Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 386

Over at Indian Rebellion of 1857 the dispute over Indian state flags has started up again. The additions (to the info box) is unsourced. Over at a users discussion page they have used these sources to say they can be sourced.

http://www.hubert-herald.nl/BhaAwadh.htm

https://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_A-J.html#Jhansi

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-jagdi.html

Do these pass RS? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The first is self-published, and not reliable. The second has scores of contributors, appears to have an editorial process, and looks to be a reliable, tertiary source. The third is based on user contributions, has apparently no editorial process, and disclaims accuracy of those contributions, so it is definitely unreliable.

Banks Irk (talk

) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The second source is also a self published source. Accepting contributor inputs is not sufficient, otherwise there is no indication of an editorial process or any apparent qualifications of its author. Note that, it's deprecated and listed on the edit filter as well.

So none of these are reliable sources, being either self published or user generated sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bnHhL1IxGYYC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also as to CRW flags "WP:RSP says nothing about CRW flags so sorry if I'm having a difficult time believing you", is the argument being used it is an RS. Do we really need an RFC to put in on RSP? Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No… RSP is only for sources that are perennially discussed (over and over again). The fact that a source is not listed says nothing about how reliable it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I know, but it is an illustration of what we are facing over there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also they are using this RSN discussion to claim that CRW flags is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those three appear reliable, and flag use in that infobox strays into

MOS:FLAGCRUFT anyway. CMD (talk

) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And another [[23]]. This is getting ridiculas, can others go over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Flags and explain this to them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at this more closely, none of these are reliable sources. So if anyone is hanging their hat on my "maybe" regarding worldstatemen.org, I withdraw my "maybe". I sympathize with your frustration at the article talk page, but I'm not going to toss myself into to that briar patch.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that any interested editors have a look at

MrOllie (talk

) 14:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CU blocked as a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the current view of Techdirt and Metropolitan News-Enterprise http://www.metnews.com/ as reliable sources? They have the only reporting on recent developments regarding the estate of Gene Kelly, so it would be good to be able to use this material in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a 121-year-old legal newspaper, should be fine. Techdirt, a group blog, generally would not be reliable. John M Baker (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Does Salon and Decider, listed on

They are reliable as opinion sources (of which film reviews are) per

WP:RSOPINION. Whether they are recognized film review outlets (compared to, say, Variety, NYTimes, etc.) is a different question and likely depends on which film. This is distinct from being marginally reliable or generally unreliable for facts. Masem (t

) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As

WP:RSOPINION, should they count towards notability? VickKiang

23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If they are the only sources, that may be a problem. If they are among multiple other sources that are nominally reliable for facts, they probably help a bit. Masem (t) 00:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, they should not count towards N. Atsme 💬 📧 23:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two other reviews that are probably RS (Indiewire and Austin Chronicle), making the article linked above borderline notable. Given that doubts have been expressed for Salon and Decider, I'll assume that these refs don't really count as a full ref to

WP:RSOPINION. VickKiang

00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• The general tradition is that reviews count towards the notability of books and nothing else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not true, notability can be established for films based on them having 2 RS reviews, see

  WP:NFO DonaldD23 talk to me

  01:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Take another look, those don't establish notability they "generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are misinterpreting that. Two reviews by reliable sources are used every day in deletion discussions for films, and if the film has 2 RS reviews it is always kept as notability has been proven. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify...the 2 reviews ARE the reliable sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  If it is being used that way it is being used in error, it only indicates that the sources are likely to exist but if an exhaustive search can't actually find those reliable then the subject actually isn't notable. Do you care to name the editors who are apparently making this error daily? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, they are reliable sources for film reviews, and for establishing notability of the films being reviewed.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 11:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes reliable for film reviews and as they are used by rotten tomatoes they have a national audience to pass criteria 1 of
  WP:GNG as full reviews in independent sources are significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk
  ) 22:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the critics appear to be "nationally known critics." which is clear requirement of WP:NFILM. Not sure where you're getting "national audience" from as thats not part of the standard. Gary Kramer and Josh Sorokach are not nationally know, they aren't even notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As per this Wiki Film Project discussion here at section 58, nationally known critics does not mean the critics are individually notable which would be rare but it means they have a national audience in a well known publication. Even most NYT critics are not individually notable. Also note that some of the editors in that discussion actually wrote the guideline, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If that really is a consensus then why hasn't the page been changed to match? It currently says "critics' not "publications." Salon has a national audience but its not a newspaper and the people on that talk page are very clear about it applying to newspapers, and NY Post does not have a national audience nor is it a national paper. Nor is the NY Post a reliable source, we already have a consensus about that and there is no carveout for film reviews. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The question in that discussion related to newspapers, if it had been nationally known magazines the answer would have been the same. Its a rough guideline to passing

WP:GNG not a strict requirement. The NYP entry says unreliable for factual reporting especially in politics so its debateable whether a film review would be ruled out on that basis, imv Atlantic306 (talk

) 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite their early handle they're actually a website and always have been. You seem to have skipped over the part where the NY Post isn't a national paper, NYC has two national papers and neither of them is the NY Post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Qualifying as a "national" paper can be up for debate. In Florida the NY Post is sold on many newsstands there. That is far outside the "New York Metropolitan area" that it says on the list of newspapers Wikipedia article. In addition, while the actual publication might be limited to certain areas, their websites are available anywhere in the world. As for reliability, their "news" isn't considered reliable...but film, TV, book, music, etc reviews are. As for "nationally known critics"...can anyone name a critic today? Siskel and Ebert and Gene Shalit are the only ones I can name and they are either dead or retired. Nationally known is meant to mean the publication it is published in, which, even if it is not published in every state, the NY Post is well known. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Florida is New York South... NYP isn't national, you know better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are nationally known critics, even if they're not named Siskel, Ebert, Reed, Maltin, Crist or Kael.[25][26][27][28]

Banks Irk (talk

) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point, though I'd like to point out being listed on RT doesn't automatically indicate it's nationally well known. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Machine for an AfD with contradicting interpretations, despite my personal POV that it's borderline notable. VickKiang 23:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

They might be, but none of those sources actually says they are... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe occasionally for Salon due to being marginally reliable; generally no for the Post due to being generally unreliable. Per
  WP:RSOPINION, the basic example for something that is reliable for opinion but not fact are labeled opinions in publications otherwise considered reliable; if a base publication is unreliable for statements of fact then its labeled opinion pieces generally fall short of RSOPINION. RS is, of course, contextual, and an extremely unexceptional statement that is plainly pure opinion along the lines of "X liked / disliked the film" might be usable, but if the Post publishes a review that says eg. "this film is fascist and anyone who enjoys it is a fascist" or "this film is going to cause the downfall of western civilization" or something, we couldn't cite that to them alone even as attributed opinion. RSOPINION isn't intended to be for citing factual or exceptional claims like that to unreliable sources just by adding "according to X..." --Aquillion (talk
  ) 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what RSOPINION says, it only relies on an example of opinion published in an RS. An opinion published a non RS is an RSOPINION (unless we know the work in question may change opinions like Daily Mail). But that then shifts the question to UNDUE to ask if that opinion is of similar weight to others. For film, this is actually a bit of a difficult task as there are dozens of known film reviewers, and while a small number are known experts, others are hit or miss. But that is really where the question lies (as shown above). Masem (t) 15:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, that interpretation doesn't make sense. By your argument RSOPINION allows essentially any source as long as it is framed as opinion, which is not a reasonable reading of its text - it plainly presents RSOPINION as a specific subcategory of

