Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources‎ | Noticeboard

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 18 January 2019 (// Edit via Wikiplus/Close Sun RFC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 253 Archive 254 Archive 255


Consensus is to add VDARE, including (, to the warn filter. Both sides seem to agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare times such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion -- such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2018 (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.

Should VDARE be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes - The site is associated with white supremacy, white nationalism and the alt-right. The Anti-Defamation League says it posts, promotes, and archives the work of racists, anti-immigrant figures, and anti-Semites. There is essentially never a reason to use this extremist, racist, anti-Semitic site as a source for anything on Wikipedia other than opinions of white supremacists, where deemed relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree - reliable for attributed statements of opinion (in limited situations), but not for unattributed facts. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: a WP:FRINGE source that would not be appropriate in almost all situations. Please add to the edit filter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: as per k.e.coffman and NorthBySouthBaranof. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh yes. Not in the least bit reliable. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems unnecessary since it does contain any news articles, merely opinion pieces that would not be rs even if published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Not as common to see added as WND or other subjects of similar RfCs, but I also wouldn't say that it's unnecessary, since I've seen it added on at least a couple occasions. As I said above, I think the idea of an edit filter is a good idea to discourage people from adding it, promoting discussion in those few cases when it might be sensible to add (although off-hand I have trouble thinking of any outside of commentary about itself/its projects). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. why ??? There is no need or purpose shown. (I see no cite using them nor anything on the article TALK.) Nor does this give a basis in policy, guideline, evidence, or an organized approach to support this. This appears to be a call for ad hoc ban by whim purely for show of appearances, or perhaps personal politics. So if it is not something that is presented, has no functional use, and has an appearance of being not reputable behaviour, then WP should not do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's the list. –dlthewave 17:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking over the mentions, it seems a lot of these citations are just for showing that such-and-such person writes for VDARE. I'm curious as to whether other editors think this is an acceptable use. Nblund talk 18:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I would see that as an acceptable use within the person's own article. –dlthewave 01:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for poor search missing the ~50 links to writers etcetera. That insource search also found it in a few places like Paleolibertarianism#References and the Paleoconservatism#Further reading which seem likely OK. OTOH, VDare being used at Brigitte Bardot and Governorship of Mike Huckabee seems a bit odd. But I'm still not seeing any real need or purpose for a block having been stated, nor an issue from the insource, nor prior discussion in RSN archives -- so I'm still at this is not reputable to block. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No - I disagree with TFD that they merely publish opinion pieces. Their bread-and-butter is racist pseudo-science like this and this. That said: it doesn't seem that most Wikipedians are citing them for statements of fact. If I'm vastly overestimating the potential complication here, then let me know, but I think an edit filter that flagged nearly-every potentially bad source could lead to some major technical issues, and so it should be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrable pattern of misuse that I'm not seeing here. Nblund talk 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Edit Striking through previous no vote, Newslinger's explanation addressed my concerns. Nblund talk 17:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Fears of technical problems can be remedied by setting the filter to warn, thus still allowing editors to use the site if they really want. Which is what is proposed btw. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Nblund - ? there seems something askew with your evidence... saying ‘disagree with TFD that they merely publish opinion pieces’ seems odd to then link two opinion pieces. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: My concern was less with people being unintentionally blocked from adding a source and more with performance issues. I don't have any experience setting these up, but the guidelines mention that checking for external links is a slow operation. VDARE is a terrible source, obviously, but if we have an edit filter that checks for every terrible website on the internet, then we are probably going to end up with a very slow edit filter.
@Markbassett: Those articles contain expressions of opinion, but they also contain a number of pseudo-scientific claims that white people have high IQs, and that "diverse" young people don't value liberty. This is just racist nonsense, but it's the kind of racist nonsense that a naive editor might mistake for actual analysis. Nblund talk 16:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Nblund - the first opinion piece does not claim “white people have high IQs”, it says northeast Asians and American Jews are higher. (I don’t know how accurate those numbers are, but believe racial differences in IQ is scientific fact, not opinion.) The opinion part is the claim that social issues of African Americans is better explained by IQ differences than by “blaming” white racism, that racism happens to all minority groups and IQ is the determining factor. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Sure. I could have been more precise in summarizing the argument, but I assumed the fringiness was pretty self-evident. To be more precise: the article takes the stance that race and genetics are the primary cause of observed gap in IQ. The author also posits that race explains things like gaps in educational attainment, crime, and mental health outcomes. The author cites crackpot journals like Mankind Quarterly, a journal which exists solely to crank out the sloppy pseudo-science that no one in the mainstream scientific community takes seriously. This isn't just an expression of an opinion, it's promoting WP:FRINGE pop-psychology that is no more scientific than homeopathy. This is indicative of VDARE's general editorial mission. Nblund talk 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Nblund - the VDARE opinion piece is just a non-scientist WP:OPINION about their perception on a particular paper, it is not "psuedo-scientific" nor WP:FRINGE pop-psychology, and the paper may be a bit off-mainstream that was cherry-picked as an instance of one more easily picked on. However, by WP guidance the scholarly paper is more authoritative as an RS of expert voice by nature of being scholarly and peer-reviewed, but it is not sufficiently authoritative to state as fact. The VDARE piece - if not an Opinion article - would be RS for reactions to the paper or the theme, but that would be of less WEIGHT and is RS only for the credence the position has in open public. The linking of genetics or race and IQ and the importance of IQ is not just ancient Scientific racism, it is in actual recent scientific discussions (more fools they to open that can of worms). Try a BING of 'scientific studies of IQ and race, for the Slate article and pieces it links to such as this; the WP History of the race and intelligence controversy; and The Guardian The unwelcome revival of 'race science'. , "The Bell Curve" that individual cases excel, or more recent discoveries about intelligence and development ... there's plenty that both the VDARE piece and the piece it criticizes are oversimplifying past ... Maybe bet to say NEITHER tells the whole story or is particularly worth a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but if you're suggesting that we should treat VDARE's white nationalist bloggers as though they have similar credibility to papers published in a mainstream scientific journals, then I don't think that's a proposal that even warrants debating. As the Guardian piece you cite makes clear, the racist science of people like Peter Brimelow has been repeatedly debunked, and its primary advocates today come from outside the scientific community. VDARE is not reliable for claims of fact about questions of science, human biology, or public policy, and their opinions are so wildly outside the mainstream that attending a dinner party with their editor is cause for a minor scandal. I struggle to imagine any scenario where citing them would be consistent with due weight and verifiability. Nblund talk 23:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Nblund Irrelevant to topic. Opinion piece / blogger parts would not be up for cite anyway to worry about RS, and as not VDARE writing are not an indication of VDARE editorial RS. Talk like Banning VDARE for what a blogger said there is not on, nor if they report on a current spat (which here the RS says is still ongoing and “debunked” is too far) in a rightish way. Otherwise you’ve got almost Non-overlapping magisterium that BOTH a VDARE and scientific journal might be RS for different contexts of a topic. VDARE seems possible RS for info on the rightish position in the context of general coverage or reaction ... where they would have more authority than a journal article, because it’s the context of public reaction and that’s not at all what journals do. Scientific journals would have more authority in the context of scientific points, because that’s not at all what VDARE does. But mostly this is all just hypotheticals ... my post point that this all seems proposing to flag VDARE on no actual incident or need other than IDONTLIKETHEM. If you cannot make an argument without hypotheticals and hyperbolics, can just drop it. I think we have beaten the points out so... over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Apart from being racists is there any evidence they are unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The website has no reputation for fact-checking and should probably not be trusted as a source on either biology or medicine. But could we use it as a primary source for its controversial writings (such as in the website's own article) or on background information on its writers? For example, we have an article on VDARE columnist Steve Sailer, and it used a citation to the website's list of columnists. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a garbage website. As per the respected Yascha Mounk in his book The People vs. Democracy, page 145. However, we don't ban WP:BIASED sources just because they are biased. wumbolo ^^^ 14:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. This blog publishes unsubstantiated discriminatory claims, and then presents them as facts. Here are some quotations:
    • "left-handedness is generally a product of something having gone wrong in development either due to a sub-optimal environment, mutant genes or a combination of the two. This leads to an asymmetrical brain (asymmetry being a sign of “developmental instability”), the over-use of the right hemisphere, and thus left-handedness. Consistent with this, sexual deviants such as homosexuals and paedophiles display elevated levels of left-handedness." (from "How Many Divisions Have The Transsexuals?")
    • "Medicare fraud is dominated by immigrants, mostly Soviet Jews, but some Muslims and Africans. Even the few Anglo names, when investigated, invariably prove to be Third Worlders" (from "Why MSM Won’t Name Medicare Fraudsters: They’re All Immigrants")
    • "With their mental instability, risk-taking and hyper-sexuality, mixed-race people are following a “faster Life History Strategy” than monoracial people. A fast Life History Strategy happens when, due to an unstable ecology, you adapt to “live fast and die young” in order to pass on as many of your genes as you can as fast as you can." (from "Mixed-Race People: Taller, More Intelligent, Better Looking? —But Also Crazy")
— Newslinger talk 04:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The above quotes lean me towards it is not reliable, but being discriminatory or unsubstantiated does not mean "false" or "wrong". Can you provide some examples of them promoting provably false information?Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not how science works - some claims are too dumb or obscure to bother refuting, and Wikipedia doesn't rely on sources that make unsubstantiated OR false claims. Nblund talk 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
No, but you have to demonstrate they are false. As this has not been done (or attempted) I have to assume it cannot be shown they publish false information, just information people do not agree with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
No, we really don't. What you're doing here is reversing the burden of proof - if this were the policy, we would need to track down reliable sources to repudiate every fringe claim that came up, regardless of how implausible. No scientific journal is likely to publish a specific factcheck on the crackpot assertion that trans people are "madmen", but we can point to the scientific consensus around gender dysphoria to dismiss it as nonsense. Similarly, we're never going to get explicit refutations of VDARE's iteration of the various white genocide, George Soros, and voter fraud conspiracy theories, but we don't need to entertain the notion that these are any more accurate than any other versions of these long-debunked ideas. Nblund talk 20:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Also please do this to American Renaissance if that hasn't already happened. jps (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. These folks have nothing good to offer humankind. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No I do not like it is not a valid objections, nor is publishing opinion (and that is what they do). I have asked for some evidence they falsify information (which given some of the claims presented here should not be that hard, facts can be checked), and no evidence has been forthcoming.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - "Ilhan Omar serves Islam master?" Not even a valid source for opinion. And why would there be a good reason to link to fashy trash websites? Give no opportunity for alt-right to promote themselves here. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No, do not add to the edit filter. The edit filter has to be run on every edit that is made to Wikipedia (including this one) and adding too many edit filters will cause performance issues, particularly to those with slower internet connections. To clarify: VDARE is horseshit and shouldn't be cited anywhere outside of the very rare cases where it can be used as a primary source. But it's simply not inserted in Wikipedia enough to justify the performance cost. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a note: I'm convinced, but I think Bilorv and I may have gotten that impression from the the MediaWiki on Abuse Filters section here. Maybe that's out of date? Nblund talk 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The section states that edit filters which use the added_links variable can adversely impact performance. However, it looks like Special:AbuseFilter/869, the edit filter for the Daily Mail, uses added_lines, which doesn't have these performance issues. I assume that any newly deprecated domains can be added into filter 869 using added_lines, not added_links. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No, do not add to the edit filter. No valid reason for filtering has been produced. From a quick look at the "list" of refs., these are largely valid as evidence of blue-linked people writing for VDARE. As mostly an opinion site, much of the remaining material is unusable anyway. Is Wikipedia going to go around filtering all sites that have mostly unusable material? In any event, any improper citations can and should be cleaned up via the regular edit process; filters are not cleanup. The proposal seems a clear case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. XavierItzm (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes As per reasons given by NorthBySouthBaranof. Autarch (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nay It's possibly irrelevant, but I don't see strong evidence for anything that requires a filter. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2018 (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.

