![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 440 | ← | Archive 442 | Archive 443 | Archive 444 | Archive 445 |
First, there is broad consensus that CIA-period RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all. Even editors supporting option 1 conceded this point.
Second, there is rough consensus that RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. The argument for attribution went largely unrefuted by editors advocating for option 1, who generally focused on the reliability of the source and their disfavor of deprecation (option 4).
However, there is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. For example, some editors noted that RFE/RL is usually generally reliable in the Russia/Ukraine context. Other editors pointed out that RFE/RL potentially had some editorial independence issues under the Trump administration. There was also some agreement that RFE/RL has shown some bias in reporting on Azerbaijan, and potentially in Central Asia. (Note: The preceding points did not gain consensus; they are merely provided as examples of some subject areas where attribution might be required). The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis through the usual course of discussion on article talk and at RSN, as well as through subsequent RfCs as necessary.
There is also consensus not to deprecate RFE/RL. Deprecation is a blunt instrument and ought to be used sparingly. The case for deprecation rested on RFE/RL (1) being a propaganda broadcaster (particularly during the mid-20th century when it was affiliated with the CIA), (2) lacking editorial independence, and (3) exhibiting bias in particular subject areas.
The first and second points were successfully rebutted by two responses that gained support among editors in the discussion. First, there is no evidence that RFE/RL continues to operate in the manner that it did from the 1950s-70s. Second, the evidence presented in the discussion cuts the other way because it shows increasing editorial independence and internal criticism/reflection. There was a rough consensus that the third point was irrelevant because bias is distinct from reliability.
I will add an entry for this source at RS/PS. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the U.S. Government agency "RFE/RL" (AKA "
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty"):
Chetsford ( talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite the criticism towards editor Ilkin Mamamdov, it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.
Major US outlets present mostly facts – that support American valuesIt talks about the "firewall" eroding under Trump (the issue covered in b, but remaining mostly in place. The Irvine Law Review piece (same author) speaks about trustworthiness as a form of propaganda, i.e. building a reputation for honesty as a way of building soft power - again bias alongside reliability. Stroínska talks about listening to RFE while growing up, i.e. during the Cold War, so that's not relevant. The WSJ piece covers material on specific central Asian services under Trump that fits with the stuff in (b); in all of the cases the complaints (relating to bias not reliability) triggered action to correct them, so don't raise critical reliability issues.
two of the largest and most successful covert action projects in the U.S. effort to break the communist monopoly on news.[11] - We cannot possibly see this as a reliable or neutral source. Furthermore this non-reliability has been demonstrated via the recent use of antisemitic conspiracy theories within the Cuban broadcasting arm of the US propaganda apparatus. It's quite clear that, rather than being editorially independent if ideologically suspect, media outlets, these propaganda vehicles will say whatever they believe most likely to serve their mission of undermining US enemies. This is not what we should be basing an encyclopedia off of. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
the communist monopoly on news and information in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.- which was absolutely real. (p. 2) Relatedly, it's also highly relevant that this document is from 1969 (p. 11), over half a century ago during the Cold War. Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
its current form, implying that you believe there is a clear line, but obviously their own 990 Form is useless for establishing something like that. If its assurances that it has changed have been taken seriously - and have actually altered its reputation - you should be able to produce secondary sources proving that. The fact that you had to resort to their own 990 form to argue it via WP:OR using WP:INVOLVED primary sources implies that secondary sources establishing its reputation has improved do not, in fact, exist and that it is therefore still as unreliable at best and more likely an active source of misinformation. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
[f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately.It is already clear from the above discussion that RFE/RL is in a substantially better position than that.
A non-exhaustive list
|
---|
|
Reprise of evidence against
|
---|
|
Continued from previous list
|
---|
|
not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policyis compatible with how I described bias working in practice: the selective omission of facts does not mean the selected facts are not still facts.
to promote democratic values. Substitute another adjective, such as “conservative”, “progressive”, “socialist”, etc. and the issue should become clear (unless one ascribes magical or quasi-sacred symbolism to the ideal of democracy instead of merely viewing it soberly as a vehicle to guarantee human rights).
