 19341-17 Olufemi v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "05143-15 Lewis v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ "Resolution statement 20834-17 Błażejak v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ "Resolution Statement 01440-17 Taylor v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Resolution Statement 16904-17 Molloy v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ "06056-19 Baker v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "00154-19 Stirling v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ "19577-17 Campaign Against Antisemitism v Telegraph.co.uk". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ^ "Resolution Statement: Complaint 07520-15 ME Association v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ "Resolution Statement: Complaint 01148-14 Reynolds v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  13. ^ "Resolution Statement 06188-19 Allbeury v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ "Resolution Statement: Complaint 00183-16 Etherington v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  15. ^ "02402-15 Rodu v The Daily Telegraph". www.ipso.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Option 2 This is a bad/malformed RfC. Judge each reference on its own merits seems to be the best option of those presented. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Same as the Daily Mail. Currently, this means option 4. Substantially similar content. The "sidebar of shame" on the Mail on Sunday (named "Don't Miss") includes the same articles as the "sidebar of shame" in the Daily Mail (titled "Femail Today"), except in a different order. The articles listed in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday link to other subdirectories on dailymail.co.uk; none of the ones I checked had any identifier that would distinguish them from Daily Mail articles. The community has already deprecated the Daily Mail in the high-participation 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the high-participation 2019 RfC. As the Mail on Sunday publishes substantially the same content, and even reuses articles (e.g. the sidebar articles) from the Daily Mail, it should be treated the same way. — Newslinger talk 09:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The reliable source noticeboard is supposed to be frequented by individuals who are specialists in investigating sources. Surfing briefly around the Mail Online website is not called investigating a source. Go to the corner newsstand if you live in the UK and pick up the Mail on Sunday and see for yourself that it is its own newspaper. A list of the writers and editor of the Mail on Sunday has been presented now twice, what other proof do you need. If you do not live in the UK, go to your library and get access to microfiche of the Mail on Sunday or one of the numerous online databases that has it. The Gale database for instance has access to the Mail on Sunday. The online website provides access to only some of the articles. If you want to know if an article is by the Mail on Sunday, read the byline, that's why they are there. An example of an article that is by the Mail on Sunday is this one "My defence of Julian Assange - a man I abhor. It ended badly the time they met yet Peter Hitchens argues extraditing the WikiLeaks boss to the US violates British sovereignty, threatens press freedom and is nothing less than a politically motivated kidnap". Note the byline where it says "by Peter Hitchens for the Mail on Sunday". --Guest2625 (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Insulting the many editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree with you isn't exactly productive. There is a strong consensus that The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday are substantively the same and should be treated the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
BTW, do you have an explanation for this?[19] Or this?[20] Or this?[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not criticising the "editors who have carefully weighed the evidence and who disagree" on the reliability of the source. Carefully weighing the different arguments is important so we can get to a consensus. If this was not a consensus building process that involved evidence and reason, we could save time and just have a straight vote. As far as your belief that the Mail on Sunday is not its own newspaper, you are wrong. The Mail on Sunday has its own writing staff and editor, newspaper databases archive it as its own newspaper, ipso regulates it as its own newspaper, and its wiki article indicates that it is its own newspaper.
As concerns your btw, I was wondering when this board was going to have a request for comment on the Daily Telegraph. The cherry pickings from the ipso complaint database are concerning. In fact, the cherry picking argument can be done with all the newspapers that are regulated and have their complaints stored in the ipso database. That is why any scientifically literate person knows to look at the full set of statistics.
The Guardian was wise not to have itself regulated by ipso, so it could more easily hide article complaints. However, it's well known that the Guardian is a falsifier. Once again we come to Julian Assange the darling of the 2000s, of the open information movement, and the left that is until he betrayed them. And this is how the left got back at him: The Guardian’s summary of Julian Assange’s interview went viral and was completely false Those who want to combat Fake News should stop aggressively spreading it when it suits their agenda. I think I would like to be able to quote Peter Hitchen's and the Mail on Sunday and not have to depend on the Guardian as being the sole gatekeeper to the supermax prison cell. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of citations of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are not referencing physical issues. In almost all cases, editors are not going to the library and using microfiche before citing the source. Instead, nearly all citations to the Mail on Sunday include a link to an article that was originally linked from the official websites of the Mail on Sunday: https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday. Those websites mostly host and/or link to other Daily Mail content. The 2017 and 2019 RfCs took place over multiple months, and were closed by panels – the RfCs show that the community consensus is to deprecate the Daily Mail, which differs from your opinion. As the Daily Mail has already been identified as a generally unreliable source, there is no reason to trust a website that mostly uses Daily Mail content. Any website that republishes such a large quantity of Daily Mail content inherits the general unreliability of the Daily Mail. Edit filters work through URL matching, and when the articles on https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk or https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday mostly duplicate content from the Daily Mail, that means the edit filter that applies to the Daily Mail should also apply to these websites. If, in some rare situation, an editor is citing an old physical/microfiche edition of Mail on Sunday that is not available online, that citation is not affected by edit filters, and is partially covered by "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically" from the 2017 RfC.