RfC: The Sun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

  • Summary:- Analyzing the substance of the arguments; there's a consensus in ☑Y favor of the proposal.
  • Accordingly, the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject. An edit filter should be put in place to warn editors attempting to use the Sun as a reference. Nothing enacted in this closure, over-rides WP:ABOUTSELF.
  • Analysis:-
  • There exists a broad consensus (even among-st the opposing faction) that the Sun is quite unreliable as a source for a variety of reasons including outright fabrication and is perceived as so, per Feminist's cites. More or less, it is a flag-bearer of sensationalist tabloid-journalism.
  • Whilst some have noted their thriving in an environment governed by strict libel laws and a strong code-of-conduct, (whose breaches are rigidly governed), they don't match the numerical strength of the supporters.
  • Many of the opposing argument(s), when analysed fail to mount as effective rebuttals to the above point.
  • Advising an editor (esp. those outside of Great Britain) against using a part. source; in light of their unreliability, is not akin to treating them as idiots (does everybody under the sun know about the quality of the Sun?) and we have a history of using EFs to warn against usage of such seemingly-reliable sources. Furthermore, this closure does neither permit a blacklisting nor a wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion.
  • That we use other trash-sources is never a good reason to oppose (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.
  • In contrary to some arguments, the audience-reach is not a quite-deciding factor in the wiki-reliability of a source and press-freedom hardly equates to granting a liberty for editors' using low-quality sources in writing an encyclopedia. Neither do I see any political motivation in the RFC.
  • There are some philosophical arguments against the very concept of prohibiting the usage of a source in this manner; the deciding of which has effectively boiled down to a count-of-noses.
  • I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.
  • P.S:-There has been a feeling among the opposing side that this can lead to a draconian purge of Sun references from WP without due discretion and that the newbies will bear the brunt of any over-zealous enforcement.
  • Hence, I will urge all editors to exercise due restrain and use common sense; whilst dealing with removals. For an example, please harvest some efforts to source a cited-info to a reliable source, prior to removal of a DM cite.
  • P.P.S:- FWIW, I do not find the discussions about the use/misuse of DS notices any relevant to the issue and whether any existing DS covers these issues can be staked out over another RFC or placed before the arbitrators(??); if there's an active bone of contention. Same about blocks.

Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use the The Sun as a reference? feminist (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Addendum: note that this does not prevent The Sun from being used as a source. Users are merely warned when trying to use it as a source, but nothing prevents it from being added to an article. feminist (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (The Sun)