References
(Note that no specific selection regarding RS or timeline was made, primarily focussing on getting a diverse list of sourcing. Feedback and additions are welcome)
FortunateSons ( talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | RfC closure review request at administrators' noticeboard is being discussed |
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.
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
Loki ( talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Jump to: | Survey | Discussion | Proposed moratorium |
a women's rights group) but there are many many other examples.
tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes[14] Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? Endwise ( talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.
a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people. Esses is a counsellor according to this article, which calls him
a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists".
In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.
In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".
Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.
that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a specific classmate's identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that
The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignationis also saying that the prime minister resigned. Loki ( talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation, but the equivalent hypothetical would be
The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?”[17] And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. [18] While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said:
Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way”in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals. [19]
a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young peopleThe article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology.
Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity.contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. [23] While Loki describes this as
pretty transparently ridiculous, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that
Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females[24] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.
It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards.It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women.
Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. [It] should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary.I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is
a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph?
anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what WP:MEDRS tells us to do.
Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.
They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that[...] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.
The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization.
there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Wikipedia considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has
alleged directly that trans women are men. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be unreliable. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically false. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are generally reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Wikipedia. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth:
Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.
She added that "there is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones"
The teacher said that "if you don’t like it you need to go to a different school", adding: "I’m reporting you to [senior staff], you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson."
The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be "reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future".
a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on” in criticising The Telegraph:
Four samples of expressed human milk were frozen and supplied for analysis. Each 40-ml sample was obtained from full breast pumpings pooled over a 24-hr period, collected approximately once each month, starting 129 days after initiation of domperidone and 56 days after initiation of pumping.
the quantity of expressed milk was low in comparison to what would be needed to sustain infant growth independently
Nutritionally, our participant’s milk was quite robust with higher values for all macronutrients and average calories over 20 kcals per 30 ml. Other important characteristics of human milk, including micronutrients and bioactive factors, were not assessed.
It also references a 2022 study that found “milk testosterone concentrations” were under 1 per cent with “no observable side effects” in the babies.
Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.
Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.
Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.
The SNP government has kept controversial guidance, which calls on teachers to “be affirming” to children who say they are trans and endorses “social transition”, in place despite the recent findings of the Cass review.
Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated.What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is not to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how.
a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition.
appears to be falsewithout any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that
if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enoughwhen you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy.[53] How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a chilling effect on psychotherapy. [54] You also have a Wikipedia article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.
How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being validAh yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids. [55] - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya WP:FRINGE.
There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on gender exploratory therapy in the article conversion therapy... [56] And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph?- In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note
The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline. [57]
They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues.- I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy.
Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Projectas saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position.
a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.
As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role thereand later
The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns"The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. Either way, his views played a part, so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like James Esses was kicked out of Childline for publicly discussing his employment there end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece.
You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU- 1) they withdrew their signature after signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids [60]
You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.- I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.
Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt?- WP:FRINGE applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read conversion therapy#gender exploratory therapy, which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the SAMHSA criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) NARTH (yes, that NARTH) endorses it...
how was the reader misled?Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often. Here's a big issue:
Either way, his views played a part- nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (immaterial of what position was advocated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.OK, so how is that evidence of WP:FRINGE? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. [61] Specifically, that
At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that
without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of WP:FRINGE views. I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors. [62]
basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", you have only been able to provide that article, the Trevor Project, and now SAMHSA (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO.
how was the reader misled?is because the goal of the WP:Reliable sources policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Wikipedia.
euphemizing conversion therapyand an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? Keep in mind that WP:MEDPOP already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it.
The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on WP:Verifiability already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that directly supports the claim made, "directly support" meaning
the information is present explicitly in the source.
The telegraph- they sayimpliesoutright says the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy
Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds[74]
Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy?- See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning").
What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?- we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, if there was a good reason, but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Wikipedia, why does it matter?
The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat".
Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections.
Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication?