  WP:RSes, not as a general statement that all opinion is reliable. As a simple example, we would never cite an opinion to a Reddit post, to a random Youtube channel, or to our own article talk pages. Exactly what falls under RSOPINION is vaguely defined, but it is clearly not "any opinion expressed anywhere by anyone"; as a subcategory of RS, some degree of the basic requirement for editorial controls and the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that all RSes require still necessary. --Aquillion (talk

  ) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New York Post opinions are reliable per

WP:NEWSORG. Peter Gulutzan (talk

) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to expand on that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be getting far afield, and outside the scope of RSN. The real question being debated is, are reviews from these two critics at these two sources sufficient to establish notability per Notability Films? Not an issue for RSN. My own take is, if a film is reviewed at both Salon and the Post, it is more than enough to establish notability, regardless of who the reviewers are. These are nationally known and prominent publications..arguments to the contrary are utter nonsense... whose political slants are at opposite ends of the absurdly narrow US spectrum (but I digress). I'd be flabbergasted if these are literally the only reviews for this film (I'm insufficiently motivated to actually check). I'd also point out that the films notability essay is merely a guideline. But, back to my original point, not a question for RSN.
  Banks Irk (talk
  )`

So you're saying that the post doesn't count for notability because its generally unreliable except for some reason when it comes to films where it does count for notability despite being generally unreliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I would tend to consider two RS reviews sufficient. NY Post is GUNREL so presumed UNDUE unless there's good reason a given piece isn't. But one RS and one GUNREL would be borderline for notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, film reviews count for notability. Yes, Salon is known for film reviews and I cannot see a reason why it shouldn't be considered reliable for them. Decider is tricker, because I don't know the extent to which it's separate from NY Post. The Post is unreliable for statements of fact regarding a range of subjects, but has anyone done a deep dive into their film coverage (especially via Decider)? I'd be curious. I'd be inclined to say that either would be ok, as two publications known for film reviews, but to exercise caution for any film that veers into their respective political biases. Like, I don't think we should be using NYP in a review of a climate change or criminal justice-related documentary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There's currently a RfC regrading the use of one of Anthony Fantano review in the article. Feel free to comment on it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to start a discussion on what to do when usually-reliable secondary sources, and primary sources, disagree with each other. My specific question is about Andrew Tate; my arguments are explained at: discussion 1 and discussion 2 if you want to read them in full.

Here is the claim in the Andrew Tate article:

[Tate] detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity

Here are the source passages:

1. In one video Mr. Tate recorded while sitting in a bed, he described keeping a machete by his bed and what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her up by the neck.” [29] (New York Times)
2. “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. [30] (The Guardian)

Putting on our textual analysis hats from the university days: both secondary sources explicitly and plainly claim:

1. that this clip depicts Tate claiming he would react with violence if any woman ever accused him of cheating in real life;
2. that this clip depicts Tate reenacting this violent reaction

I think the primary source material easily disproves both, without requiring any non-obvious interpretation (therefore not violating

I am posting this here following User:Throast's suggestion, who I thank.

DFlhb (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear there isn't actually a pimp school at which this person obtained a doctorate? This is an idiom for life experience (aka

school of hard knocks), correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a comedic statement equivalent to similar claims by rappers. Tate calls himself a pimp derisively in reference to his webcam modelling business, but has never been documented by any

WP:RS source to have been involved in prostitution. Tate himself claims that he never attended university. DFlhb (talk

) 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So if Pimp School = his lived experience whats the issue here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The "pimp school" comment is not the focus of this discussion; this discussion is about the two

WP:RS misrepresent the primary source. DFlhb (talk

) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is supported by the text, a less charitable reading would be that he was actually claiming to have done it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The text is quite clear to me that he is talking about defending himself if a woman attacked him with a machete, in an explicitly comedic way (see for example the inclusion of the How High (2001) stoner comedy film immediately after the passage in question). Do you really think that the clip features Tate making a general statement that he will if any woman ever accuses him of cheating? Even an uncharitable reading wouldn't yield that. If Obama made a joke, and Fox News (which was, throughout his presidency, considered a

WP:RS) took it out of context, I'd be surprised if anyone would defend using that Fox source in an article. The joks is not even about assaulting women; it is about him defending himself, within the context of a video about female self-defense. DFlhb (talk

) 17:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you might be missing the forest for the trees a bit here; I don't think either source is offering the quote as evidence that this is something that the article subject has done or might do, but rather as a data point in a general trend of alleged misogyny. Either way, they strike me as reasonable interpretations, as does yours, though I personally think

WP:OR does apply in this situation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 17:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either source is offering the quote as evidence that this is something that the article subject has done or might do Then surely you disagree with Wikipedia stating that Tate would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity? I completely agree that within the context of the NYTimes and Guardian articles, they are highlighting this as part of a trend of alleged misogyny, not claiming that this is something he might actually do. But then it is us who are misusing the secondary sources by making them back up a claim that they do not back up. DFlhb (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis for calling it a joke? In the video he appears to at least be acting seriously, he does gives the impression that there actually are machetes in his house. It doesn't appear to be a fictional setup for a joke. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said the machete part was a joke. The point (which we keep moving away from) is that he is comedically embellishing his point that "females can't fight" (his view, not mine), not stating that he would assault any women who accuses him of cheating, and the claim should not be in the article per

WP:RSBREAKING

and secondary-primary source mismatch; that is all.

The current Wikipedia article states that "Tate would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity", which is not true based on the primary source. DFlhb (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So some is a joke and some is serious? He is joking about attacking women who accuse him of infidelity but not about having machetes around his house? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, the video plainly does not show him stating that he would attack women who accuse him of infidelity, either jokingly or not. I just don't see how any reasonable reading of the passage would yield that. I feel like you are misinterpreting what I was referring to by "joke"; his "joke" (whether you find it funny or not) is that "females can't fight", in his words. He simply never claimed he would attack them, not jokingly or non-jokingly. DFlhb (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You realize that an attack in self defense is still an attack right? He is clearly talking about attacking women accuse him of infidelity, you can argue there is more context but you can't argue with the facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

His point is clearly that he could easily overpower a woman if she attempted to attack him, within the context of a video about female self-defense; I don't see how it has anything to do with what he would do if a woman were to accuse him of cheating. Again, Wikipedia stating in encyclopedic voice that he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity (note the plural, and the generalization) as the page currently does, is not accurate. Do you dispute that? DFlhb (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Two things: (1) the page does not currently say that; and (2) the last revision has detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity and not just would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity which to my mind gives a very different connotation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, so the whole premise was presented in bad faith. Thanks for wasting everyone's time DFlhb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For a user who has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, and has 40k edits, I would expect far more

WP:GOODFAITH from you. See my response above on why I think Dumuzid's comment misrepresents (I think, fully inadvertently) the context of this discussion. DFlhb (talk

) 18:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You are right, while I wish you had laid out the context better after reading through everything I do not think that you made any decisions in bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair; I was trying to be

WP:SUCCINCT but looking back I should have laid out the context more clearly. Cheers DFlhb (talk

) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The page did say that, and that is the entire cause for this discussion; it was removed an hour ago by User:Throast as a result of me creating this discussion, pending the results of the discussion; I think you are implying dishonesty on my part, where there simply isn't any.