  • Support as nominator. The Sun is considered less trustworthy, less accurate and more biased than the Daily Mail in polls and surveys. (Ofcom News Consumption in the UK 2018, p 94, Ipsos Impartiality and Trust Market Content Survey 2017, p 14-16, BBC 2014, p 10-11) Prior discussions on the suitability of The Sun as a reference (see WP:RSP#The Sun) often compare its unreliability to the Daily Mail. It's clear that The Sun is at least as bad as the Daily Mail as a source, and should be deprecated the same way. feminist (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I am swayed by the opposing arguments provided. I still think The Sun should generally be avoided as a source, and a filter may be helpful in that regard, though I am no longer convinced that something akin to what happened with the Daily Mail ban would be ideal. I don't want editors to be bullied off the project just because they used an unreliable source, nor do I want non-contentious content referencing unreliable sources to be blanket removed or their citations replaced with {{cn}}. feminist (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support of the "I thought they already were" variety. ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all such "deprecations" as being past the slippery slope level. Especially since almost all "science and medicine articles" (in newspapers and the like) (appended parenthetical comment to avoid misapprehension) are based on press releases not otherwise checked in any way by extremely few major newspapers. I support deprecation of every single "celebrity gossip" site, however, for celebrity gossip. " Instead of presenting an accurate representation of medical research, medical journalists have become complicit in transmitting inaccurate or deceptive “puff pieces” designed to hype the supposed discovery and hide any deficiencies in the research." " Instead, in most cases when news stories made claims beyond those made in the peer-reviewed journal article, such exaggeration was already present in the university press release." "Even though the UK Telegraph’s article on a local British government report was inaccurate, it wasn’t a breach of press guidelines because the Telegraph accurately reported on the government report, and the report itself had the error." The errors are from reports and press releases which are now unchecked by most news outlets at all. Even The Times and The Guardian. Ban them all if this is the rationale. Collect (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    You refer to a problem in one area for otherwise reliable sources, while this is about recurring issues regarding fabrication of stories in many topic areas. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
almost all "science and medicine articles" are based on press releases - I don't think that's correct. The biomedical information in most medical articles is built around quality (WP:MEDRS) sources, not press releases reported in newspapers. GirthSummit (blether) 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [1] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis)." Yep - newspapers even back in 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, and did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did not get mentioned in articles.
[2] 2003 "Maryland. In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.
“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)
(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)
In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medical journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)
[3] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States:60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [4] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.
DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."
"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."
"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.
In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [5] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?
[6] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!
[7] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...
What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking to the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [8] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[9] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York, a person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.
I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [10] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball. And not the fact that 49% of "science articles" as a minimum use such press releases as the source. Collect (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
So, you seem to be suggesting that citing The Sun is fine since, because no newspaper bothers to check facts any more, it's no worse than any other newspaper. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
As I said no such thing at all, I ask you to pay attention to what I wrote. Attacking "straw men" might be fun, but it rarely has any real value. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I "paid attention" by reading all of it. Now twice. And that was the message I personally got from it. Apologies if that was a complete misunderstanding on my part. I wonder could you possibly explain, for numpty nitwits like myself, how what you have written is relevant to The Sun. Yours, with the short straw, Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, I would consider no newspaper to meet WP:MEDRS full-stop, unless it is written by an acknowledged expert in the field with the appropriate qualifications. And even then I might only go as far as saying it's a reliable source for an opinion. However, I can't remember the last time I saw any argument for using The Sun as a reliable source for medicine against other news sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No newspaper which uses press releases from any source without checking them is really reliable for any material at all any more. And that means This proposal should include The Times and The Guardian and The New York Times. Sorry -- this proposal is fatally flawed and will lead to hundreds of blacklisted sources in the long run. Those who say "We all know The Sun is rubbish and we should excise all rubbish from the project are wrong, because at some other place and time, your own favored sources might well be considered "rubbish" by others. This is not really about WP:MEDRS at all. Collect (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see this proposal not as a total ban of The Sun. I understand it as an attempt to save our time, because, as a rule, an attempt to use The Sun as a source may have two outcomes. First, it may face no opposition, and, as a result, we have some WP article that is supported by some The Sun article that ostensibly expresses some universal opinion. This discredits Wikipedia in eyes of educated public. In the second scenario, the discussion of The Sun starts on the talk page, and, after some time, the participants come here, and the verdict is "not a good source". Therefore, by applying a filter we just inform an editor about the problems with The Sun; that will save our time and improve the overall quality of the WP content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The question as posed is "Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use the The Sun as a reference?" As the DM is "deprecated" now to the extent that folks are told not to use it even for MECCANO illos, the case here is dang clear- A Ban on this source unless the editors agree to use it pretty much unanimously. This is far beyond your interpretation that it is only a suggestion to discuss the use on this page, as Andy has shown by actual example. Collect (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly so. And this is the reason to re-open the DM ban as well, since it is (according to the people who support that ban, whilst denying that that is what it is) being interpreted far beyond what it was originally supposed to be. The effect has been that any editor using the DM for any purpose - even when it is just being used as additional support for something cited independently in other sources - gets someone coming in to delete it with no further justification beyond "Daily Mail, therefore delete". If this is not a ban then I would like to see what one looks like. EDIT: oh, and the editors arguing that this automatic ban reduces their work-load really need to explain why it was that their previous manual trawling of the pages of Wiki to expunge every reference to the DM was actually necessary, since so much of what they were doing was entirely unnecessary given that the references they were deleting weren't controversial or BLP. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support as a Daily Mail-esque problem. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is hard to find the border between facts and fiction in this kind of tabloids. Articles are filled with sensational details. Surveys provided by feminist are very informative. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose To do this is to either assume that editors are idiots, or to treat them that way anyway. Editors are here to make editorial decisions, not to be automated into just nodding past subjective value judgements made by a clique of filter editors.
Yes, the Sun is trash. And our editors can be assumed to either recognise that, or to have a damned good reason to be using it (you can't cover the Falklands Campaign without referencing their Gotcha headline).
I'm also concerned at the increasing bias here against UK newspapers. It's common currency that the Daily Mail is banned (it isn't) Even the Guardian and the Telegraph are getting described in the same terms. Yet Fox News and Russia Today go unchallenged? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I responded in the discussion section below. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where do we draw the line? I think a better approach would be for editors to use the best sources available, which in most cases would exclude the Sun. TFD (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we ban a particular publication from being cited at all we loose the opportunity to highlight their poor coverage of events. IMHO it is much more preferable to allow these sources to be cited and then to provide other sources that demonstrate the contrasts in coverage. This is absolutely a slippery slope. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Previous discussions established that The Sun is at least as unreliable as the Daily Mail. For consistency, The Sun should be subject to the same treatment. Three points of clarification:
    1. It's important not to misinterpret this RfC, which is not calling for a "ban" of The Sun. It's proposing an edit filter that shows a message to editors who attempt to use The Sun as a source, and asks them if they want to proceed. This RfC would not prevent any editor from citing The Sun as a source.
    2. This RfC asks for The Sun to be deprecated in the same way as the 2017 RfC for the Daily Mail. The 2017 RfC concluded that the Daily Mail's "use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" (not "always prohibited") and also carved out an exception where using the Daily Mail is acceptable: "it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion". If this RfC passes, The Sun would still be usable as a primary source in the same way.
    3. WP:ABOUTSELF allows editors to use questionable sources, including The Sun, for information on themselves. This RfC doesn't change this.
— Newslinger talk 02:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's disingenuous to say that "An edit filter doesn't prevent a source being used". From the Mail, we've seen that this is persistently referred to as "the Daily Mail ban". It's reported by external media as "Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail". More locally, any use of it leads to "discretionary sanction" boxes being posted on your talk page (despite that DS box actually being invalid) and direct threats of blocking from a couple of persistent admins. This is a culture that few editors will persist through, far more than an advisory warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    To match reliable sources, the word "ban" should be used in article space to describe the Wikipedia community's relationship with the Daily Mail where appropriate. However, this discussion is in project space, and the word "ban" is inconsistent with how the Daily Mail RfC was closed. Also, could you link to an example of these boxes? If editors are interpreting citations of the Daily Mail as a discretionary sanctions issue, then that should be corrected and any templates used solely for this purpose should be deleted. — Newslinger talk 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Although there isn't (or shouldn't be) a DS template specifically for the Daily Mail, repeated attempts to add poorly-sourced content can fall under other DS areas such as BLP or American Politics. –dlthewave 18:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The hostile warning on my talk page was rooted in Talk:Manny Pacquiao#Bible Quote Where another editor (I hadn't even edited the article) was repeatedly blocked for adding sources [11] from the BBC, Guardian and others, not the Daily Mail. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm now less concerned because the links didn't contain a discretionary sanctions box regarding the Daily Mail. It's true that there needs to be some sort of written guidance about what deprecation entails. Since there's no guidance, some editors are misinterpreting the 2017 Daily Mail RfC, and this needs to be fixed. However, in the interest of consistency, I'm going to maintain my "support" position unless it becomes clear that the currently active Daily Mail RfC will pass. — Newslinger talk 01:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:DEPRECATED now clarifies how deprecation affects sources. If you would like to add some behavioral guidance for editors, please do so. — Newslinger talk 12:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Newslinger. The sources like The Sun can and should be used (otherwise some users of readers may conclude Wikipedia is a biased resource), however, they should be used with cautions. In connection to that, I think Morgan Leigh, TFD, Andy Dingley should read the above Newslinger's post, because it seems they have misunderstood what deprecation means in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand exactly what the proposal means. and I agree with Andy Dingley about how discretionary sanctions notices are being misused. Wikipedia is becoming more punitive and combative. It's no wonder editors are fleeing in droves. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Morgan Leigh>, we are always balancing between Scylla of anti-democratism and Charybdis of obscurantism. Yes, redundantly stringent discretionary sanctions may force some users who rely too much on the sources similar to The Sun to leave the project. However, if too much liberty will be given to this type users, the editors who prefer to use American Historical Review, or Science, NY Times may decide to leave the Wikipedia. And I have a feeling that the second scenario would have more negative impact on the project.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No-one here is encouraging the use of The Sun, merely encouraging editors to engage more fully in selecting what should be used, rather than relying on automated and rigid controls. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am totally not advocating for the use of The Sun. It's shit. What I am advocating for is making Wikipedia more friendly for editors Wikipedia is haemorrhaging editors. I contend it is because there is too much punitive action and not enough encouragement of users. I find it telling that you say the stringent use of discretionary sanctions may force users to leave, because my point is all about force. There is a lot of use of force on Wikipedia nowadays; Let's try to force users to do source checking instead of copy editing, Let's gang up on users we disagree with and call it consensus, Let's use discretionary sanctions to force this type of user to leave. This is the opposite of presuming good intent. It is also lazy. It's way easier to slap a warning notice on a users talk page and hope it will intimidate them into going away than it is to try to work with them to improve their ability to recognise a good source. If we want people to participate we must encourage them, not slap warning notices on their talk pages and label them "this type of user". Don't underestimate how intimidating a discretionary sanctions notice is for a new user. How about deploying a friendly "here's where to find help on recognising reliable sources" notice instead? What kind of source a person uses isn't a good indicator of who will be a good wikipedian. There are plenty of editors who use, and misuse, reliable sources that harass editors. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Morgan Leigh&Andy Dingley, I am totally not advocating for the ban of The Sun. What I am advocating for is making Wikipedia more friendly for the users who want to use more reliable and high quality sources. In my opinion, editors should be allowed to use The Sun and similar sources, however, when they do that, they should be automatically informed that these sources are highly questionable. I agree that Wikipedia should be more friendly, but it should be more friendly towards the editors who are using best quality sources. It is really annoying when a user who takes information from the best quality sources, such as American historical Reviews, has to explain, again and again, that poor quality sources, such as The Sun, should not be treated in the same way as good sources. Therefore, it seems you incorrectly understand the problem: the question is not whether Wikipedia should be more friendly or not, or whether Wikipedia should be more friendly to those who wants to write a good quality content (or, at least, to improve their writing skills), or to those who are pretty satisfied with totally amateurish and superficial editing style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • when they [cite the Sun], they should be automatically informed that these sources are highly questionable.