No it doesn't.and
The claim the source makes is false
Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements
Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.
targeting and fearmongeringbased on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting".
the majority of coverage ... is negative. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased.
as a weapon against the very people they seek to supportand argues
that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.
fits the global standpoint of neutralityI don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. Aaron Liu ( talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been
an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to British news media. The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society. YouGov noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while Ipsos found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for gender-affirming healthcare in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.
— Transgender rights in the United Kingdom
is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safetythat is a
reliable source of information and advice. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids,
parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids(contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people and their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as
as powerful, dangerous and controversial. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and linked) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves
The article is a primary source: The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?
Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.: Either Mermaids does for the most part support families (as the Critical Discourse Studies articles states) or it for the most part pits youths against their families (as The Telegraph states); either affirming trans youths is good for their health or it's a 'wrong path' that's bad for them. At some point the premise that it's all mere opinion breaks down. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.Let's say a cannabis advocacy group also provides forums and events for family of cannabis users. Would you support deprecating a source that claims it drives adolescents against family by supporting drug-using habits?The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?
see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is true. But this doesn't explain how the article isn't secondary. Primary research refers to experimental results, often in the hard sciences, where authors present data without synthesis. If the article had been a tabulation of hits for key terms across newspapers, that would likely be a primary source. But by taking on interpretive assessment, the article's authors present a secondary source.
Would you support: If after careful consideration of the evidence I concluded that the periodical consistently advanced claims out of step from an academic consensus around what was best for the health of people experience substance addiction, then I could see myself supporting MREL or GUNREL, depending on the severity of the deviation from reliable facts. (I don't usually support outright deprecation, because I think rendering ourselves unable to link to a source even when, say, verifying a quotation might be appropriate is unhelpful.)
as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims: I'll have to ask you to excuse me for finding this comparison of trans affirming charity work to British imperialism in South Asia out of left field and unconvincing. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.Review articles are secondary sources; research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper.If you believe that that's libel instead of opinion, I think we'd have to agree to disagree. Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper: We'll also have to agree to disagree here as well. A paper that isn't experimentally generating primary data but is instead citing and interpreting primary data is a secondary source. I reiterate that this is a difference between hard sciences and social sciences/humanities; journal articles in the latter are often secondary sources. It also seems inconsistent to look at, say, a newspaper article based on interviews and consider that a secondary source while treating a research paper based on archival discovery and interpretation and to call it primary. To elaborate by comparison, this biographical article is a secondary source; the archival documents it cites are primary sources. Likewise, the Critical Discourse Studies article is a secondary sources; it treats the journalism it cites and examines as primary sources. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. starship .paint ( RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’and that '
It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the Telegraph. The objections to the Telegraph in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracyfor well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the opinion pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles,Makes directly false claim that XXY or XYY "does not alter a man's biological sex"
Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome.Same thing for XYY.
The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.claims binding is significantly more dangerous than it actually is
As Luna correctly pointed out above, this (misleading about breast binding
breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation,
more than 97 per cent of adults who use [breast binders] suffer health problems [(which refers to any health problem such as slight pain)] as a result) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.
It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)citing Maya Forstater as a reliable source on the issue
As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.
Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, "Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome." Same thing for XYY.
It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source.
thanks for the morning laughIf I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?
I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex".
Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".It just says "campaign group".
Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion"
examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women. Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimumsuggestion. I'll also echo the
update the RSP entry to be clearcomment by -sche. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that.
The review also claimed that, while research suggests that hormone treatment “reduces” the elevated risk of suicide, there is “no clear evidence” that social transition has any positive or negative mental health outcomes.
86. It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.
Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review.
15.43 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.
-from a post by User:Chess in this RfC Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news.
The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title "Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times", but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? Astaire ( talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability?
The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspapernone of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable now. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining.
I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different.The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still generally reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
outright conspiracy theoriesare you referring to? BilledMammal ( talk) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created.[79]
This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.[80]
Transgender Ideology Hurts Kidsand suggest conversion therapy as an alternative
The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.\ [81]
As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country. [82]
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered[83] [84] [85]
many such examples may be found, it would be helpful to provide specific quotes from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?" It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist has brought up examples of other sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph.