I also don't believe that there is any difference in connotation between the two phrases you cite. Andrew Tate was edited earlier today to change Tate has described himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", and has stated that women "belong to the man" and that he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity; the sentence was shuffled around to integrate more source material into the Wikipedia article, and "stated" was changed to "describes" without any discussion on the article's talk page; to me, that clearly implies that Throast thought the two sentences were equivalent; I fully agree that they're equivalent. I don't see at all how this changes anything at all, or how I misrepresented anything. DFlhb (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty, just to make sure we were all working with the same set of facts on the ground. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, context is important indeed. DFlhb (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, I actually intended to change its meaning after taking a second look at the NYT citation. I chose not to raise the change on the talk page beforehand because I thought it would be uncontroversial. That doesn't change the fact that both NYT and The Guardian are leaving out essential context and hence misrepresenting the primary source. I'm totally in agreement with you there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, this is a trivial detail that has no bearing on the overall issue. I don't understand why you're hanging yourself up on it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we just cut that part from his bio entirely? The secondary sources are unintentionally misrepresenting the primary source, but no other secondary source have pointed this out so we don't actually have justification to use only the primary source. If we can't repeat the secondary source claims without getting into BLPVIO, but citing the video itself would be UNDUE/violate RS, then the material just shouldn't be in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree, I would never suggest only only a primary source for controversial stuff. If it hasn't been covered reliably, is controversial and is only in

WP:RSBREAKING it's likely not worthy of inclusion altogether. DFlhb (talk

) 08:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, based on the transcript, the NYT and Guardian are clearly in error here. Contrary to what they said, Andrew Tate wasn't explaining what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating; he was explaining what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating while trying to attack him with a machete. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The question is, do we discard those two articles (NYT and The Guardian) as unreliable on Andrew Tate as a subject matter based on this inaccuracy? Both are currently cited at other points throughout the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think given that this shows a certain editorial failure on those articles (which I am not suggesting is typical of either the NYT or Guardian), I've reviewed the other places we use either piece in the article.

Most of the claims they back up are not contentious. The only claim that might be argued to be contentious is he has stated that he dates women aged 18 and 19 in order to "make an imprint" on them, which is only backed up by the Guardian. I think that too is a misrepresentation. The original video is [32], and the relevant passage (easy to find thanks to YouTube's transcript feature) is 29:15; Tate is claiming that "18-19 year olds" are "more attractive than a 26 year old", not that he dates 18-19 year olds; Tate is mentioning this within the context of his earlier claim that "men find innocence attractive". I'd support removing that sentence since it also seems like a misrepresentation, but keeping both NYT and Guardian in the other places they're currently used. DFlhb (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How can you be sure that that's the video they are referencing? I can't imagine that they created the "make an imprint" quote out of whole cloth. The quote has been featured in other RS as well, I believe. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough, that's on me. The video mentions "imprint" specifically, and that's the only video that shows up when searching "Tate imprint" on Google. The full quote is:

In general this is also one of the reasons men find youth attractive. You want to blow up the internet I'll pull up the internet right [expletive] now, the reason 18 and 19 year olds are more attractive than 25 year olds is because they've been through [fewer boyfriends]. I'll say this right here on the [expletive] internet [...]. A 19 year old is more attractive than a 26 year old woman and I'll tell you why: because that 26 year old has talked to more guys, been to the club more times, been more places, been fucked and dumped more times, more arguments, more heartbreak, more [expletive], more mess for me to clean up. Whereas a 19 year old might have had one guy from high school, just broke up, she's fresh and I could [expletive] put my imprint on her, make her a good person and without her having to go through all that detriment to learn.

This is indeed the correct video; it's just misrepresented. DFlhb (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Although not as egregious as the machete quote imo, I do agree that they're misrepresenting him there. This NBC News article seems to stick to his words more closely, stating [Tate claims] that men would rather date 18- and 19-year-olds over women in their mid-20s because the former have had sex with fewer men. Since they’re less experienced in dating, men can “make an imprint” on teenagers Would you be fine with rephrasing the sentence to reflect the NBC News source? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine, though "teenagers" and "young women" shouldn't be used in Wikivoice since they could be taken to imply underage girls (I don't think that's NBC misrepresenting him, they're just trying to avoid repetition). Though "young women" generally implies adults, it's also frequently used by some people as a euphemism for underage women. I think we should explicitly say 18 and 19 year olds. How about changing it to:

Tate has described himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist". He has stated that women "belong in the home", "can't drive", are "given to the man and belong to the man", and that "18- and 19-year olds" are more attractive than older women since they've had sex with fewer men.

We could also directly quote the primary source if you think that's appropriate, and change had sex with fewer men with "been through less dick", which we could then put in quotes. That's up to you; though I have a preference for "had sex with fewer men".

(BTW, I forgot to mention in the previous comment that immediately after the passage I quoted, Tate was repeatedly asked to give a specific age range, and just replied I mean, hot girls are hot girls., implying that his comments were indeed about the general topic of female attractiveness rather than his personal dating life.) DFlhb (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you on everything there, though I think we should incorporate the "make an imprint" quote somehow since that's what secondary sources chose to highlight. We also don't have to put "18- and 19-year-olds" in quotes. How about and claimed that men prefer dating 18- and 19-year-olds because they can "make an imprint" on them? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

On second look, my proposal doesn't accurately reflect the NBC News source. I'll go ahead and incorporate it the way you suggested it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I did try to find a way to incorporate "imprint", but didn't find a way to do it that didn't distort secondary and primary sources. We in general don't need to include every little detail from every source anyway. Cheers. DFlhb (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• In the original, primary source, Tate is explaining how he would (easily) defend himself if a jealous woman tried attack him with a machete. I have to agree that both the Guardian and NYT have taken the quote out of context, and thus are not reliable in this specific instance. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how the sources are taking this out of context. At least The Guardian is describing what the subject would do in a imaginary situation of their own creation. The issue here appears to be an editor's misinterpretation of the sources. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is pretty clear-cut; Korny O'Near sums it up well above. I'm curious, could you elaborate exactly how the sources have been misinterpreted in your view? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources very clearly describe what the subject says in the video, that, in the hypothetical case of a woman catching him cheating on her and tried coming at him, he would pick up one of his machetes and hit her, which is then used by the sources to add context around this person and why he is sexist. In my view, the editor who added that sentence to the article takes it somewhat out of context, specially by changing "woman" to "women", giving it a different reading. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be important for The Guardian and NYT to also mention that Tate would react this way in self defense, i.e. not as the aggressor, in his fictional scenario? Without this context, the isolated quote used by The Guardian and NYT has an entirely different connotation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on two points: the subject says that if a woman came at him with a machete, he would make her drop the machete and overpower her; not that he would pick up the machete to hit her. And the context is not him depicting what he would do if a woman hypothetically caught him cheating, but him simply bragging about his superior physical strength compared to women (in his view), the "cheating" part is not the point, it's the illustration of the point. I think that's clear in context:

There's no female alive, even with a machete, that would stand a chance, against the immense power I possess. Have you ever seen a woman try and do anything competently? [...] What would a woman do? [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him, laughs] Slap the machete, slap her in her face, one hand. Machete, and then backhand. I perfected this in pimp school, when I got my Ph.D., we had to practice if a girl comes at you: [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him] "You cheated, you cheated!" It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, and grip her up by the neck: "Shut up bitch