Lovely. So how are you going to achieve this? Because when it was last attempted, for the Mail, it turned instead into an invitation for a couple of admins to bully and threaten blocks.
it seems you incorrectly understand the problem Well, that's because we're stupid Sun readers, isn't it, and you think we shouldn't be editing at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
"the editors who prefer to use American Historical Review, or Science, NY Times may decide to leave the Wikipedia" - I find it telling that the editors supporting a blanket ban (and this is what it is) of particular UK-based media are citing US-based media as examples of high-quality reliable sources. Again: just why is that media in a country with a history of robust freedom of the press going back centuries - the UK - is exclusively the target of this kind of blanket-ban? FOARP (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Newslinger. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support its reputation for unreliability is legendary (in fact at one time it was the trope of bad journalism) (as various satirical names such as the Snu).Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support per this. I can appreciate a counter-argument that The Sun is good for up to date sports results, and that those are pretty reliable - however, WP:BLPSOURCES correctly states, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.". And as Newslinger says, this proposal is simply putting up an "are you sure you want to cite the Sun" message - if it's to put the latest football stats and it's the only one online, then you could click "yes I am sure" and do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support provided that it's of the "are you sure?" variety and not a blanket ban. Comparisons to the Daily Mail are misleading; the Mail has a professional-looking website with the trappings of a legitimate newspaper, so readers (particularly those outside the UK who aren't familiar with its questionable accuracy) understandably don't realise that it's not a credible source and try to cite it. Nobody seeing the wall of tits-and-celebrities that constitutes the Sun website would be in any doubt that it's a ropey tabloid. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Have you seen the DM website? Its wall of tits-and-celebrities has become known generally (Private Eye) as the "sidebar of shame". Any publication that is seemingly required to use the phrase "peachy derrière" at least twice a day is a long way from a professional-looking website with the trappings of a legitimate newspaper. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Very Strongly Oppose Not just this motion, but the entire concept of blanket-banning sources that are actually media organisations with editors and professional reporters overseen by (and answerable to) a regulator. This appears to be yet another example of people who hate a publication because of its politics trying to get it banned (and let's be honest with ourselves, that's what is being proposed - if you include a DM reference, you get a warning and then another editor automatically comes in and deletes the reference with an edit summary saying "Daily Mail"). We should never have banned the Daily Mail completely either, just covered it with a general policy for tabloids. Meanwhile there's still no consensus on Russia Today, PressTV, China Daily, Global Times, Fox News, etc. not being reliable sources since they all have their partisans on this website. Why is it just UK media sources - that is sources from a country that has a history of a robust freedom of the press going back centuries - that get this treatment? FOARP (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Because press freedom and press reliability are not the same thing, and we can see the difference. This is not restricting press freedom in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The effect of banning a source (and again, that's what the effect of this will be since that was what the effect was on the Daily Mail) is saying that it won't be included on Wiki which inevitably serves to deprecate that source. It was not justified for the Daily Mail. It is not justified for The Sun. Both are news organisations that also include tabloid content and have politicis that I disagree with. As for why press freedom is relevant, it is relevant because the reliability of the press in countries where the press is government-controlled and government-censored will inevitably be lower since it cannot be independent of government policy. Why, then, is it the media of a country which enjoys robust freedom of the press that gets almost exclusively targeted by these blanket, automated bans? FOARP (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is because we have freedom of the press, so no one source represents an official (and thus POV pushing) agenda. Maybe it is because we do not worship out press (or press freedom) but rather see it as a privileged (and not a right) to publish a newspaper (or have it respected). Because we can speak our mind without some big brother telling us what to do. It is not about their politics, I have said many times we should ban all tabloid (using the UK definition) journalism, anbd in fact have gone further and said we should ban all press reports as RS until a certain period has elapsed between the report and the event. If "lie papers" what to be taken seriously as sources maybe they need to change their act, rather then expect us to try and shift through reams of lies, decent and gossip to find one reliable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Tabloid journalism =/= everything that appears in a tabloid. Let editors decide what content within a tabloid paper is and is not suitable for use. Let's trust editors rather than blanket-banning things using automated system that promote unthinking obedience. If the piece is "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" then it's clear that you shouldn't just rely on a single report in a tabloid paper to substantiate it. If the article is about Hydroxyl and you want to use quotes from this DM article, then why the hell shouldn't you? FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Because it takes up huge amounts of time on talk pages and articles trying keep out the chaff, time I (and others) are not being paid for. It means that "but its an RS" is not rallying cry to include every bit of dishonest tittle tattle that appears in a newspaper that we then have to fight tooth and claw to keep out. You only have to look at the fact this (and what happened to the Daily Myth) is not in fact a ban and see how much effort has been put into promoting that particular myth here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not being paid for editing Wiki is NOT a valid reason for doing anything, other than not editing wiki because you should focus on your job. Since the only times I've seen DM references being deleted is when it was being used to substantiate something that was already covered in other sources anyway, I'm not sure whether most of the aggressive policing of DM references was necessary anyway, and not just editors choosing to waste their own time in a vendetta against that publication. As for not being a ban, well, it has been treated as exactly that in pretty much every discussion I've seen and that's no surprise when there are automated systems for stopping and deleting DM references. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the key issue: there are not enough editors or admins on Wikipedia to keep it running properly. These kinds of bans are being proposed to try to deal with the fallout of this problem. Rather than doing this we should be addressing the cause of the problem. I contend that editors are leaving Wikipedia because it is too punitive and combative. These kinds of bans create that impression. Rather we need to develop tools to help users recognise reliable sources. Wikimedia is rolling in cash, why can't it spend some one developing useful tools? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We should never have banned the Daily Mail completely either We didn't. Although you'd never know that, from how it's handled afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It was basically an enabling act for people who wanted it gone from this site. FOARP (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is The Sun a good source? No. Should it generally be used? No. Should it be banned outright? No. It is better than RT and Press TV for instance. For some items it may be reliable - for instance, it probably is reliable for sourcing page 3 appearances. It probably is reliable for an attributed quote. For most content in the UK there are definitely much better sources, but this doesn't mean that banning this all together is the way to go. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it makes many dubious claims and is a poor source to use, especially for any contentious claims. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the arguments put froward by User:Collect. I do not think we should have effectively banned the DM either. Their record for inacurracy is not particularly shocking. Over the 4 year period since its existance IPSO received 4008 complaints of inaccuracy concerning the DM, 2/3 were rejected 10% were not pursued and there was a breach of rules found in 7 cases or 0.17% of cases, the Sun's figures are similar, 0.2% of 6047 cases. I have never read thes 2 papers as what they have to say does not interest me but I do not like the idea of a vote on banning them for inaccuracy without objective and non anecdotal evidence that shows they should be singled out as exceptional cases. They represent a popular culture that I do not associate myself with but that I respect. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as per the nominator and others. Unreliable UK tabloid, which i am surprised does not already have warning to editors attempting to use it as a reference like the Daily Mail. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppopse per Collect. It is fine to list the Sun on some RS list as a questionable source to be avoided, but not on WP's blacklist. The blacklist should be for sites that should never be used, not even for RSOPINION, unless that site is actually part of the story. That hasn't been demonstrated for the Sun. It's not an RS for fact, but I'm not seeing the issues with its opinion pieces as their was with DM (where we learned they rewrote some opinion pieces), so still a valid RSOPINION work. --Masem (t) 20:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't care about public perception, and I see no evidence for publishing fabricated articles, which should be the bar for these bans. The oppose !votes above are convincing. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 06:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most people may be distrustful of the Sun, but then again half the people in the West have IQ of below 100 and the wast majority wouldn't be able to calculate an integral or pinpoint the location of Djibouti on the map, so who cares about what these kinds of "people" think?
  • Support Primarily because I'm not seeing a lot of compelling reasoning from the oppose !votes so far; there's a lot of "let's not blacklist this website" (something that, per the RFC question's specific wording, isn't being proposed) and "don't treat editors like idiots, even if this source probably should be deprecated because it's trash" (which seems counter-intuitive). As an aside, maybe if this proposal passes we'll get a fun editorial in The Sun complaining about how Wikipedia isn't reliable either, and how Sun journalists have not been allowed cite Wikipedia since such-and-such date (that literally happened with The Daily Mail -- I can fetch the link if anyone needs it). Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons listed by Collect. Oppose doesn't mean I (or other editors) think the source is generally reliable but we should use some common sense when evaluating articles from various sources. Do we think the average editors are so stupid as to need this sort of warning before using a source like The Sun? Where does it stop? No, this is something that should only be done in extreme cases. Let the existing policies and guidelines do their work. Springee (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support based on the arguments brought up by other supporting editors above. livelikemusic talk! 18:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per collect. Given the surveys feminist cites, the case to ban the Sun would be compelling, except it rests on the assumption we were correct to ban the Daily Mail. Like others, I see that as a mistake, and not just due to Collect's slippery slope argument. The DM may be less reliable than the best papers such as the FT, but I don't see the difference as that great. My mother takes the DM & I often read a few articles when I visit; many of them seem perfectly accurate. I also regularly read FT, and occasionally find statements which I know to be false. Granted, FT is overall more reliable, hence it's the source I most frequently add to articles. But the difference doesn't seem great enough to warrant banning DM. Some of you don't like what I'm saying and I can hear your thoughts. "Even if you're right about the FT vs DM Feyd, which we doubt, even FT is only a newspaper. We like to use much more reliable sources here on Wikipedia." Sadly, sources such as 'systemic reviews', listed at the very top of the hierarchy suggested by guidelines like WP:MEDS are in fact less reliable than FT. (See for example The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses by arguably the world's most respected authority on the subject, John Ioannidis Much of the top tier sources Wikipedians value so highly are now near worthless in terms of accurately reflecting knowledge, as they say exactly what Biotech paymasters want them to say.).
Like Accademia at large, Wikipedia is in several ways over a decade behind rest of world. Probably most know that this past 10 years, there has been a substantial decline in the trust regular people have in experts. What you might not know is that it's not just the masses who have lost faith– the top 0.001% have too, e.g. the policy making elite. 15 years ago, if an expert was called to address a HoC committee and started talking about the scientific consensus or 'the literature', that would have been fine. Nowadays, (with some exceptions like global warming), we just humour the person, raise a few eye brows and make sure they don't get invited again. At least in my admittedly limited experience, instead of paying attention to things like meta analyses or those who still have faith in them, policy makers instead listen to individuals who we trust to provide an objective summary. Essentially scientists of marked integrity and intelligence, as close to someone like good Ioannidis as possible.