Debunked pseudoscienceand
the opinions expressed are verifiably falseare hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "
This is potentially the most contested explanation" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that.
The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.
debunked pseudoscience".
advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people.
exhausting amount of good work, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
— sole line of WP:ARDA
Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.
Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination)p 161
Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it".[89] This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women.
This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards.and
Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of [the expert]who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue.
from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.
The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex
Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place(a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women) [97] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals"in a certain country. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally WP:FRINGE.
The council supports festivals and celebrations…other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. starship .paint ( RUN) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.This shows a consensus that bias can negatively affect reliability.
there definitely is a consensus for bias here, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative, and therefore designating The Telegraph as WP:MREL or below will stop lies from getting onto Wikipedia.
I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide your summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voicegrants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since WP:Verifiability prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per WP:MEDRS.
new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine.
Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate.
I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children.Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Telegraph is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against The Telegraph's general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.BilledMammal ( talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable
because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias
bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, directly contradicts global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
a trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Commenters supporting this wording at that RfC viewed that as being a fact that is true. [99] Other commenters wanted to avoid treating it as a fact. WP:NPOV says that
If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, but treating that claim that "trans women are women" as an opinion would endorse the meta-POV that this is something you can have a point-of-view on.
POLRSfor trans-related subjects imply the mere existence of trans people is political. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen far too many criticisms of it to be able to say that.And besides, the article suggests that Harvie "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" when it does not even make clear who made the accusation. There's no way this could be from a "generally reliable" source, and given the countless other examples given above (plus many articles I have read on the Telegraph on trans topics) I have to agree that this is generally unreliable. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, but we're in a discussion about whether that applies to The Telegraph. You can also say Fox News is a well-established news outlet and therefore it should be considered generally reliable, but we've also decided that it is generally unreliable for politics and science. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion
Such vagaries, or even outright lies, are a popular tactic of the UK press when it comes to (mis)representing trans issues. To give a few examples, in an interview with the Telegraph, popular children’s author Jacqueline Wilson is “very, very worried” about “young children taking any kind of drugs, hormones or whatever” and “having major surgery” (Wilson 2019). The interviewer does not bother to point out to Wilson that no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to children
citation without comment for factswhich
is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for factsThat is simply not true and I would urge anyone to verify for themselves. A substantial number of the links I posted involve PinkNews heavily dependent on the Telegraph's reporting. Beyond the first list of six, there are articles such as this and this. In fact, that second one so closely hews to the Telegraph that the paragraph beginning "Separately, culture secretary Oliver Dowden..." is directly copied (plagiarised?) from the Telegraph article. Clearly PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable". Astaire ( talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to childrenis simply false even discounting blockers, seeing as GenderGP gave testosterone to at least one 12-year-old and multiple others under the age of 16. Void if removed ( talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
an attempt to make them look bad" but actually escalated to a statutory inquiry into the charity's governance, which is still ongoing to this day. None of this is actually about unreliability, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Void if removed ( talk) 08:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources.
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does a paper that endorses conspiracy theories like gender ideology, that refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about, that publishes articles every day intended to mislead the reader about trans people, really have
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Loki ( talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel like "not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source" is being used as a thought-terminating cliche here.yes, there is a disappointingly large amount of "bias doesn't automatically mean unreliable" being understood as/claimed to mean "bias cannot mean unreliable", which WP:RSP and any discussion regarding state-controlled media demonstrate is simply incorrect. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
bias cannot mean unreliable
When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.So the statement that bias alone can mean a source is unreliable is flat out untrue per our policies. Bias can mean it deserves a closer look to confirm it complies with other parts of the reliable source policy. And it may even be more likely that biased sources do not comply with the RS policy. But if there are no violations of the actual policy, then no matter how strong the bias is, it is not an unreliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about
It is not required to use "neutral sources" and there generally aren't any. The Telegraph's editorial slant on this particular issue is held in common with most of the rest of the British press, and is widely reflected also in the general British populace (to what exact extent is a moving target). And European in general, from what I can tell. What's happened here is that a predominantly American and urban and left-progressive view, which is also increasingly common in academic material, is being held up as if an objective and incontrovertible Truth rather than an ongoing socio-political divide, and one that is an even bigger (yet much less a party-politics-polarization) split in the UK than it is in the US.