Keep in mind that the entirety of the video is about Tate's view that female self-defense classes are a scam; the first sentence of that quote IMO makes it clear that his point is not about what he would do if he was caught cheating, but about his view that women using self-defense tactics against men is ineffective, and the machete bit seems meant to illustrate that. (I've watched the full video before writing a transcript to see the full context; my transcript was faithful but only covered about 1 minute of the 10 minute video, so it might not have made the video's topic and full context clear) Cheers DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Throast and DFlhb: Hmm, I had a whole reply typed out, but I've reread the initial transcription and I see where I got myself turned around. I was taking into consideration the first example given by the subject, when the RS were discussing the second one. I just lumped them together while assessing the situation, but I can see the point of both of you now. It does seem like the quote provided by the RS are missing some context, which gives the whole thing a different meaning. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: It is not a good idea to disobey Reliable Secondary Sources. God of Wikipedia might strike us with a lightening. Humor aside, we should follow secondary sources. My preferred solution would be "According to articles at NYT and the Guardian....p" plus or minus, a note {{efn}}, adding the what we can deduce from the primary source. Truth is not as important as Verifiability. Cinadon36 18:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be overkill imo. If there was any leeway at all in the interpretation of the primary source, I would agree that this is a possible solution, but NYT and The Guardian are grossly misrepresenting the material. Might as well strike the passage at that point. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO attribution ("The Guardian claims that") is desirable when talking about statements of opinion or judgments that do not form consensus (for example, if the Guardian was the only source stating that "X is a misogynist" but no other WP:RS makes that claim), whereas the claim would be instead cited in Wikivoice without attribution if all sources agree that someone is a misogynist.

But I don't think attribution is valuable (or that there's much precedent to it on Wikipedia, actually) when sources are making factual representations that are inaccurate (not statements of opinion or judgments that are subjective). Per

WP:POV, etc. Having an {{efn}} would also be thorny since we'd have to agree on an explanation of the context, which would be easily argued to be WP:OR. DFlhb (talk

) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: "we should follow secondary sources. My preferred solution would be "According to articles at NYT and the Guardian....p"... Truth is not as important as Verifiability." On the general point: that's taking it too far. I don't think it's required to use a secondary source, even when it's wrong. If a straightforward interpretation of a primary source shows the secondary source made a major error, we should exclude the secondary source as unreliable on that point and not repeat its error. That actually satisfies both truth and verifiability. The bar for excluding content is lower than for including it, especially in a BLP. "Truth is not as important as Verifiability," is more a slogan about what to include (i.e. you can't include something just because it's true, if you don't have a source). GretLomborg (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar, the primary source in full makes the context clear. There is a big difference between "I would violently attack someone" and "I would violently attack someone who was attacking me with a weapon". I do not think however it was intentionally taken out of context - given the source location and clipped versions available. So neither would be reliable for that particular claim *as fact*. Keep in mind our policies on source use still require editorial judgment to be exercised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Keep in mind our policies on source use still require editorial judgment to be exercised They really ought to pay us more, eh? ;) DFlhb (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither the NYT nor The Guardian are reliable sources if they lie. I recall we applied this standard to Fox News so that "editorial judgement" now rules on reliability, and now when RSN is confronted with clear evidence that two sources repeatedly spin facts for their own political bias, somehow we're expected not to discuss the reliability of two sources at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because those two sources are reliable. This is circular reasoning. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I'd have to agre. IMO the abundance of vandalism incentivizes editors to distrust each other, and to try to minimize editorial judgment as much as possible, but that's misguided. The Murray Gell-Mann effect is real (and that context wasn't even politics, it was science coverage in reputable outlets, a clear editorial rather than ideological issue). I've seen plenty of small instances of it over the years for my industry. Coverage of controversial figures is significantly problematic too: outlets have a reputation to maintain, and substribers to retain, and they're to a large degree forced to pile on when reporting on controversial figures, lest they be dragged into the controversy and "cancelled" too if they dare to defend a subject from false attacks; they could still denounce it, still call it a huge scam, that's perfectly unfalsifiable and within their right, but why go too far and say objectively false things?) This quote from the conservative Times seems relevant: What fascinates me about Tate is how neatly he sits on the fault line of this whole debate. Defending him makes me feel intensely uncomfortable, all dirty and complicit. Socially, professionally, perhaps even morally, it would be so much easier to delight in his downfall. [33] DFlhb (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New potential issue

I found one last issue in the Wiki article.

Important context: the following is largely copy-pasted from my submission at Talk:Andrew Tate#Follow-up to WP:RSN discussion, though I have improved and fleshed out my arguments here to be more comprehensive; please read my arguments here rather than there, but please also read Throast's arguments on that page. I'm consolidating the discussion here following User:Throast's suggestion; we were the only two participants in that discussion. The follow up starts immediately below this line.

Here's the claim we make in Wikivoice:

Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe.

The primary source for that claim is a video called "Tate on the MeToo Movement", available here: [34] The transcript is unavoidably long, since constantly references previous arguments, so it's as short as I can make it, it should take less than a few minutes to read. Ramblings abbreviated with ellipses, and bolded the parts quoted by media:

"I completely do not believe women should be victims to rape or any kind of sexual assault. But I also don't believe men should be held hostage to the fact that any woman you've ever interacted with in your life, ever, at any point in the future, even 40 years later, can come forward and accuse you of something, and fuck your life up. Cause the problem is, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with this sexual assault bullshit, you're guilty until proven innocent. If a girl comes forward and goes: "He raped me back in 1988", you're a rapist. You're a rapist. They have no proof, hasn't gone to court, you haven't been convicted. But you're a rapist in everyone's eyes, until you somehow prove she's lying. How the fuck am I gonna prove a [expletive] is lying, about something that happened in 1988? For the same reason I can't prove it happened, I can't prove it didn't happen. And then you're just stuck with a smear campaign, a bunch of garbage, when you haven't even done anything wrong. I've said this to girls before and they sit there and go: "You know what, if you go through life and you're just really respectful to women, you have nothing to worry about." That's not fucking true. And I'll tell you why. Because what we've done is we've weaponized sexual assault allegations. They've been weaponized. We've given every female in the Western world a weapon, and that weapon, does not have to be used fairly. That weapon can be used completely unfairly. You can go through life, and treat women with respect, and be a really good guy, but what the MeToo era is saying is, you can never piss off, a female, ever. Because if you do, they have a weaponized response.

"So what you're saying to me is not: "You have to go through life and make sure you never assault a woman." What you're saying is you have to make sure you go through life and never make a woman angry, ever, because if you make a woman angry, she might just call the police. Don't ever dump a girlfriend. Not allowed to dump her. Don't ever ignore her texts. Don't ever owe her £200 for a bit too long, cause she'll call up the police, and fuck your whole life up. You lose your job, you'll fucking be on bail, you're looking at all this [expletive] stress and headache, with zero evidence. So what you're saying is we can never ever upset a woman ever. [...] It's insane.