Finally, the volume of your 16+ comments in this discussion has the effect of bludgeoning the process. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and repeating your arguments so many times does not improve the strength of your position. — Newslinger talk 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger - WP:BLUD is seemingly being used as a bludgeon here. Guest2625 is not even nearly the most prolific commenter on this board - that's more likely to be David Gerard (20+ comments in total on the MoS discussion). WP:BLUD is, anyway, just an essay (Guy Macon tried to upgrade it to supplementary guideline but that was - very correctly in my view - reversed). It has also recently been updated to highlight that repetition, and not mere volume of comments, is typically the heart of WP:BLUD. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger - It seems like the main concern with the source is its url and technical issues regarding an edit filter. Verifiability does not require an online link. They are provided as a convenience to the reader. In fact most citations on wikipedia do not have them. When editors create content, they generally use books, magazines, journals, and newspapers, which they either access through the library or paywalled online databases. It is only for current affairs material that editors use online search engines like google news that provides urls for online newspapers to do their research. Current affairs being news happening in the past month or so. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Mail on Sunday should generally be considered reliable for all articles ~9 months or older. Such articles have had time for complaints to make their way through the system and be fixed. Articles younger than 9 months should receive extra caution in BLP situations where controversy could be involved. With respect to Hunter Biden stuff just coming out it would be best to wait and see if the material they publish proves reliable or is disproved in the coming months.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 It's just another newspaper. The details have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not with a draconian, one-size-fits-all blanket rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I don't think it's fair to judge Mail on Sunday's reliability based on the owner of Daily Mail. Their editorials and articles have been overseen by experienced people. It's a reputable newspaper, not to be confused with Daily Mail.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Spare me the WP:IDONTHEARIT ("No evidence of it fabricating stories"?), the false equivalencies (if you want to talk about another source, start an RFC for THAAT), the weird accusation Wikipedia editors are being "blackmailed" into voting for deprecation, and and, as well, the above content-free "It's just another newspaper": no, it isn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Put a stake through the heart of this thing so we all can start using better sources. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Deprecate it the same as the Daily Mail. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Mail on Sunday)

  • I am tired of discussing the Daily Mail as much as anyone else, so hopefully after this there will be no more need for any RfC's on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Please specify that this covers all editions at all URLs for all purposes - otherwise someone will be along making excuses as they already do with the DM: "oh, the Shetlands edition has some different staff", "but you didn't specifically mention articles on trainspotting", "but I like this guy", "but exceptions exist so I'm claiming this as an exception", etc., etc., etc - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
If the Mos and Daily Mail are both deprecated, it automatically covers all DM domains. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Including This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This Is Money is in its own words the "financial website and money section of the MailOnline", so is covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I see that you already asked this precise question before, and that was the answer then too, so it's entirely unclear why you're asking again - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
That was one response from you that was not mentioned in the closing statement. I am open to hearing from other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's about half an hour's quickest casual search. I'm sure if I put actual effort in, the list would be far longer. If anyone has their own lists of the MoS's mission to spread nonsense that we absolutely cannot trust as a source for encyclopedic content, please post them.
  • A pile of distorted and fabricated claims about the EU: [22]
  • Fabricated front-page claims of "foreign collusion" by Remain MPs [23]
  • Fifth in the list for PCC complaints, 2013 [24]
  • Fabrication about claimed BMA guidelines for doctors [25]
  • Capital gains tax fabrication, IPSO rules as "serious breach" [26]
  • Fabricated claims of anti-Semitism [27]
  • Defamatory attack on individual [28]
  • IPSO: "significantly misleading" [29]
  • Fabrication of quotes in interview (the MoS cannot be trusted for quotes any more than the DM) [30]
The MoS is lying rubbish just as much as the DM is, it just pretends not to be. A trash-tier tabloid that tells gullible readers it's a newspaper of record - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Some of those are not the best sources but I find (5) and (8) to be particularly alarming at a glance. Would you/someone mind digging up if the paper version, ie not MailOnline, has the same issues? And can we clarify if we’ve got this issue just in politics-related reporting or in other topics as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No idea if it's in the paper version, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't distinguish on that - some of the above are paper version specifically. Nor on politics, e.g. the irresponsible lies about the beautician - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
David observe how I presented the errors made by the Sunday Times. Now look at the way you presented the errors made by the Mail on Sunday. I have used completely neutral language. I merely stated these are some errors made by the Sunday Times. And then quoted the completely neutral ruling of the IPSO committe. You on the other hand have used completely loaded language. Do you think that me or anyone else could not also use such loaded and over-the-top language that you are using? Your language is reaching for the reader's senses, my language is intended to reach for the reader's mind. I believe it is better when we are trying to find the truth through debate that we use the language of reason. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the IPSO table below.