A British newspaper's reliability (whether it can be relied upon to do fact checking, using human sources that are subject-matter experts, and to not make up false claims, fake quotes, and other bullshit) is not in any way dependent on how well it reflects a particular socio-political viewpoint that is somewhat ascendant in another country. (And part of the reason for that difference is divergent legal–constitutional systems, raising distinct legal questions that differ between the two jurisdictions.) No such "it can't be an RS if it takes a socio-political position I don't like" principle emerges even if most of us as editors agree on the same particular socio-political viewpoint.
There is no such thing as a source that is reliable 100% of the time even on a single matter. (Even the world's most reputable journals publish retractions and other corrections as the need arises.) And a newspaper is a totally generalist source type, so sometimes being either factually wrong or societally tone-deaf on particular matters is guaranteed to happen with any and all newspapers. It doesn't make a particular newspaper categorically unreliable on something. What does is publishing paid pseudo-news as various Indian newspapers do, publishing blatantly fabricated nonsense as far-right American ones do, and similar programmatic falsification.
PS: If anyone has approached any subject from the viewpoint that what some newspaper says will be taken uncritically by our readers as Truth, or in other words a belief that any newspaper that says something some editors think is untrue must be RSN-banned, then they have misunderstood what newspapers are, what sources in general are, what WP is for, and how WP approaches sourcing. (Hint: start at WP:DUE.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Loki ( talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.The above !vote appears to do exactly that, because the rationale is that they don't want to
support transphobic viewpoints that go against academic consensus on the topicor platform transphobic viewpoints.
that go against academic consensusmeans. Loki ( talk) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't trust "academic consensus" very much: You and William Buckley might not personally, but the the consensus on Wikipedia does (
academic and peer-reviewed publications[...]
are usually the most reliable sources). Buckley may, as you say, prefer someone randomly chosen from the phone book, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability favor academic training.To Loki's point, our guidelines about reliability mean that !votes which consider the Telegraph unreliable because it goes against the academic consensus aren't
tactical maneuvers that 'cross the line'; they are editors' good faith attempt to help our community produce content based on and in line with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 15:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
usually. This guidance works best in the physical sciences where research is believed to converge on an objective truth about the universe, refereed impartially by empirical results from nature. This is not to say that the hard sciences never err, but their empiricism puts their truth claims categorically higher than those from disciplines like gender studies, where academics share their beliefs about social constructs, and there is no privileged access to truth. That's before we get into the fact that we have reliable sources indicating that some strands of academia have become closed shops, forcing out dissenting viewpoints: [133] [134]. This is why we need sources that are biased in the opposite direction. "Going against academic consensus" is a worthy attribute where academic consensus itself is an encoding of systemic bias. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
the dominance of investigative discourse implies that Mermaids’ activities are shrouded in secrecy, and must be uncovered. Two newspapers, the Times and the Telegraph, take a strong investigative stance, with the Telegraph publishing reports that ‘expose’ Mermaids’ support for trans young people, including help accessing chest binders and name-change documents.
the danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint, so you need to provide a reason that isn't "The Telegraph doesn't support my desired viewpoint". Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
They don't share that evidence, but other sources reporting on this story treat the claim as reliable: [137] [138] ( WP:USEBYOTHERS). Is it true? Perhaps the charity commission investigation will clear things up, but for now we don't know. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Evidence obtained by The Telegraph shows that the charity’s staff have offered binders to children as young as 13 who say that their parents oppose the practice.
there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable.says it succinctly . Plus the detailed arguments by several editors, including Chess. Telegraph is a conservative (politically and socially) publication with a predominantly elderly readership, its bias(es) "stick out like sore thumbs", but no evidence is presented of any tendency to make factual errors. Pincrete ( talk) 06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
So, pretty much just shorthand for “the things my political enemies believe about gender and trans people”. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)The Tory guidance proposed a ban on schools teaching gender ideology – which states that people can be born the wrong sex and that they can change their identity to the opposite sex or other categories such as “non-binary”.