"I'm now at the point now that when I talk to girls in the West, I have to fucking archive my text messages, I got shit fucking archived, so if any girl comes to—I have a bit of money, when you got money, this shit happens. Wait til you make 10 mil, this shit's gonna happen to you. If a girl wanna go to the police about me now, I'll be like alright, wait, wait, wait, open up that folder, here look, proof she's a bimbo. Why do I have to live that way? Isn't that fucking insane? If you're living in the Western world — this is, probably, 40% of the reason I moved to Romania, because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies. If you ever go to the police and say: "He raped me back in 1988", he'll go "well, you should have done something about it [back] then. If you go to the police and say "He raped me yesterday", he'll say: "Okay, have you got physical evidence? Is there CCTV proof? Where'd it happen? Ok, let's go interview him right now." [...] You're fucked in the West. If you have sex with a girl, and you decide not to have sex with her again, and she's upset about it, she can just decide to go: "It's rape now". [...] So, if you live in the Western world, you have to understand that any female you have ever interacted with, ever, at any point in the past or future, if you piss her off, she has the ability to destroy your life. Are you happy to live under those conditions? People say: "Why do you live in Romania?" And I explain, my 5 reasons. One of them is the MeToo era. They go: "Oh you're a rapist!" No I'm not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of being able to just do what I want, I like being free. I like being able to say to a girl: "Don't want to see you anymore." Done. [...] If you're a man living in England, or Germany, or America, or any of the Western world right now, you've decided to live in a country where any woman, any ex [...] at some point in the future can destroy your life. And you're sitting there going: "Oh, but they won't do it." Some will; some won't but some fucking will. It's not about whether they will, it's about whether they can, because sooner or later if people can, they will."

Again, this is quoted in the Wikipedia article as: Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe. (that's the full sentence.)

We cite GQ, out of 4 sources who mention this claim:

The Guardian: In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.” [35]

GQ: in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations [36]

NBC News: Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases [37]

Daily Beast: In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations

Here's why I think the secondary sources misrepresent the primary:

• When Guardian/NBC quote I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free., they imply that he "likes" the ability to get away with sexual assault (though not rape). In context, the original quote actually refers to Tate "liking" the idea of being able to make a girlfriend angry with no risk of false allegations.

• When they say: "about 40 per cent" of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations, it could very reasonably be taken to imply willingness to commit a crime, i.e. moving to Romania with the aim of getting away with things he couldn't get away with in Britain. That completely negates the original context, that Tate believes he is "guilty until proven innocent" in Britain and "innocent until proven guilty" in Romania.

• These sources also all disagree on whether we're talking about sexual assault or rape; again, that's a problem given they can be read to imply willingness to commit a crime.

• These sources are all based on a very short, out of context TikTok clip that only contains slightly more than the bold parts, since the original YouTube video had been taken down long before they reported on it (I think it was taken down in 2021). Two of the four media outlets cite a very shortened clip from reddit and Twitter. This poses a
  WP:RSBREAKING
  issue, since editors at these newspapers couldn't possibly fact-check to see if the context of the primary source was preserved.

• The primary-secondary source mismatch stems from the fact that he never discusses wanting to evade truthful rape accusations, but wanting to avoid false rape allegations (he is explicitly referring to "being guilty until proven innocent" as his issue). He also justifies his statement by saying that being a millionaire makes false accusations more risky due to a profit motive.

• Even if you believe the reliable sources are factual and there is no primary-secondary source mismatch, I believe that keeping this sentence in the article can very easily be misinterpreted, leading to
  WP:BLPVIO
  issues.

I see two solutions: either keep, if people here believe the sentence adds to the article, or remove, if people feel that this sentence would be out-of-context, hard to contextualize without

For me, this one is an easy keep, as it seems straight forwardly true and has garnered quite a bit of attention. While I obviously agree that Tate is not saying he enjoys raping or confessing to any sexual assaults, he is clearly saying that he thinks accusations thereof are a very real possibility. It would absolutely be BLP violation if we said the move was "so he could get away with rape," but that is not how the sentence reads to me. It also strikes me as fairly extraordinary reasoning for a move to Romania, so I would say we should keep it as is, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well argued, though I somewhat disagree. The key to me is the context behind "he thinks accusations thereof are a very real possibility"; to me there's a significant difference between: thinking accusations are a very real possibility because of extremely borderline past behavior towards women (which would be an "admission" of sorts more than a viewpoint), versus thinking accusations are a very real possiblity due to wealth and a "guilty until proven innocent" culture (which is all the primary source states); the current claim in Wikivoice is quite ambiguous as to which of these two contexts the quote was said in, which risks misleading readers. Given public coverage and controversy surrounding Tate, IMO it's quite likely readers would assume the first context, which may well be true in the abstract but isn't true for this specific claim. Keep in mind that likely no one reading the Wikipedia article will see the primary source, or context. Also, where do you stand on using "rape" vs "sexual assault" in Wikivoice? Even if the sentence is unchanged, we're forced to make an editorial decision here since sources disagree. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure there's a real substantive distinction between "rape" and "sexual assault" as the sentence is composed, and I take your point, to some degree. Perhaps the best way forward would be to keep the existing sentence, but add “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want." from the Guardian source already cited? I think that would address your concerns, but feel free to tell me I am wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that addition would make it far worse actually, since context would similarly be missing from being able to do what I want (i.e. what does he want to do, that he can't already?) leading to similar context issues: readers could reasonably assume it means "being able to do what I want with women", i.e. sexually assault them with impunity, while what he's explicitly saying in context is being able to dump or upset a girlfriend without her retaliating with a false accusation (whether we think such an accusation would be likely is besides the point, since that is the explicit context for that quote). To me, adding that would even more strongly imply a tacit admission of guilt.

Including his denial "I'm not a rapist, but" doesn't address this, since

WP:MANDY applies, and people are used to rolling their eyes at any "I'm not a X, but..." claims and to assume the thing being denied is in fact true. Cheers DFlhb (talk

) 22:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'd like to sit back for a moment and see if there are other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't we generally defer to the broader category? In this case that would be sexual assault as all rape is sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's my inclination too; it's reasonable to be more conservative with claims when sources disagree. Note that I don't feel this addresses my main point; I'm just voicing my support for changing to "sexual assault" in case the consensus here is to keep unaltered. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when it comes to BLP we should always be small c conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging users who participated in the previous discussion. JoelleJay, Korny_O%27Near, Blueboar, Isabelle_Belato, Cinadon36, Only_in_death. I'm loath to ping people unnecesarily but since this discussion is connected to the previous one, I feel it's appropriate. Please let me know if I missed anyone; I've double-checked. DFlhb (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually missed Throast, though I've already linked him to this before; just want to ping him again publicly to make sure there's no ambiguity. DFlhb (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me very similar to the "machetes" dispute: a variety of sources have poorly paraphrased/quoted Tate to make it sound like he's saying something rather different (and quite a bit more unflattering) than what he's actually saying. The longer quote indicates that he's concerned only about false charges of rape and sexual assault. I would instead paraphrase the quote as something like: Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he felt that, with the rise of the MeToo movement in North America and Western Europe, any woman who bore a grudge against him could falsely accuse him of rape, and thus destroy his life, "with zero evidence". Korny O'Near (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that would count as "interpreting" a primary source under

WP:VNOT. DFlhb (talk

) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Korny O'Near meant this to be included in the Wikipedia article; to me it reads like their suggestion of how secondary sources should have reported on Tate's commentary. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a competent paraphrase as a "suggestion of how secondary sources should have reported on Tate's commentary" so thats doubtful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I did mean it as wording for the Wikipedia article. I don't think paraphrasing someone's quote, about himself, counts as original research - paraphrasing is done all the time on Wikipedia - but maybe that's a matter of opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, definitely undue in that case. We don't include this type of material based on primary sources only. Self-published sources as sources on themselves (by themselves) should be reserved for uncontroversial claims like DOBs or POBs. Using the primary source alone as a citation in this case (to illustrate Tate's controversial rhetoric) would constitute heavy editorializing. Article content should remain within the bounds of what secondary sources deem notable. This is basic stuff. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you can't do that, we call that