Table
IPSO Annual Report 2018
No. of articles complained about No. of Rejected complaints in remit Rejected Not pursued by complainant Resolved by IPSO mediation Resolved directly with publication Upheld Not upheld
1 MailOnline 503 213 135 5 16 34 9 14
2 Daily Mail 313 129 112 2 4 6 1 4
3 thesun.co.uk 178 88 53 1 6 22 2 4
4 The Sun 155 96 59 3 3 17 6 8
5 The Times 124 92 68 3 5 6 2 8
6 mirror.co.uk 102 48 25 1 2 13 4 3
7 The Daily Telegraph 78 58 37 7 2 4 1 7
8 Metro.co.uk 75 37 27 1 2 7 0 0
9 express.co.uk 71 50 28 1 4 12 5 0
10 The Mail on Sunday 69 37 27 2 2 2 2 2
11 The Sunday Times 58 52 33 2 5 2 5 5
12 Daily Express 48 30 21 2 0 1 3 3
13 Daily Mirror 40 20 13 0 1 2 2 2
14 dailyrecord.co.uk 36 22 16 0 1 1 0 4
15 Daily Record 34 22 15 1 1 2 2 1
16 The Argus (Brighton) 29 7 5 0 0 1 0 1
17 Metro 28 16 13 1 0 1 1 0
18 The Spectator 25 18 15 0 0 0 2 1
19 walesonline.co.uk 25 10 7 0 0 2 0 1
20 Telegraph.co.uk 24 9 9 0 0 0 0 0

The results are quite informative. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but MailOnline includes the MoS's online content, and we aren't citing the physical newspapers. Using single digit "Upheld" is a weak metric for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
We have in fact cited the physical newspapers quite a lot - most content before 2000 isn't on dailymail.co.uk, for example - and I'd have expected the RFCs covered those - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
That's getting into "was the Mail more reliable historically" territory, which was discussed in the last RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for table, but I don’t get it. There’s plenty of reliably sourced examples above of unreliable reporting by MOS, so why are numbers relative in table (which should be quite complete) so low? Are reports in MailOnline including problems with MOS (“paper edition”)? To clarify (as I don’t get their structure personally), is MailOnline actually the digital version (ie, word for word) of the paper newspapers? Or is it separate reporting? Further, are all stories in the MOS available word for word on MailOnline, and all MOS stories on MailOnline word for word the ones in the paper edition? And there’s no stories on MailOnline credited to MOS which don’t appear in the paper edition? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Because IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated in Wikipedia, and IPSO is widely regarded as a captured regulator. I don't know how many stories from MoS make it into one of print and paper but not the other, but either would count as MoS - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure but I just expected the number to be higher, or at least the number of filed complaints to be higher (in table, it's comparable to The Sunday Times, which doesn't seem right). I think any reliability of the paper copy is relevant though. If it's just MailOnline (which is covered under existing RfCs anyway) it shouldn't be a big issue and this RfC is moot. If the paper copy has reliability issues too, then the RfC is important. So if there's a distinction of content, really this RfC should be focused on if the paper version is equally as crappy. I've never read a copy of the MOS (tabloids with gossip covers aren't quite my thing) so I'm not saying if it's reliable or not, just that the focus should be on the paper component (if it differs). At a skim, looks like a couple of the links by dave souza above are content also included in the paper copy, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm confused David. In your above critique, two of your points use IPSO to criticize the Mail on Sunday. Now after the IPSO table for 2018 is presented, you state that "IPSO complaints are not the be-all and end-all of whether a source should be deprecated". This is truly some ironman logic. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday.
Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:

It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the Quillete or Iranian Press TV, which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to Breitbart News or the National Enquirer, which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces, not quality journalism about facts, and as such are subject to the care needed when using any opinion pieces. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states that "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." If the viewpoint of these commentators is valuable, they can be "voiced" subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not a blanket ban. . . dave souza, talk 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note: it is not ok to cherry pick corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the IPSO committee. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world is incorrect. See Independent Press Standards Organisation#Membership: "Several of the broadsheet newspapers, including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, have declined to take part in IPSO. The Financial Times and The Guardian have established their own independent complaints systems instead." The latter has long had a "readers’ editor – who is appointed, and can only be dismissed, by the Scott Trust – [and] can comment on issues and concerns raised by the public. There has also been an external ombudsman to whom the readers’ editor can refer substantial grievances, or matters concerning the Guardian’s journalistic integrity." That includes a feature of corrections and clarifications, not waiting for months or a year for IPSO judgment on public complaints.[31][32] . . dave souza, talk 04:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. You are correct. I made a slight mistake. I meant to say that no other set of English-speaking newspapers is monitored by an outside regulatory agency. Most newspapers have procedures in place to deal with corrections, and many bigger newspapers have a newspaper ombudsman who deals with questions of journalism ethics and standards. The position is independent of the control of the newspapers's chief-editor and perhaps owner. Frankly, I think wikipedia should think about getting a centralized corrections "ombudsmen" who the reader could easily deal with in order to ask for corrections. For many wikipedia readers the talk page and how to ask for corrections is a mystery. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The Fox RFC was also full of people going "but whatabout this other paper that isn't the subject of discussion". If you and Betty Logan want to start an RFC on the Sunday Times, that should be its own discussion. If you don't, then you need to discuss the MoS - whataboutery about other papers really isn't an argument. And nor is going "this is numbers, therefore they are the end of the discussion" - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Good point David. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Bad point. Clearly the number of corrections/complaints are relevant if you're using them in this RFC as a ban-rationale. Clearly it's relevant if the MoS receives no more complaints/corrections than sources that are recognised as reliable sources. It is simply facile logic to say "but those reliable newspapers aren't under discussion - you should open an RFC on blocking those reliable sources" because everyone knows that an RFC on the reliability of the Sunday Times would be snow-closed and the nominator would be at risk of a ban for wasting everyone's time. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources

References

  1. ^ "Ruling: Al Fayed v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2015. Retrieved 2020-09-13. It was accepted that the complainant had authorised the auction of the contents of the Parisian villa prior to his son's death. As the correct position was already in the public domain, publication of this claim represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Ruling: Yorkshire MESMAC v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2018. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The claim that an outreach worker had said that other website users could ask him for anal sex, in the context where he was acting in his capacity as a sexual health adviser supported the overall criticism of the complainant, that it conducted its sexual health work in a manner which was unprofessional. The Committee therefore considered that it was a significant inaccuracy,{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Ruling: Sivier v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2018. Retrieved 2020-09-13. However, the Committee did not consider that the publication had provided a sufficient basis for asserting that the complainant was a "Holocaust denier", either in the article, or in the evidence subsequently submitted for the Committee's consideration.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Ruling: Clement v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2019. Retrieved 2020-09-13. It was accepted that it was inaccurate to report that 117 crimes were reported at the 2018 Appleby Fair and it was not in dispute that the accurate figure was 17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ "Ruling: Nisbet v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2018. Retrieved 2020-09-13. It had inaccurately reported a figure for the current gender pay gap and gave the misleading impression that the gender pay gap measured differences in pay between identical jobs.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ "Ruling: Shadforth v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2019. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The article had not made clear that grades being "wrong" was the publication's characterisation and not a finding made by Ofqual; this amounted to a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Ruling: Wilson v Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2019. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The publication had conceded that its checking procedures had not worked with respect to the graph published with the online article and, as a result, the errors in the graph had not been identified prior to publication.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ "Ruling: Rashid v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2016. Retrieved 2020-09-13. It was not clear from the article that the claims about Deobandi Islam were the views of the newspaper's source; instead, they had been presented as fact. The failure to correctly attribute the claims made in the article represented a failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "Ruling: Hardy v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2015. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The failure of the article to refer to the complainant's repeated qualification or to the fact that he had only ever referred to 25% of the money being tax-free amounted to a failure to take care not to publish misleading information.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ "Ruling: Ahmed v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2017. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The complainant had not been receiving the £35 living allowance, as reported in the article.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ^ "Ruling: Versi v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2017. Retrieved 2020-09-13. The study had not found that 80% of people convicted of child-grooming offences were Asian; its findings related to a specific sub-set of these offences.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ "Ruling: University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust v The Sunday Times". www.ipso.co.uk. 2018. Retrieved 2020-09-13. Also, while the Trust did not believe proton beam therapy offered any additional benefit to that offered by the hospital, it had not deemed the treatment "worthless." This information was in the public domain at the time of publication, and misrepresenting the nature of the hospital's concerns, represented a failure to take care{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Most of the information appears to be anecdotal. The New York Times and other mainstream media pushed the false narrative that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, deliberately helping to start a war that foreseeably would kill hundreds of thousands of people, displace millions and cost trillions of dollars. That is more serious than the MOS publishing defamatory information about a beautician that they retracted after an IPSO complaint. The fact that IPSO upheld 9 complaints against them in one year is not statistically significant considering that they publish 52-53 issues each year. That works out to 1 error every six weeks, which is subsequently retracted. We don't expect that news media is 100% correct in reporting. We expect a small error rate and that the most significant errors will be corrected on a timely basis. The New York Times for example publishes error corrections every day. The MOS of course is not in the same league, but its accuracy rate is close to 100%. TFD (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper.