The Tory guidance proposed a ban on schools teaching gender ideology- that link clarifies that they are explicitly talking the existence of trans people (because it will confuse the children and poses a "safeguarding risk") and took inspiration from Florida's Don't Say Gay Bill
Like we wouldn't be teaching how Timberlake got arrested for a traffic violation at CHOPSY either: Fair that I didn't put that as clearly as I should've; what I meant was more that if for some reason Timberlake came up in a university setting, a professor saying that Timberlake exists, or that something happened to Timberlake, would not be weird (I would be very surprised to learn is university professors don't think that Timberlake exists and that talking about him as if he does exist, since he does, is normal); the way it would be if a university professor taught 'the gender ideology movement is spreading this idea that people can undergo gender transition'—university professors wouldn't agree on this being the way to teach Gender Studies 101. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
What does that mean?isn't a phrase that can be split up
Well, you should see what I mean. I display an anti−big words userbox on my user page. Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Nobdy would say
Let’s be absolutely clear. There are two sexes, and there are two genders. They’re not 72 genders. There’s not 100 genders, there are two…and
teaching gender questioning to children is confusing to them. It causes them anxiety. I think it’s damaging to them... It is a safeguarding breach.and the one you linked [141] says
Asked on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether she would keep the guidance on banning the teaching of gender identity, Ms Phillipson repeatedly refused to do so.
The idea of gender ideology has been described by some as ... a conspiracy theory- and even there it is describing the term being used in a different manner than the use by the Telegraph and Kier Starmer. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
the most horrible forms of racism, queerphobia etc? Typically, editors are sanctioned for such behaviour. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
per Chessindicates they support Chess's rebuttal of all of the above. Aaron Liu ( talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
the Telegraph solicited false information in the form of a quote so they weren't technically putting it in their voice, it has been pointed out ad nauseam that this means that we wouldn't be able to cite this information to the Telegraph but to the source of the quote, an entirely separate discussion. Samuelshraga ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about.Could you elaborate on whether this applies to other editors or just sources? Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support puberty blockers, not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study.
The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of
warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking. Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after more back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. -sche ( talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics.and that's from 2015. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
which don't appear to have been addressed: They have been; see Loki's post beginning
I think that this response,[that is, Chess's response]
despite being longetc. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.
highly respected model of care worldwide. [1]
97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to bindingand doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that.
egregiously misleading presentation. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention.
Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome.Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues.any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions., implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chairman, said on Wednesday: "After six years of broken promises, the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to ban so-called conversion therapy. This is a craven failure to outlaw abusive and harmful practices. Labour will ban conversion practices outright."
This Telegraph article on the upcoming play about Rowling seems pretty balanced. It seeks out the creators of the play to find out what their motives were in creating it, rather than just talking to the gender-critical people who dislike it without even having seen it. It also labels Breitbart "the far right US website" when it's referenced, going against some of the commentary here that implies that they're frequently referencing extremist views without labeling them as such. *Dan T.* ( talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Without a very clear and universally-agreed-upon definition of what qualifies as a trans issue, every issue is a trans issue. On that basis I oppose the very fact of asking this question. I also think that once a clear definition of "trans issue" has been fully agreed upon by everyone, this question will probably have become unnecessary. I don't read the Telegraph and I don't know what kind of paper it is, but this question seems like just an attempt to discredit them, and not a good-faith discussion. TooManyFingers ( talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.
please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspectiveand here we are, 3 weeks later, with specific examples refuted, editors are now saying
bias alone can be the reason for a source being unreliable.
Shortcut to survey: #Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)
As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard. Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that all option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that
"nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable"is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source is reliable.