WP:OR because you're drawing conclusions that aren't actually in the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, they're arguing it's not OR, so I thought I'd lay it out in a bit more detail for them. :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to Korny O'Near not you, see how the comment is on the same level as yours? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A response to Korny O'Near? Alright, not particularly insightful considering DFlhb already laid out the whole OR issue above, but piling on helps too I guess. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I searched IndieWire in the search box, most of the comments about other sources imply IndieWire is reliable. Its not listed as a Reliable Source. Also the story is linked to from Yahoo News original content, which is listed as Reliable Source. Is the IndieWire content getting "washed" through its use in Yahoo News? Scranton (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Girls_(film) https://web.archive.org/web/20210213215126/https://www.yahoo.com/now/beautiful-girls-natalie-portman-lolita-character-sexualization-underage-character-013033893.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20210214011351/https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/natalie-portman-sexualized-young-age-made-me-afraid-1234604433/

Also Portman's comment was made on Dax Shepard Armchair Expert podcast (and originally appeared in People), so there is that issue as well Scranton (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

1)Are the these two books reliable sources regarding castes (tribes) of India/Subcontinent.

a)Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D.

b)The Rajputs: History, Clans, Culture, and Nobility MrHyperForEver (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are the authors and who are the publishers? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

a) Bakhshish Singh Nijjar

b)Rānā Muḥammad Sarvar K̲h̲ān̲

b)Muḥammad Sarvar K̲h̲ān̲ MrHyperForEver (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• As Blueboard said, it would be helpful to provide the author and publisher. That said, the first is a reliable source, it is published by a reliable publisher and the author has appropriate academic credentials. The second is not; it is self published and the author has no other publications in the field.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There have been discussions before about The Daily Dot's reliability, like this one, and their (generally left-wing) political bias has been noted. But beyond just a simple bias, The Daily Dot has an unfortunate tendency to take cheap shots at their perceived political opponents that are either misleading or even outright falsehoods. Here are some examples I've found of what I would consider their misleading or incorrect reporting:

1. Journalist Jesse Singal says he ‘goofed’ on interpreting trans study—and activists are infuriated (March 29, 2018)

   Quote: Among those 127 patients with gender dysphoria, 80 adolescents did not return to the center for treatment. Therefore, the study concluded that those 80 patients with gender dysphoria “desisted” and “no longer had a desire for gender reassignment.” In a July 2016 piece, Singal made that exact claim, saying the children “now identified as cisgender.” But that isn’t exactly true, and it’s led him to correct the error.

   The article is about Jesse Singal, who admitted to making a mistake in a 2016 analysis of a study on trans-identifying children. But in this Substack post, Singal says that the Daily Dot's explanation of his mistake is completely false (and that the corrected analysis actually means that probably more children desisted, rather than fewer).

2. Why is a journalist who has misreported trans issues allowed to propagate more transphobia? (June 29, 2018)

   Quote: Journalist Jesse Singal, noted for being extremely misguided on transgender issues and bad to trans people, is back at it again with a piece for the Atlantic that plays into largely unfounded fears about trans children.

   Another Jesse Singal one. To show that Singal is "bad to trans people", the article links to this (since-deleted) December 2017 Twitter thread by Katelyn Burns, in which Burns describes being harassed by Singal in various ways. But Singal wrote a blog post, several months later (and several months before the Daily Dot article), stating that most of what Burns wrote was false. Regardless of whom you believe (and Singal's version seems more plausible, since it has quotes and screenshots), it was extremely irresponsible for the Daily Dot not to acknowledge the dispute there.

   [I didn't realize before that this one is labelled as an opinion piece. Nevertheless, the assertion here, that Singal is harasser, is treated as a statement of fact, and seems irresponsible regardless of the context.]

3. Conservatives are livid the New York Times is writing articles about slavery (August 19, 2019)

   Quote: Many conservatives are upset that the New York Times isn’t keeping the story of Black Americans secondary.

   Article about conservative criticism of The New York Times' The 1619 Project. Many historians have similarly criticized it, and the NYT later removed the most incendiary parts of it, but you wouldn't know any of that from this article, which simply treats all the criticism as motivated by racism. (The article then strangely ends by seemingly calling for revolution in the U.S.)

   [This one I also didn't realize was labelled as an opinion piece, and since it deals entirely in opinion, it seems to be fine, from an RS perspective.]

4. Say hello to ‘antira,’ the far-right’s answer to antifa (August 22, 2019)

   Quote: But in the wake of President Donald Trump facing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism this month, far-right figureheads think they’ve found a solution. By forming antira.

   Reading through this article, it becomes obvious that there is no "antira" - it's just a few jokey tweets by cartoonist Scott Adams. (Who is not far-right, and not multiple people.)

5. ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ author links daylight saving to fertility in dog-whistle tweet (November 2, 2020)

   Quote: But Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer who claims a preternatural comprehension of the psyche of red-state citizens, knows his tweet is laced with codewords and signifiers that steer him to out-and-out racism in a tweet about, again, how the clocks fuck his cum up.

   J. D. Vance wrote a semi-humorous tweet about how daylight savings time makes people tired, thus reducing America's already-too-low fertility rate. To the Daily Dot, it's "out-and-out racism" to worry that Americans are not having enough children. (Also, they say he's talking about low semen, when he's obviously just talking about fatigue.)

6. Conservatives throwing tantrum after Fauci says to still behave responsibly after getting vaccine (February 24, 2021)

   Quote: “So there are things, even if you’re vaccinated, that you’re not going to be able to do in society: for example, indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate,” Dr. Fauci said. He added that once the nation achieves herd immunity, estimated at when 70-80% of the population is vaccinated, or scientists are certain those who have taken the vaccine can’t spread the virus, it will be safe for them to resume normal activities.

   I believe this is simply factually incorrect. A scan of the transcript of that February 2021 press conference seems to show that Fauci never talked about herd immunity or resuming normal activities, before or after he made this quote. Maybe he implied it when he talked about current death rates, but he didn't say it (and that was before this quote, not after it).

7. Conspiracy theories emailed to Fauci are being touted by conspiracy theorists—as proof of conspiracy (June 3, 2021)

   Quote: The claim [Anthony Fauci] believes masks don’t work is based on an email Fauci sent in February 2020 in which he said common (non-medical grade) cloth masks “are not really effective” at keeping coronavirus out because the virus particles are too small. Those pointing to this as evidence neglect to mention that at the time conditions were far different and scientists didn’t know if masks worked. They present it as if he said this yesterday, not well over a year ago, when experts weren’t recommending masks, and community transmission hadn’t yet been found in the United States. Weeks later, Dr. Fauci recommended a medical grade mask to decrease the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19. None of those pillorying him about masks seem inclined to mention this fact, however. The false claim about masks is far from the worst thing being said...

   This article attempts to debunk various claims made as a result of a June 2021 release of Anthony Fauci's emails. There's a variety of faulty logic in the article, but the strangest attempted debunking, in my opinion, is this one - which, unlike the others, doesn't include any examples of people making the claim, on Twitter or elsewhere. The article says that none of Fauci's critics made the distinction between cloth masks and medical-grade masks, which seems extremely doubtful. It also doesn't answer the obvious questions: did Fauci actually change his mind about cloth masks? And if so, why?

8. Joe Rogan tests positive for COVID-19 and of course he claims horse dewormer cured him (September 1, 2021)

   Quote: Rogan, who has repeatedly shared false claims about the pandemic, claims to also have taken monoclonal antibodies, Z-Pak, Prednisone, and several vitamin IV drips.