Just in case someone with rare discernment reads the above and takes it to heart, on a balancing note, it's not as bad as it sounds. MEDS may be flawed, but a bad tool is often better than none. Despite the millions Biotech spends each year on distorting science & it's public perception, the fact is massive reductions in infant mortality and relative flourishing of human life in many parts of the world would have been impossible without biotech. Also, as has long been the case with global warming, the best PR agencies are increasingly refusing to work for Biotech, so they only get 2nd rankers at best. They may succeed in getting hundreds of our science articles to say exactly what biotech firms want them to. But in the wider info wars theatre, it doesn't really matter. The poor shrills aren't even fighting with the right weapons. Hence for example even conservative administrations banning various pesticides this past year, despite the apparent mainstream scientific consensus that they are relatively safe. Probably the more serious consequence of Wikipedia's unsophisticated views on reliability is the way it empowers overzealous quality control types to waltz about the Wiki undoing hours of other peoples hard work with a flick of the revert button. And then if the other editor objects, slapping unwarranted DS tags on their talk page, and using a weaponised concept of Fringe to get them permabanned. I guess the point Im getting to is to echo Andy Dingley's point about editors not being idiots. If we want to be the best possible encyclopaedia we must rely partly on editorial discretion, not solely on a flawed hierarchy of sources. All that said, only opposing weakly as there's quite a bit of sense in feminists proposals and the arguments from Ritchie and other supporters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. Why? There is no case made here of a shown need or purpose. Nor a basis for this in policy, guidance, evidence, or organised approach. This just looks like one of these proposals randomly made by someone on a whim. I don’t see any mention of actual problems or links to past RS/N talks. Looks like no need, no benefit, and no reputable approach so ... do not do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. All newspapers are much the same as, nowadays, they all tend to copy the same stories from each other. Having a blacklist of this sort is not a sensible approach because it would either have to be unworkably immense or absurdly arbitrary. For uncontroversial facts such as the result of a football match or the director of a movie, The Sun would be reasonably reliable and we shouldn't discourage such use when so many periodicals are putting up pay-walls. Andrew D. (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support lets endorse the popular decision by the City of Liverpool, and the nomination by OP. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the same slippery slope that people warned about in the original DM ban discussion. Since that we've had Daily Mail, Breitbart, an attempt on the Daily Express now the Sun in the firing line to go on the naughty list. There is a pattern emerging and I don't like the look of it because it does give the appearance that this is more of a push to remove politically right leaning sources from Wikipedia. I don't see a good argument to ban the Sun here, just a load of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    I mean, if the Express told me that the European Union flag was blue, I'd go on just to double check. Sceptre (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Shouldn't be using a tabloid for this stuff. SemiHypercube 00:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation: The Sun is in a class of its own in that an entire city has boycotted it for thirty years because it's unreliable trash. Sceptre (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Let's hope the TS won't go down the way of Darth Mail and post something about only 100 out of 30M editors "voting" to ban it. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Do we need a RfC for every sensational, untrustworthy and primarily-used-for-POV-content tabloids? Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: The S*n has a long-standing reputation for printing falsehoods and lies, most notably following the Hillsborough disaster. Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't like the newspaper, and one good usage of it is to wipe the place where the sun doesn't shine, if you are really that desperate. But onto serious and objective matters: this 'newspaper' has never been reliable, has published falsehoods throughout its history, and continues to do so. talk to !dave 12:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It's safe to say that The Sun is not a source we should be using. It's barely better than supermarket tabloids by now. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support The Sun cannot be regarded as a reliable source, it has published falsehoods as headlines. For example: "FREDDY STARR ATE MY HAMSTER" - see The Guardian and The Telegraph as sources for Max Clifford planting the story. Autarch (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban of The Sun, a major British newspaper - as cited elsewhere, "The UK has amongst the world’s strictest libel laws and the Daily Mail also is required to follow the IPSO Editors' Code of conduct with risk of enforcements actions for breaches." It is beyond nonsensical to ban one of the major news sources of the highly regulated and litigious UK media world, not to mention the WP:CREEP issues. XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment Comment: notice how many of the oppose !votes clearly indicate that they knee-jerk oppose any edit filter being put in place to warn editors attempting to use any source as a reference? This would imply that they oppose such an edit filter for Infowars or The Onion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a major daily in a country famed for its feisty and free press, a country, I hasten to add, that is also famed for the highly partisan nature of its press. I know of no newspaper that has not published untruths, but singling out a major, national daily is highly problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The Sun's circulation or politics is irrelevant here, regarding numbers of readers ~ a YouTube personality can have a Trillion followers ~ it does not make them any more reliable as a source. The question is the Sun a good reliable source for articles in Wikipedia, and the answer to that is simply No . The second point ~ It is wrong to single out the Sun. The Answer is ... No, we are already treating the Daily Mail the same and what we should do is ... go on to depreciate with similar edit filters all other substandard dodgy unreliable sources, including the Daily Express and The Daily Star and similar news sources in print, on the web and in the broadcast media around the world the same. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The general tendency to ban sources is clearly politically motivated and deleterious. Based on OP feminist's change of position, I have decided to weigh in against this "mise au ban". — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 00:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we leave baseless accusations of political motivations of other editors out of this. This thread about the tabloid The Sun is on the **RELIABLE SOURCES** noticeboard, hint we are considering the The Sun's **RELIABILITY** not its politics.
The are more than enough excellent high quality right of center new sources to serve Wikipedia, we do not need help from a ~
"a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, ... junk food news, and astrology". ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The allegation of political bias is not "baseless", I have seen at least two bases for it:
1) Thus far the only newspaper (i.e., not a conspiracy theory outlet like InfoWars) to have been banned in this fashion is the Daily Mail - a prominent right-wing newspaper - despite arguably worse behaviour from other tabloids (especially the Daily Mirror's fabrication of pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees and publishing this on the front page - if you think this too long ago then consider the people citing the 1989 Hillsborough coverage above as a ban-reason). The only proposals currently being discussed are also in relation to right-wing newspapers. This is particularly notable on the perennial sources list where the only UK tabloid not to be general deprecated is The Daily Mirror, a prominent left-wing tabloid.
2) The visible anger towards these publications from editors, the invocation of nick-names for them common in left-wing circles (e.g., "The S*n") and the argument raised in this discussion by the nominator that the "bias" (presumably a right-wing "bias") of The Sun is a valid ground for it being banned.
I don't think the above things are simply the products of my imagination. I even understand the anger directed at the Sun - I too have refused to read it since Hillsborough since I am a Liverpool fan - but I can see the difference between my personal choice not to read it and an automated ban compelling everyone else never to cite it for even non-BLP/uncontroversial subject matter. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The claim it's "politics" is baseless. The Times has the same publisher and politics as The Sun. We accept The Times because it's a newspaper of record, knows it, and comports itself like one. We don't accept The Sun because it's tabloid trash full of made-up rubbish. The Daily Mail wants to be treated like a newspaper of record, but behaves like tabloid trash and fills itself with made-up rubbish. I suggest that continuing to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with you is exceedingly unlikely to convince them - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The nomination itself states that the Sun is "biased" (i.e., politically, since this is stated in addition to any concerns about accuracy/trustworthiness) and this is a reason for banning it, so this is hardly a stretched point or an insult. The Times is not the relevant comparison as it is not a tabloid. The Daily Mirror is, since it is one. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nay In the same matter of the Daily Mail, it should not. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments of Collect and FOARP. Whilst guidelines as to why UK tabloids are not the best sources generally - and should be excluded when content concerns contentious BLP claims, medical claims etc, would be useful, I am not persuaded that banning sources we don't like "one by one" is the best way forward. The reasons we often don't like these sources are not simply/mainly because they are more likely to be factually wrong, but also because 'better' sources are more likely to give coherent background info and infinitely less likely to 'embellish' with 'human interest' details (ie soap opera) or to phrase in such a way to trivialise the subject - ie the values of 'better' sources are closer to WP's own - regardless of their political leaning. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let editors use their judgement in individual cases about whether it's reliable enough in individual topics / suitable for use as a reference. I'm no fan of the newspaper, but a blanket ban is not appropriate (and regardless of the addendum about how it would only be a warning, the daily mail one turned into a blanket ban with removal from articles without consideration of its reliability in that case). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while using The Sun obviously requires editor caution, I find such deprecation excessive for a major newspaper.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't encounter references cited to fake news reposts in The Sun as much as those w.r.t. Daily Mail, though I have removed on occasions nonsense cited to The Sun from Wikipedia. Whatever the IPSOS people are supposed to be doing, they could do a better job. To those outraged because of the UK's freedom of press, libel laws, etc., I grant that the UK has some of the best newspapers in the world. The flip side is that it also has some of the world's most read tabloids, and sadly they're just as trashy as any other country's. DaßWölf 14:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - slippery slope, if we ban/deprecate the Sun as "almost as bad as" the Daily Mail, we will soon be banning/deprecating other newspapers as "almost as bad as" the Sun, and so forth. Also note that the person making the proposal no longer supports it. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per the Daily Mail. If information that can be sourced to the Sun can be valuable to the encyclopaedia, it will be possible to find it elsewhere. In the case that it cannot be, strong discouragement is appropriate, and this solution would mean that the Sun would be treated with a heightened caution that would serve the encyclopaedia. Ralbegen (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Mu. It is impossible for me to vote for these silly restrictions on The Sun, but I have also long had the impression that the Daily Mail is better than The Sun. The Mail really has a commendable Wikipedian attitude in some of its articles, collecting data from various sources without a lot of filtering in a sort of Pliny The Elder approach, which only gets them, ironically, bitter catcalls that they ought to be banned as "plagiarists" from a certain lobby here. The Sun would rarely be accused of comparable avidity for the facts. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Newslinger and per feminist's original comment. All too often, The Sun is an opinion piece masquerading as a newspaper. Zazpot (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Political bias hasn't been treated as a reason for blanket-deprecation and filtering before. Why should it be treated so now? FOARP (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@FOARP: don't create straw men, please. Zazpot (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You're saying that political bias is a reason to support blanket-deprecation and automated filtering of the Sun ("All too often, The Sun is an opinion piece masquerading as a newspaper" - i.e., it inserts opinion into news-stories, presumably of a political kind since the content of opinion pages is political opinion) FOARP (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, your claims are obvious nonsense. The Times and The Sun have the same publisher and the same politics; but The Times is a newspaper of record, so we accept it, and The Sun is tabloid trash, so we don't. You've got some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
1) No, the Times and the Sun do not have the same politics, just look at their respective positions on Brexit. 2) You also appear to be ignoring my response - the Times is a broadsheet and therefore not a relevant comparison since it would be near-impossible to propose this kind of blocking for it, The Mirror is a tabloid, and so it a relevant comparison since, other than being left-wing, it is in every respect similar to the Daily Mail/Sun. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. When compared to the DM, I think the Daily Mirror looks quite cheap. The Daily Mail is like a tabloid on steroids. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Most the oppose comments already deprecate The Sun by saying it's not a good source (assuming that people know what deprecate means). So, yes, it makes sense to deprecate it by telling editors that in a filter. See also, WP:BESTSOURCES -- it's rather silly not to deprecate The Sun, as the common sense saying goes, 'garbage in garbage out' and with something like this source, although Wikipedia can never itself be a reliable source, we still owe it to readers to do best, not lazy and stupid -- if you can't convince reasonable people it's gotta be The Sun, just find something worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - the Sun should absolutely not be used for citations in an encyclopedic setting, given their track record for poor journalistic standards. As far as I am concerned, their appalling treatment of the Hillsborough disaster (for which they have still to atone, and for which I refuse to read the paper) alone should permanently exclude them from being considered a reliable source, and they haven't improved since, as they continue to publish nonsense. In my view, the paper is less trustworthy than the Mail, and that is saying something. A tabloid rag, should be nowhere near an encyclopedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I don't see the evidence that this source is reliable for Wikipedia purposes. There is a lot of better journalism out there. Catrìona (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Personally I don't use The Sun here anymore - Whilst it has issues it's not nearly as bad as The Daily Mail and I feel blacklisting it is excessive, IMHO it's use would come down to common sense .... For something medical related you wouldn't use it but if a BLP has won something you may use it if nothing better or else is available. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (The Sun)