I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around 7,000 words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) and Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) sections. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why we would limit: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
an exhausting amount of good workthat improved the quality of the discussion.
this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines? This would also reduce the need for people to reiterate their existing points in the survey section. This would achieve the goal of reducing bludgeoning. As a side note, if people here agree I will be moving this !vote down to the "summaries" section. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section(or "summaries" as you call it in your last sentence): I suppose you can probably guess I would object to such a section, since I don't disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES. Making a new section like that seems to amount to asking everyone to once again explain their positions and restate their comments. We expect a good close to read the entire discussion; why have the discussion, and then also a recapitulated discussion? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
...if it comes to that.Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
wikt:a la UNDUEis that covering the partial truth is biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP.
You directly claimed to Loki thatYou may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that.
you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to [remove sources biased against trans-topics], unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again.
That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now.Thoroughly debated, yes. Refuted, that's not clear-cut - some people think so, others disagree. Please stop prejudging the close. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then.That seems a very valid point. Perhaps it is better that the closer should say something along the lines that evidence of bias should not be used to make the case against reliability in future? Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues." It doesn't say that this RfC should be closed before the outcome is determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
pragmatically if the Telegraph can shift this much in a couple of years, how much further could it shift in another two?Regardless of whether you view it as reliable or unreliable at present, I think we can all hope it gets better, hews closer to the facts, gets more reliable as time goes on... but if it doesn't, if it continues on the trajectory it's on and which we've seen other sources go down, and it gets worse, we shouldn't pre-emptively bind our hands against doing anything about that. -sche ( talk) 22:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 440 | ← | Archive 442 | Archive 443 | Archive 444 | Archive 445 |
First, there is broad consensus that CIA-period RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all. Even editors supporting option 1 conceded this point.
Second, there is rough consensus that RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. The argument for attribution went largely unrefuted by editors advocating for option 1, who generally focused on the reliability of the source and their disfavor of deprecation (option 4).
However, there is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. For example, some editors noted that RFE/RL is usually generally reliable in the Russia/Ukraine context. Other editors pointed out that RFE/RL potentially had some editorial independence issues under the Trump administration. There was also some agreement that RFE/RL has shown some bias in reporting on Azerbaijan, and potentially in Central Asia. (Note: The preceding points did not gain consensus; they are merely provided as examples of some subject areas where attribution might be required). The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis through the usual course of discussion on article talk and at RSN, as well as through subsequent RfCs as necessary.
There is also consensus not to deprecate RFE/RL. Deprecation is a blunt instrument and ought to be used sparingly. The case for deprecation rested on RFE/RL (1) being a propaganda broadcaster (particularly during the mid-20th century when it was affiliated with the CIA), (2) lacking editorial independence, and (3) exhibiting bias in particular subject areas.
The first and second points were successfully rebutted by two responses that gained support among editors in the discussion. First, there is no evidence that RFE/RL continues to operate in the manner that it did from the 1950s-70s. Second, the evidence presented in the discussion cuts the other way because it shows increasing editorial independence and internal criticism/reflection. There was a rough consensus that the third point was irrelevant because bias is distinct from reliability.
I will add an entry for this source at RS/PS. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the U.S. Government agency "RFE/RL" (AKA "
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty"):
Chetsford ( talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite the criticism towards editor Ilkin Mamamdov, it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.
Major US outlets present mostly facts – that support American valuesIt talks about the "firewall" eroding under Trump (the issue covered in b, but remaining mostly in place. The Irvine Law Review piece (same author) speaks about trustworthiness as a form of propaganda, i.e. building a reputation for honesty as a way of building soft power - again bias alongside reliability. Stroínska talks about listening to RFE while growing up, i.e. during the Cold War, so that's not relevant. The WSJ piece covers material on specific central Asian services under Trump that fits with the stuff in (b); in all of the cases the complaints (relating to bias not reliability) triggered action to correct them, so don't raise critical reliability issues.