   Leaving aside the misleading headline (since headlines are irrelevant): to show that Joe Rogan has made "false claims" about COVID-19, the article links to this CNN article, in which Rogan says that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise regularly have no need for vaccination. This is hardly an outrageous statement, and even CNN doesn't call it false; the Daily Dot does, though.

9. ‘Balding nerd dysphoria’: Elon Musk’s alleged hair plugs resurface as he wonders why people get gender-affirming care (June 14, 2022)

   Quote: People quickly pointed out that many cisgender people regularly receive gender-affirming surgical procedures and medical care—including (allegedly) Elon Musk.

   Not a big deal, but it's bizarre to call male hair transplant "gender-affirming", since it's generally only men that go bald. (If anything, it's gender-denying.)

10. Republican who ousted Liz Cheney immediately pivots to QAnon conspiracies (August 18, 2022)

    Quote: [Harriet Hageman] recently repeated a talking point popular with QAnon conspiracy theorists who are convinced that elite, Satanic liberal pedophiles run the world and Trump is or was fighting a secret war against them.

    The article includes a clip of Harriet Hageman saying "Joe Biden is the largest or the most destructive human trafficker in our history." As the article briefly notes, this was part of an interview where she was talking about human trafficking on the U.S.-Mexico border resulting from Biden's immigration policies. But most of the article instead talks about QAnon, and tries to hint that Hageman has bought into conspiracy theories, all based on that single sentence.

11. Dirty Delete: Facts aren’t this Oklahoma Republican Senate candidate’s friend (September 23, 2022)

    Quote: During the 2020 election [Markwayne Mullin] shared the inane conspiracy theory that Vice President Kamala Harris was actually going to be commander-in-chief.

    This article/column is about Senate candidate Markwayne Mullin, and the sentence in question links to this tweet, in which Mullin wrote, "If you vote for Joe Biden, you know who you’re really electing for President, right? #KamalaHarris #Frightening #TrickNoTreat". This presumably is a reference to the possibility that, if elected, Joe Biden would, as the oldest-ever U.S. President, either die of old age in office or be declared mentally unfit, in either case making Kamala Harris the President. Unlikely? Maybe. But not a conspiracy theory.

I don't know much about The Daily Dot's non-political reporting, but it seems to me that they should be downgraded as a reliable source on political topics. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you disagree with a good deal of what the Daily Dot publishes, but I'm not seeing "misleading or even outright falsehoods" here. For example Joe Rogan#Remarks on COVID-19 has made false claims about COVID-19, thats 100% true even if you disagree with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean yeah, so far he's making it look pretty usable, more usable than I'd have considered the Daily Dot previously - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to be glib but that was my reaction as well... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The DD is a terrible source. Very click bait articles. I suspect the only reason we don't have sources critical of them is no one takes them seriously to begin with. Springee (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DD is generally showcasing the extreme problems generated by accountability journalism, they want to point out the flaws and missteps of those they don't see as on their ideological side (DD being a more liberal publication). This leads to sloppy reporting that is better covered by other sources, at least for political statements of fact. Masem (t) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found DD not to be a great indicator of notability - they cover a lot of frankly trivial matters. But they're not liars or dissemblers - and Korny Near's collection of examples shows them to be fully capable of excellent work - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which of these do you think are excellent work? Or is it all of them? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You made a detailed summary showing that DD had accurately summarised and analysed each case, and that you didn't like the way they did it. The first and second parts are what RSN cares about, and the third seems to be your own problem rather than a case for RSN - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think KON has shown that DD's summary of facts shouldn't be trusted to be accurate. It appears to be a mix of exaggerated claims or taking source material out of context. Not surprising given the click bait nature of the source and how much of their home page content focuses on viral videos and memes. Even when they get something right I can't see why we would give this source any weight. Springee (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at all of these, and none seems to be a case of inaccuracy. At worst, they're guilty of sensationalism, and clearly there is bias. With the two Segal pieces, the only evidence for inaccuracy is his own SPS, so I'm not convinced, especially as they provide quite compelling detail. in relation to "antira", it's not one tweeter, but tweets by multiple people, one of whom is a notable figure on the far right, Jack Posobiec. Most of these pieces seem to cover fairly marginal (non-noteworthy material), so unlike more solid RSs I agree coverage by DD is a poor indictor of notability, but where we are looking for facts about some incidents that precisely lack more mainstream coverage, I don't see unreliability here. So at worst I'd say attribute when the topic is controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am very much with BobFromBrockley above. Clickbait-y headlines, no doubt, and something of a pronounced point of view, but I do not see the kind inaccuracies that would make me call it "unreliable." Certainly not a top-tier source, but usable, especially with attribution. That said, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the matter. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am increasingly of the opinion that we should have a CAUTION on ALL media outlets covering politics - Even the best should be considered “Reliable for opinion with in-text attribution”, but less than reliable for statements of fact in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really about this specific source but you speak the truth about there being a larger problem with how people use media sources for politics. IMO people often only attribute things they disagree with and put the things they agree with in wikivoice, this is much less problematic in a hard field like chemistry or physics where there is more or less a correlation between what a reasonable and knowledgable observer believes and what is fact. Politics is 95% opinions with very very few hard facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. WP definitely needs reforms on coverage of politics. Putting a caution on all media outlets covering politics and taking the popular press with a grain of salt could be a good start, but if we ever want to see any potential reforms come to fruition, there would need to be a discussion at the village pump. X-Editor (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. I feel that the use of Wikivoice for contentious claims was made with cases like Hitler in mind, so that he could be labelled a "fascist" without violating Wikipedia policy (which he obviously should).

I think the distinction should be fact vs opinion. Encyclopedias should contain facts:

1. Universal or near-universal scholarly consensus merits inclusion as Wikivoice
2. No-consensus opinions from scholars merit attribution
3. Universal media opinions or contentious claims ("X is a white nationalist"), that are not backed up by scholars, merit attribution to the media as a whole (i.e. "widely described by journalists/media as X")
4. Non-consensus media opinions or contentious claims merit individual attribution.

Rationale for #3: if a contentious claim is notable, it'll have been covered by scholars. If not, it's not notable enough for Wikivoice. We're an encyclopedia, not "society's mouthpiece."

We should probably make exceptions for specialist publications, and limit #3 to politics.

I think this would be perfectly workable, and would avoid giving too much credence to journalists that work under tight deadlines, are rarely true subject matter experts who would merit their opinions being elevated above all others, and exhibit a little too much groupthink for my taste and a certain laziness towards subjects deemed unworthy of proper journalistic standards. DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The main potential issues are misrepresentations of fact, and contentious labels (since if we consider this a reliable source, then it counts towards the inclusio of any contentious label in Wikipedia). Let's take a look:

• I have high standards for factual representations by media, as I think anyone should; they have editorial processes, there's no excuse to make uncorrected factual mistakes.

• article 1 definitely falls in this category, though it's on a minor fact

• Then let's look at contentious labels. If enough reliable sources include them, we have to include in Wikivoice, so for this source to be
  WP:RS
  it needs to be attentive with its labels.

• article 5 is egregious on this. It would be perfectly reasonable in an opinion piece; but this is a news article, and frames a joke in a tweet (a tweet, seriously?) as an admission of adherence to white nationalism. Simply not journalism; those accusations can lead to assassination attempts so should be thrown around carefully, especially in news articles.
• article 8: Rogan, who has repeatedly shared false claims links to an article that IMO doesn't contain any false claims, nor does CNN claim it does. My opinion is necessarily subjective here; but I would oppose this contentious label being includable on Wikipedia.
• article 10 is both a misrepresentation of fact, and a mislabel; they misrepresenting a bombastic statement of opinion as if it were a conspiracy or allegation of crime on Biden's part. If we reversed the political bend, the claim being critiques would be on par with a claim that climate change deniers are "genociders". It's simply defensible opinion; not a "baseless accusation".