While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd like to respond to the point that the proposers "are tired" of arguing about the Daily Mail and newspapers related to it in some way: there was absolutely no reason at all given here to propose this ban now. The reason why people keep arguing about the Mail is because you keep opening these RFCs - there is no other reason, especially no actual content-related reason, why it is still being discussed. In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. The impression is of a group of people for whom the DM ban was their greatest moment and as such they wish to revisit it again and again. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In this entire crusade against the DM, not a single issue with an actual article has been discussed. If you read the discussion above -probably a useful step if you're going to weigh in on a discussion - you will see that your statement here is trivially incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
David, where is an actual issue with an actual article actually referenced in this entire farago? You deleting MoS references from articles is not an "issue with an article". You need to show that people are relying on MoS as a source and that this is causing actual problems (eg., it is being used to push fringe or incorrect views above and beyond what may happen with reliable sources), not "people are occasionally relying on MoS as a source and the problem is I keep deleting it because this is what I choose to prioritise". FOARP (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
PS - David, whilst we're at it, please explain this edit. Even if you think the DM ban applies to MoS why are you deleting statements from the MoS about what the MoS book of the week is - i.e., a situation where the MoS is talking about itself, a scenario which is explicitly allowed for by the DM 2017 RFC close ("the Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion")? To me it doesn't look like the problem is with people citing the MoS here. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure?

Is there any particular reason that this specific debate is lingering on this board, stale to the point of mouldy, and long overdue a summation? HangTenBangTen (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the traditional thing to do is go to the admin's notice board and make a request. If someone does this can they please make it just a request for closure without all the palaver about how this is a contentious subject and how the closing Admin will need a "thick skin" or to be "flame proof" that some people like to put in? Admins don't need to be told how to do their job. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is the place to list this. Woody (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of a 2013 Master's thesis on questions of possible origins of SARS-CoV-2

With the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (The virus causing COVID-19). There has emerged evidence that suggests that an earlier outbreak from 2012 might be related. At the core of it is independent research by Dr.Latham and Dr.Wilson from [33] Obviously this is still in the realm of a hypothesis. But one of their strong evidences is a chinese Master's thesis published in 2013, written by one of the doctors (Xu Li) treating the 2012 pateints, which has been translated to english. titled “Analysis of Six Patients with Severe Pneumonia Caused by Unknown Viruses” from Kunming Medical University.

the chinese page hosting the thesis: [34] and the english translation: [documentcloud.org/documents/6981198-Analysis-of-Six-Patients-With-Unknown-Viruses.html]

Recently a peer-reveiwed paper was puslibhed summarizing and citing the thesis at [35]

There have been a few news articles about the thesis, the paper and the discovery

The Science times [36]

The times [37]

NY post [38]

WaPo (2 days ago) [39] -though it doesn't mention the thesis, but basically repeats it's conclusion

Times of India [40] ...And a few others

Obviously, none of this supports strong assertions about the current pandemic. but I believe it can be a reliable source on the topic of the 2012 outbreak, and the opinions of the treating doctors as to what they believed they were dealing with in 2012. and mentioning of the fact that according to the thesis the WIV recieved samples from the sick miners.