Those two don't typically call themselves "of London" or "Manchester" any more, but there are obviously also The Sunday Times and the Financial Times. To those one would have to add at least The Independent and The Observer, and usually also the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. There is no good reason why most of the UK's regional newspapers should not be considered reliable, including of course, for example the South Wales Argus and The Herald (Glasgow) (although not published in England), along with very many more. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: So far, there are 3 other publications that have been deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. They are: Breitbart News (RfC), InfoWars (RfC), and Occupy Democrats (RfC). A deprecation for WorldNetDaily is currently under discussion. Aside from the Daily Mail, all of the other deprecations are for publications based in the US, so I don't really see an anti-UK bias here.
Also, Fox News has actually been contested repeatedly, but there was never consensus to deprecate it, and there also hasn't been an uninterrupted RfC on Fox News since the 2010 one. If you or any other editor have concerns about Fox News or RT (Russia Today), any editor is welcome to start new discussions or RfCs on these sources. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
So you're conflating The Sun with Infowars? Even for The Sun that's excessive! More reasonable comparisons would be to equate the Sunday Sport with the Weekly World News and Metro with USA Today. None of these are good, but they're not InfoWars. I can't think of a UK equivalent to InfoWars, something that only exists to push a single agenda, more than simply being poor and low-brow journalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The closest British equivalent to Infowars I can think of is Britain First's Facebook page (or has it been deleted now)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Where did this "the UK media is unreliable" thing come from amongst (mainly) US-based editors? I mean, honestly.... And yes this is an anti-UK thing since this is our long-established print-media that is being attacked, not random conspiracy theory websites without real reporters, editors etc. like Breitbart and InfoWars. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not conflating The Sun with InfoWars. My previous comment contains a list of publications deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail, not an assertion that the publications are equivalent. In fact, the RfC for InfoWars is the only RfC in the list that was approved with a WP:SNOW closure. — Newslinger talk 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
— Newslinger talk 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that the Daily Myth has won awards and the phone hacking scandal I doubt that in fact many of our scandal ragas are that reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question for the opposers - would you consider a compromise and propose a ban on The Sun for BLPs only? I have kept a link to BLPs that cite the Sun on my user page for quite some time, and occasionally go through and remove the worst examples. There are currently 75, including Olatunji Yearwood ("In September 2018, Yearwood was featured as a contestant on The X Factor UK (Series 15)"), Lee Ridley (comedian) ("I didn't have any friends as a child and my iPad saved me'"), Aylin Nazlıaka ("On 19 January 2017 she handcuffed herself to the podium, causing the first female fight in the TBMM"), Professor Green ("On 18 April 2018 Professor Green split from (Redacted)") and Peter Kay (""Peter Kay fans charged up to 62p per min to call about ticket refunds"). These have all been added relatively recently, and I am certain the additions were made in good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because this isn't about The Sun, it's about editors. Do we trust editors to make competent judgements or not? If we do, then we don't need it. If we can't, then we have plenty more problems with websites than just The Sun, and we can't expect to auto-filter everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be a lot less resistant to this proposal if it hadn't been for how the Daily Mail has gone. It is "banned" according to common perception, despite the RfC not supporting that. A couple of admins, and several editors, use this as an excuse for outright bullying. We even see ridiculous edit-warring to remove DM sources when they're far away from the problematic areas - just the sort of thing that you otherwise claim is simply putting up an "are you sure you want to cite the Sun" message . The practical effect of such an RfC is far greater.
Quick example - I recently created an article on cranes. About as uncontroversial as it gets. As the DM, in one of its few virtues, often has a large media budget and a willingness to spend it on buying-in photographs, I cited it for Meccano examples of such.[12] This was twice removed, just for being the DM (no question as to the source content itself), and replaced by an incorrect source, to the wrong type of crane. That's the sort of damage that's excused here by dogmatic "thou shalt never link to an unfavoured source" policies which get to the point of actually harming the content corpus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent example. I would be glad to see a ban on any "celebrity gossip" column from any source at all, but the slope we are on is far from sensible, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because I am opposed to the principle of bans in general. I know it's not a ban, but I agree with Andy Dingley that it has been used like one, for instance in the case of The Daily Mail. Wikipedia is too combative. We need to make it more welcoming. We need to move away from anything that can be used to harass or intimidate editors and towards things that reward editors. I agree with Blueboar that instead we should craft better resources for people to be able to learn how to recognise a good source. If we go down the road of banning things we will end up having to ban every single dodgy thing on the entire planet. It is just more efficient to teach people how to recognise reliable sources. Moreover it will produce a better result for the world in general. Banning will produce people who feel judged and who retreat into their echo chamber bubble. Helping people to recognise reliable sources will produce more discerning people. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-oppose-voter comment We already have an edit filter which prevents the Sun from being used for BLPs. –dlthewave 16:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What we need to do is devise better guidance for when and how to news media in general... not specific to any one outlet. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically - if the item is "celebrity gossip" in nature, sourced in whole or in part to "anonymous sources" or to "press releases" or the like - we should disallow it. In the first case as being violative of BLP principles in the first place. In the second because press releases are generally not "fact checked" in any way at all, and are therefore "self-published sources" which should be ascribed to the writers of the press release material, not to the newspapers which run them substantially unedited. Collect (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have a policy: WP:RS. We should trust in Editors to make good calls on what is a reliable source for a particular subject. However, this isn't enough for some editors who just decided they hate a particular outlet for political reasons and/or like to be able to tell other editors not to use a particular source. The Daily Mail is a news organisation, I know people who have written stories for them. It's also a tabloid with some disgusting politics - let the editors sort the wheat from the chaff on this. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This is why the Daily Myth was (not) banned, precisely because we could not truth eds and it took huge amounts of work police. If it is worthy of inclusion (and if we are going to have to verify what the SNu or the Daily Rant have reported why not just use that source?). We lose nothing by (and lets go all the way) banning these sources other then work having to sort the wheat from the chaff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
1) We're supposed to be discussing this objectively, but its hard to believe it is really an objective discussion when people use derogatory nick-names for right-wing newspapers taken straight from the comments section of an Owen Jones Comment Is Free article.
2) An automated ban which flags any edit including a DM link to an editor who then goes and (in every case I've seen) deletes it doesn't create a work-load? And in how many of the cases where people 'had' to police DM references was it actually necessary and not just a case of "This is a DM reference and therefore should be deleted", which to be honest is the only time I've seen it applied?
3) Ultimately, if editing time used is the problem, then it's hard to see how the DM ban actually has much impact at all, it being one single EN-language publication of hundreds. This basically adds up to saying "Editing Wiki is hard work, therefore let's just automate deleting sources I don't like, rather than considering whether that was actually a worthwhile thing to be doing" FOARP (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It creates less of a work load then (for example) this discussion (which is the kind we have every-time one of these sources is used). Nor is this deleting anything, it is a warning no more. But (as I said) this is the problem, "BUT ITS AN RS!", well just like smoking in the no smoking compartment if you are going to argue the same old reasons why we have to use it we just wont allow its use in the end. This has been brought about precisely because of the amount of effort it takes to prevent the more outrageous lies making their way onto Wikipedia. And I have considered whether that was actually a worthwhile thing to be doing, and yes it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sold on this being necessary at all. Every time I've seen it applied it's not BLP stuff but articles like Double-nosed Andean tiger hound where the fact that one of the references substantiating notability was a DM reference so, if you chuck that out, the remaining references are supposedly no longer sufficient to meet WP:GNG. And yes, the logic applied is exactly as simple as "DM, therefore delete". We have a way, way bigger problem with random websites carrying garbage information than we do with the DM and other tabloids, but we (rightly) take the time to consider each source on its merits. Finally, if you doubt that the current policy on the DM isn't functioning as a ban, just try editing a DM reference into an article - even as one of a group of references all independently saying the same thing - and see what happens. If editors are wasting their time deleting DM references for absolutely no reason other than its the DM then that's their fault. They choose to waste their time like this. Doing the same thing to the Sun is just going to increase their workload. FOARP (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how not being able to use them (not that this is on the table) prevents us form covering when they are wrong, as surely they are not going to admit it (and thus this would be covered by another source)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Question is there a list of all sources deprecated on wikipedia somewhere? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
An unofficial list can be found here Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. Not sure how correct or up to date it is. It already lists The Sun as a sensationalist tabloid, and often compare the publication unfavourably to the Daily Mail. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.Outside of specialized circumstances, the source should not normally be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Worth noting that the list functions quite well as a repository of previous discussions that can be referred to to show pre-existing consensus. It is not necessary - AT ALL - to add an automatic block on top of that. The only sources that have these automatic blocks are the Daily Mail, Breitbart, and Infowars. The Daily Mail really stands out from the other two since it is a long-standing media organisation with professional editors, reporters, and fact checkers, and has to answer to a regulator whilst Breibart and Infowars are purely internet-based conspiracy theorist sites. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Not very independent regulation [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you seriously using a legal challenge to the decision of a tribunal as evidence of it being biased? Show me one tribunal where no-one appeals their decisions and I’ll show you a country without the rule of law. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lets say this again, it is not a ban, so lets lay of the tabloid style hyperbole. If you want to (if it is so important to you) still use the SUN as a source, you are just going to be made aware of its poor reputation and that it may not be wholly reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that what happens currently with the DM? No, it isn’t. Instead any usage of the DM - however uncontroversial - leads to a warning and then someone coming in to delete the reference citing the “DM ban” as their justification for doing so. Per WP:DUCK, it it acts like a ban, is implemented as a ban, was clearly intended as a ban in the RfC, then let’s not pretend that it’s not a ban. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The DM RfC doesn't allow for "uncontroversial" uses, though. "Its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited." The closing statement says that although some editors argued that DM is actually a reliable source for some subjects, "This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead." DM may be cited in rare instances "as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion."dlthewave 16:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think you are right. An addition filter is a bit one-sided. Ideally whenever an editor removes a DM source they should also be prompted to "find something better"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's high time that the DM block was put back to RfC. January of next year marks two years of it operating so is a good point to review it anyway. The block should never have been implemented without a time limit. No real evidence of general unreliability as ever submitted to substantiate the idea that it was generally unreliable - just anecdotes that could be compiled about any publication, particularly a tabloid. The change in the editorship of the DM is also a good justification to review it. An awful lot of the !votes in favour of the ban were WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes anyway. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you please show what was lost as a result of not being able to cite the Daily Mail? Stories that only they covered that didn't skew isolated studies, or make questionable claims about living people, or consist of obvious propaganda? Just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid reason does not validate WP:ILIKEIT as a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The entire corpus of work of a publication that has been published for more than a century seems like a pretty significant source to say that you can simply do without because "other sources exist". The cranes example cited above was one where a DM reference was pointlessly removed. I've seen AfD discussions (e.g., the one for Double-nosed Andean tiger hound) where the fact that one of the two references substantiating notability was a DM reference was used as a grounds for deletion. Often works of art/books etc. are considered to require at least two articles covering them in a significant way to be able to avoid deletion and if one of those is a DM reference, this appears sufficient to get them deleted. Most articles on this site are uncontroversial, most uses of the DM are uncontroversial, but this doesn't seem to stop editors using the "ban" as grounds for deleting references to the DM.
Oh, and PS - what are you doing trying to imply that people who oppose this ban must necessarily like the Sun or the DM? Who has made an WP:ILIKEIT argument here? FOARP (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