• We can also try to get hints at the level of editorial control at the Daily Dot. I think their editorial control is questionable:

• article 2 links to potentially libellous content without tempering or contextualizing it.
• article 4 should clearly be an opinion piece rather than a news piece; it's not written in proper "newsvoice" and simply reads more lika blog post or
  WP:RS
• article 6 is a tabloid-style article that should be opinion, but is in the news section; it entirely consists of "reporting on tweets", several of which had 4 "likes". Misclassifying opinion articles as news nullifies it as
  WP:RS
  relies on outlets making that distinction properly.
• article 9 stands between tabloid and opinion; yet is labelled as news. Ouch.
• article 11 promotes itself as a "column" when encouraging newsletter signups, yet is within the News section. The NYT would never make that mistake in a million years. Also, same issues as article 10, though that's forgivable in an opinion column.

Article 3 is an opinion piece, so I don't care about it.

Article 7 seems fine to me; it quotes primary sources at length to back up its arguments and allow readers to verify that its factual representations are true, which is something more media should do; it's the bare minimum IMO. Perfectly good piece, but doesn't detract from the other failings above; journalistic standards are a "minimum", not a median. If a journalistic outlet repeatedly goes below the line of journalistic standards, it's not a journalistic outlet, no matter if there's a good article in the heap.

The factual misrepresentations are minor, which is good. The contentious labels are pretty egregious in my view though; and the clear signs of editorial deficiencies are the most concerning part of this.

Overall opinion:

• definitely not
  WP:RS
  ; their contentious labels should simply not be treated equivalently to those from the NYT for example
• contentious labels should be used very carefully, case-by-case basis, and with attribution if used. Editors here should loook at proper
  WP:RS
  to see if a label truly deserves inclusion
• should never be used for contentious labels in BLPs
• I'd say it seems quite usable for statements of fact.

I strongly think it should be downgraded to the same rank as the Daily Beast: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons., in yellow on the perennial sources list, if not lower. I frankly don't see how anyone can think the Daily Dot is better than Daily Beast; to me, the Dot seems far more clickbaity and less journalistic than Beast. Anything notable would be covered in other sources, any non-obvious facts would be covered in other sources, so I don't oppose assigning them Red either.

Note: I've seen other responders here group misstatements of facts and false contentious labels as one thing, and say that that the Daily Dot was unusable on facts. I don't disagree with them at all, I just define "facts" more specifically. I fully agree with a few commenters above that they're not usable on contentious claims or BLP-related stuff.

DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed analysis. I didn't notice before that #3 was labelled as "Opinion" - if I had seen that, I probably wouldn't have included it. It's interesting that we have different critiques of some of the same items - most notably #6, the Fauci press conference one. Definitely the problems you point out, of a tabloid-style voice and embedding random tweets in lieu of actual reporting, are a lot more prevalent than the misstatements of fact, which are only occasional. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad it was helpful since I took some time writing it. Best, DFlhb (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, personal analysis of why you feel that a particular source got something right or wrong isn't a strong
  WP:RSes aren't seeing things the way you are, so you can't reasonably argue that it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 02:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

1) The Daily Dot article is completely accurate on what Singal said. Him making a separate blog post later has...no relevance to the original article. What argument are you trying to make here?

2) This is an Opinion piece, clearly labeled. You also seem to just be pushing your politics here in your support for Singal.

4) The article clearly points out Adams came up with the term and that others are now using it. Also, Adams very much is far right, not sure what you're arguing here.

5) This seems to be you adding your own opinion into things, since this: "(Also, they say he's talking about low semen, when he's obviously just talking about fatigue.)" is you interpreting as well. Particularly since daylight savings in the fall is "fall back", meaning you gain an extra hour. How would an extra hour of sleep give you more fatigue?

6) I fully agree that the implied part for that is before the quote. Specifically here:

One relates to you, yourself, being vaccinated, and the other relates to the number of people and the relative percentage of people in society that will be vaccinated, because there will be things that you will not be able to do because the burden of virus in society will be very high, which it is right now. "

In that when the societal burden is lower (which is more or less an equivalence to discussing herd immunity), it will be less of a concern. I don't really see a problem with the DD article being more explicit on them in their terminology.

7) And? This seems to be again an example of your opinion and dislike of what was stated in the article. That doesn't make it wrong and that doesn't make you right either.

8) That...is an outrageous statement. Perfectly healthy people still need vaccinations. It is entirely a false statement to claim healthy people don't need vaccinations and can't be infected by diseases.

9)I'm sorry you disagree on the term "gender-affirming" here. Do you have a point or do you just dislike the usage of the term?

10) The article seems quite clear in explaining the details of how the "human trafficking" claims are a part of the broader Qanon conspiracy beliefs. I don't see the problem here. The article directly describes the connection.

11) I presume you're not aware of the common conspiracy theory in Qanon circles that Kamala was picked precisely in order to get her in office without her being the Presidential candidate? It is a conspiracy claim that exists and was fairly commonly pushed among conspiracy theorists at the time. This doesn't indicate anything incorrect in the DD article.

In short, your issues with the Daily Dot appear to be that they make political statements you disagree with and state facts that you disagree with. And you want their reliability downgraded because of that. Silverseren^C 03:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren - thank you for putting together this list of objections, which I think helps to crystallize the disputes some people have had with this listing. Below are my responses - I don't want to get in an endless back-and-forth, so I probably won't respond further on this particular thread, but I wanted to lay out my defenses.

1) It's true that the quote I picked is not contradicted by Jesse Singal's blog post. I wanted to find a quote that was indeed contradicted, but it seemed like I had to basically quote the whole article in order to do that. But it does appear that the Daily Dot's analysis in error. Certainly Singal seems to think so - he called it a "severe fuckup".

2) Yes, this is an opinion piece, but it's making a statement of fact - "Jesse Singal is bad to trans people" - that I think is irresponsible, in any context.

4) The article says "antira" is not a term, but an organization/affiliation, which it's not.

5) I think you're wrong about the fatigue thing, but obviously the key part here is not that but imputing racism to someone they dislike, with no evidence.

6) If you read the Daily Dot quote, it implies Fauci said a number of specific things ("herd immunity", "70-80% of the population") that he didn't say. We Wikipedia editors would call that, at the very least, "synthesis".

7) I believe their sentence "None of those pillorying him about masks seem inclined to mention this fact, however" is simply incorrect. (Also irrelevant, but the incorrectness is more critical here.)

8) I suppose this is indeed a matter of opinion, along the lines of "should you worry about getting struck by lightning?".

9) I don't know why this particular one has gotten so much controversy, since it seems so straightforward. But I'd love to hear how getting more hair added to one's head is a way to affirm that one is a man and not a woman.

10) This seems like a classic logical fallacy: "QAnon talk about human trafficking, Hageman talks about human trafficking, therefore Hageman is probably QAnon". I would expect more from a reliable source than hanging an article on this kind of flimsy thread.

11) No, I'm not aware of such a conspiracy theory. And I still don't see how this is a conspiracy at all: a VP's main task, after all, is indeed to serve as a backup in case something happens to the president. There's nothing secret about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to start an RfC on