With higtned sensitivity regarding various conspiracy theories on the pandemic, I understand this is a very touchy subject. but as the actual origin has not been conclusivly established, there are competing hypothesis with varying levels of supporting evidence (and with china supressing investigations, it's doubtfull it will ever be conclusive). I think that this source can shed light on this important topic. what is the opinion of more veteran Wikipedians? Shturmavik71 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Independent Science News is a WP:FRINGE advocacy organization that is unreliable, Frontiers is to be avoided as a predatory publisher, and several of the news magazines you cite mentioning the story are deprecated or considered generally unreliable. This is all on top of the fact that a master's thesis is 100% not MEDRS-compliant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not due at this time. There's been numerous efforts over the past year to push fringe views of the coronavirus's origin into wikipedia, and any hypothesis of the virus's origin requires stringent sourcing standards. A single research paper is not due for inclusion on medical topics per WP:RSMED. NYPOST is considered generally unreliable, and the WashPost entry is an Editoral Board opinion piece. Science Times appears to be an obscure website with no record of reliability. Jonathan Latham, one of the pushers of this latest research, has stated that the coronavirus "almost certainly escaped" from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is fringe and rejected by the vast majority of scientists. The mineshaft samples were collected by WIV, so this appears to be a backdoor attempt to push the "leak from WIV" theory. While The Times is considered generally reliable, I would not trust it for coverage of medical issues per WP:MEDPOP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
While I understand your reluctance. it seems to me that this is throwing the baby with the bathwater. unless patient zero is identified which has not happened, a lab-leak cannot be excluded, and I believe the scientific consenous rests on that. Dr.Latham conviction (and his strong idealogical stance on other issues) is not a reason to completely disqlaify the raw evidence he obtained. Shturmavik71 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that any new information, espcially something that can withstand such extreme rigor, about the 2012 outbreak will emerge.
by refusing to even consider the thesis on it's merit, valuable first hand evidence is lost. Shturmavik71 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Going by the Mòjiāng virus article, the virus isn't even a sodding coronavirus, but a member of Paramyxoviridae.(EDIT: there is a distinction between the Mojiang pneumonia event and the virus, and they have no confirmed connection other than locality). The "evidence" as far as I can see for their relationship is that there are similar symptoms between COVID and the Mojiang outbreak, but no genetic evidence of any kind, clearly not DUE without substantial confirmation by the wider scientific community, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You've just demonstrated one of the reasons why I'm trying to use those sources, by initially confusing MojV and the cause of the Mojiang pneumonia event. that's exactly my point, the Mòjiāng virus article is confusing!
From [41] MojV was sampled just as a result of the interest that the 2012 outbreak generated, quoting the author of the study “we have not established a direct relationship between human infection and MojV”. and "But for the time being, Jin says, MojV is “more likely a curiosity.”.
the Mojiang pneumonia event demands a wiki page it seems, but first it has to be made clear that MojV itself is not the cause of it (or at least no evidence that it is).
The second point, is that according to [42], RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 was sampled in the same mine.
Please note, That I'm not arguing that the article should infer anything from that. but that the record on the Mòjiāng virus article should be set straight on that.
Because as it is now, anybody that gets interested in the Mojiang outbreak stumbles first upon the Mojiang virus, which is not the pathogen involved.Shturmavik71 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
A master's thesis isn't even a published, peer-reviewed research article (and if the master's student didn't get a paper out of it that's an even bigger red flag), but even if it was the content still wouldn't be permitted as MEDRS because it is a WP:PRIMARY source. Wikipedia does not and should not reflect the views of a single publication, especially when it's not even published, and especially especially when it's dredged up as fodder for a conspiracy theory by a fringe former plant virologist. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the use of court documents

User:Gingerbreadhouse97 has been working hard on this article and in good faith. My concern is the use of court documents as I'm not sure when they can be user. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Doug Weller Ok thanks. I have been planning to work on this article for a while. Before, it was not very organized and left out a lot of information. I have been organizing and adding to it. I will look for secondary sources to back up the info I added. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is best not to use court documents. This was is a famous case, there should be secondary sources.--Hippeus (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318&oldid=1095434410"