[[14]] So we are in fact in the Sun (but not for this thread). There is no evidence this account was Ms Osamor but it does not stop the Sun claiming that (ohh and guess what [[15]], the DM dutifully following along). This is why they should not be RS, opinion and rumour as facts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That is (at most) grounds for being careful when using the Sun (or any other tabloid - and yes that includes the Mirror - or is this only about right-wing publications?) for BLP. Not grounds for the blanket !ban being discussed here. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been suggested below that we try a trial reinstatement to test if deprecation needs to be in place. Would it not make more sense to do a test run with deprecating the sun and seeing (form ally) what effect it has? It seems to be it is easier to prove a positive (it is making things better by stopping its use when even its promoters agree it is no good) rather then a negative (prove things have got better).Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This might be of relevance [[16]], so who opposed deprecating the Daily Mirror there who supports depreciating the Sun here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Notice how many of the oppose !votes clearly indicate that they knee-jerk oppose ANY edit filter being put in place to warn editors attempting to use ANY source as a reference? This would seem to imply imply that they oppose such an edit filter for Infowars or The Onion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What the heck does "deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail" mean, anyway?

We've had a string of proposals to "deprecate (source) in the same way at the Daily Mail", but there seems to be disagreement over what "deprecated" actually means. This seems to be a process that just sort of "happened", with no policy or guideline outlining when and how a deprecated source may be used. The DM RfC states in no uncertain terms that "...the Daily Mail (including its online version, is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited." The only exception mentioned in the closing statement involves using DM as a primary source for statements about itself. Is this how other editors understand it, and is this the intent of the "Support" votes? –dlthewave 16:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RfC deprecates the publication in five ways:
  1. The publication is designated as "generally unreliable".
  2. Citing the publication as a reference is strongly discouraged ("generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist").
  3. The publication is no longer used to determine notability.
  4. The publication is no longer used as a source in articles.
  5. An edit filter set to "warn" is to be implemented, which displays a message to editors attempting to cite the publication as a source, and asks them if they want to proceed.
The RfC notes two exceptions to the above:
  1. If the publication is determined to be more reliable historically, its older articles may be excluded from deprecation.
  2. The publication may be cited as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion.
Finally, as I mentioned before, the RfC doesn't override WP:V, which provides an additional exception:
  1. The publication may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF.
— Newslinger talk 12:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note also, that the Daily Mail RfC proposal !voted on, and then adopted said: "its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources." (This would seem to be the general meaning of "generally prohibited.") Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

All of the above has been incorporated into a new essay at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources (WP:DEPRECATED). — Newslinger talk 07:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I was actually writing an essay on this myself, so all the content I had written has now been integrated. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I don't see anything that would authorize a bot-owner to set a bot loose to excise every reference to a Daily Mail article. And yet this was done at some point. That bot-owner wiped out thousands of hours of good-faith hard work. If that bot was set loose, without authorization, I think that bot-owner has some explaining to do. Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to revisit Daily Mail ban

While there are mixed views on how relevant the DM ban is to Feminist's RfC on the Sun, editors on both sides of the DM question agree it would be best to close this section, and possibly open a dedicated proposal to revisit the DM ban. Said dedicated RfC has now been opened on this page. Editors who wish to continue discussing the DM ban are welcome to do so in the new RfC below. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am amazed by the fact that the DM is considered as being Generally unreliable. The exemples brought to the discussion were chosen to show the unreliability but how can we say it is generally unreliable. I would have understood better if it was said that certain cases were considered too serious to allow it to be used as a reliable source. I think that the effective blacklisting of a national daily paper is not something we should be voting on. To say that the DM is not banned is quite ridiculous when the WP:RSP says "The Daily Mail (including its online version, is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Some editors note that the source may be used in rare cases where the newspaper itself is involved. The restriction is often inappropriately interpreted as a "ban" on Daily Mail." The phrase nor should it be used as a source in articles is without a doubt a de facto ban as as a source. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a national daily newspaper with professional editors and reporters, regulated by a watch-dog, in a country with very strong defamation laws (much stronger than, say, in the US) and a history of having a robust free press going back centuries. A general de facto ban is simply ridiculous. The tabloid nature of the publication warranted caution when using it for BLP but the complete ban was never, ever justified. The people saying "but the automatic ban saves me the work of manually removing all the references to it" need to explain why that was something worth doing in the first place since so much of the removal of DM references seems to be occurring where it is simply being used to support uncontroversial statements. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
And it's been repeatedly sued (and successfully) under those defamation laws. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You need evidence that it is sued considerably more often that sources considered not generally unreliable to even partly justify this ban. This has never been produced. FOARP (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"this study demonstrates how sensationalism is instantiated through specific illocutions, semantic macrostructures, narrative formulas, evaluation parameters, and interpersonal and textual devices. Examples are drawn from a corpus of headlines of the ‘most read’ articles in the online outlet of the British mid-market tabloid Daily Mail compiled in early 2012"
"The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication."
"The Mail exhibits a political bias, is often guilty of sensationalism and deliberately drives a jingoistic agenda in order to be a rallying point for disaffected Leavers."
Even before the ban, it was already at the level that it could only be used when there's another source affirming the same material -- which makes it pretty pointless to include anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm... a study of headlines, an article by a former employee in the New York office, and a piece on its stance on Brexit. Notice that none of these are actually evidence of general unreliability. For that we have IPSOS complaints and the ratio of them which are unheld which is ... only about as bad for the DM as they are for other publications. Yes, the DM does get successfully sued for defamation, as do other publications - what you need is evidence that the DM is more often successfully sued, and this is lacking. So, again, no evidence of general unreliability. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So, do you fancy organising a re-run of the RfC? I assume you've reviewed all the evidence of unreliability that was presented there? Maybe, a couple of years on, everything has suddenly changed for the better? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We're not here to relitigate the DM !ban. I'm just trying to clarify the meaning of what we're discussing, since editors are bringing up various situations in which (in their opinion) it would be appropriate to cite a deprecated source, which seems contrary to the outcome of the DM RfC. –dlthewave 18:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The logic of Feminist's proposal rests on the assumpption that the DM RFC reached the correct outcome. So re-examing said DM ban is entirely valid here. I agree with FOARP. Perhaps now there seems to be a few editors about with a talent for weighing evidence, this is indeed a good time to revist the flawed DM ban? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article about a poem The Horse (poem) where I added in the legacy section different uses and references to the poem by writers and journalists. On of the people I mentioned was Alastair Stewart who is I think a pretty well respected journalist who also happens to contribute to the Daily Mail. He wrote a long piece about horses poneys and cited the poem as capturing hos sentiments perfectly. This reference was removed [17] with the edit summary "Rm non-RS". Luckily there was another quote from him in another source saying something similar so I didn't fight it. This is the most uncontroversial use of the DM that I can think of it was a source to support what someone said written by himself. I doubt very much that the editor who removed this reference read what was written in the article or the source we are in a "kill it with fire" scenario which was the !vote made by one of the supporters. I think that we have gor to a point where this rfc should be revisited. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it’s time to reopen it, however I also think we need to develop our arguments a bit more before doing so. Going off half-cocked and making sweeping assertions without evidence is what led to the ban (would people be happier if it was referred to as a “!ban”?) in the first place. We can discuss on our talk pages what the proposal should be before doing it closer to the two-year anniversary of the !ban. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So when we revisit the DM ban RfC, we should also be clear to distinguish between the DM on paper and the DM online website. There is some crossover, but particularly within the DM's own staff there is seen as a gulf between the two: a newspaper with some obvious problems, and then the web-specific content which is dominated by its celebrity fluff.
Is WP's issue for the DM with either: editorial bias, factual accuracy, or subject triviality? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
So when we revisit the DM ban...
WHEN? It'll take a more than a few disgruntled WP:IDONTLIKEIT malcontents to do that. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Professional means you are paid, not dishonest or incompetent, and it is part of a self regulation body that had (even in its few short years of existence been accused of bias). But I have no objections to revisiting the discussion (though would rather it was longer then about a year). I suspect that much the same will be said as we did at the time (as well as pointing out how the DM's coverage of it s "banning" is a prefect example of why we need this was put in place in the first place (OH Crikey DM!).Slatersteven (talk)

How some in the outside world see Wikipedia's decision - theguardian.--Moxy (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I would start with Enemies of the People (headline) and work from there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This amounts to declaring the DM unreliable for statements of fact (even uncontroversial facts) based on its political views. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The key part about the Daily Mail is that is has repeatedly been caught completely fabricating material. Unlike biased sources (which are perfectly well allowed) the DM is generally unreliable because its editorial process deliberately encorporates dishonesty. Unlike many other tabloid-news with dubious reporting (Fox, Express etc) who while not having a particularly high reputation, do at least not have one for blatant falsity. So unless there is evidence the Daily Mail has somehow become more ethical in the intervening time, any re-consideration is a waste of time. Anyone who is surprised that the *current* Daily Mail is generally unreliable either lacks the required ability to judge what is a reliable source, or has spent the last 20 years under a rock. (Or has zero knowledge of the Daily Mail which would be acceptable for anyone outside the UK) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented, either then or since then, that actually backs this up. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And no evidence or anything other than a delayed WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been presented that contradicts the strong consensus that emerged from the original discussion. Don't like it? Too bad. That's not a valid argument. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
A significant number of instances of it leading to disruptive editing has been cited above. Also the failure of any evidence of actual general unreliability being presented during the RfC has also been raised. These go a long way beyond simple dislike of the !ban. Let me point out that "it was decided, therefore it's been decided" is a circular argument and thus invalid. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Lets leave the actual "unbanning" discussion for a new thread.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to close this discussion regarding the Daily Mail ban. The reliability of the DM is not germane to the current proposal to deprecate the Sun; if the DM decision were to be overturned, it would not affect any other !bans or proposals that are based on it. Interested editors may open a new section regarding the DM if they so desire, preferably as an actionable proposal instead of a forum-style discussion. –dlthewave 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with closing - I think the DM ban was wrongly decided, and it is germane to this debate that it was wrongly decided since that decision is being used as a justification for this one. However, the counter-arguments to banning the Sun do not require reopening the DM ban directly, merely discussing the fact that the DM ban was on unsafe grounds and that it will likely be reopened in future and therefore should not be treated as a settled issue is sufficient. Furthermore, as dlthewave says above, re-opening the DM ban requires a properly-prepared proposal and supporting arguments. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with FOARP on all points. As you wish, so be it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2018 (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.

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

Can this site be considered a reliable "independent" source. There is afd nomination by me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunnu K. Endo Maye, where a voter says is an elite film review site. Does this source count as a reliable one. Daiyusha (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is an article by Naser Khader at Hudson Institute a RS in context?

The WP article Persecution of Christians holds a section on the persecution of Christians in Europe nowadays. There are several problems in that section, as 4 out of 6 sources of the section do not even mention persecution. The other two sources are a)a news article that mentions a woman being persecuted and b)this particular at by Naser Khader at Hudson Institute.[18]. The question that arose in the Talk Page, is whether the article by Khader is a RS in context. IMHO, it violates WP:REDFLAG and it most probably that Hudson Institue, a conservative think tank, does not employ effective peer-review. The problem here is not only the wording of the sentence,(that could be solved with attribution) but it seems WP users consider this source as sustaining the notability of the section. In my opinion, there the alleged persecution of Christians in Europe nowadays is not verifiable as there is no significant coverage of such a thing by Reliable sources. I will notify other users in the talk page of the article about this RSN discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that does not say "persecuted" is not a source for a claim of persecution, and should be removed. As to the Hudson Institute source, not seeing an issue it as a source. But it needs to attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven anything that not mention the topic of the article is WP:OR and there is no problem with Hudson source --Shrike (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously we need the source to say persecution. I'm not convinced that one person saying they were persecuted is enough to say there is persecution of Christians in Denmark. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Per my recent comments on another thread here regarding think tanks, I don't consider opinion pieces by think tanks to be particularly reliable under the best of circumstances. In the case of the extraordinary claim that Danish Christians are being systemically persecuted being sourced to a deeply conservative think tank bankrolled by the Rand corporation, this is not the best of circumstances by any stretch of the imagination. As I said at article talk, this source is at best highly dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)