two of the largest and most successful covert action projects in the U.S. effort to break the communist monopoly on news.[11] - We cannot possibly see this as a reliable or neutral source. Furthermore this non-reliability has been demonstrated via the recent use of antisemitic conspiracy theories within the Cuban broadcasting arm of the US propaganda apparatus. It's quite clear that, rather than being editorially independent if ideologically suspect, media outlets, these propaganda vehicles will say whatever they believe most likely to serve their mission of undermining US enemies. This is not what we should be basing an encyclopedia off of. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
the communist monopoly on news and information in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.- which was absolutely real. (p. 2) Relatedly, it's also highly relevant that this document is from 1969 (p. 11), over half a century ago during the Cold War. Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
its current form, implying that you believe there is a clear line, but obviously their own 990 Form is useless for establishing something like that. If its assurances that it has changed have been taken seriously - and have actually altered its reputation - you should be able to produce secondary sources proving that. The fact that you had to resort to their own 990 form to argue it via WP:OR using WP:INVOLVED primary sources implies that secondary sources establishing its reputation has improved do not, in fact, exist and that it is therefore still as unreliable at best and more likely an active source of misinformation. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
[f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately.It is already clear from the above discussion that RFE/RL is in a substantially better position than that.
A non-exhaustive list
|
---|
|
Reprise of evidence against
|
---|
|
Continued from previous list
|
---|
|
not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policyis compatible with how I described bias working in practice: the selective omission of facts does not mean the selected facts are not still facts.
to promote democratic values. Substitute another adjective, such as “conservative”, “progressive”, “socialist”, etc. and the issue should become clear (unless one ascribes magical or quasi-sacred symbolism to the ideal of democracy instead of merely viewing it soberly as a vehicle to guarantee human rights).
References
(Note that no specific selection regarding RS or timeline was made, primarily focussing on getting a diverse list of sourcing. Feedback and additions are welcome)
FortunateSons ( talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | RfC closure review request at administrators' noticeboard is being discussed |
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.
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
Loki ( talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Jump to: | Survey | Discussion | Proposed moratorium |
a women's rights group) but there are many many other examples.
tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes[14] Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? Endwise ( talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.
a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people. Esses is a counsellor according to this article, which calls him
a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists".
In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.
In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".
Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.
that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a specific classmate's identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that
The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignationis also saying that the prime minister resigned. Loki ( talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation, but the equivalent hypothetical would be
The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?”[17] And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. [18] While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said:
Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way”in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals. [19]
a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young peopleThe article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology.
Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity.contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. [23] While Loki describes this as
pretty transparently ridiculous, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that
Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females[24] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.
It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards.It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women.
Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. [It] should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary.I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is
a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph?
anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what WP:MEDRS tells us to do.
Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.
They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that[...] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.
The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization.
there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Wikipedia considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has
alleged directly that trans women are men. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be unreliable. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically false. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are generally reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Wikipedia. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth:
Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.
She added that "there is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones"
The teacher said that "if you don’t like it you need to go to a different school", adding: "I’m reporting you to [senior staff], you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson."
The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be "reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future".
a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on” in criticising The Telegraph:
Four samples of expressed human milk were frozen and supplied for analysis. Each 40-ml sample was obtained from full breast pumpings pooled over a 24-hr period, collected approximately once each month, starting 129 days after initiation of domperidone and 56 days after initiation of pumping.
the quantity of expressed milk was low in comparison to what would be needed to sustain infant growth independently
Nutritionally, our participant’s milk was quite robust with higher values for all macronutrients and average calories over 20 kcals per 30 ml. Other important characteristics of human milk, including micronutrients and bioactive factors, were not assessed.
It also references a 2022 study that found “milk testosterone concentrations” were under 1 per cent with “no observable side effects” in the babies.
Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.
Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.
Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.
The SNP government has kept controversial guidance, which calls on teachers to “be affirming” to children who say they are trans and endorses “social transition”, in place despite the recent findings of the Cass review.
Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated.What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is not to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how.
a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition.
appears to be falsewithout any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that
if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enoughwhen you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy.[53] How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a chilling effect on psychotherapy. [54] You also have a Wikipedia article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.
How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being validAh yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids. [55] - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya WP:FRINGE.
There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on gender exploratory therapy in the article conversion therapy... [56] And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph?- In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note
The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline. [57]
They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues.- I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy.
Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Projectas saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position.
a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.
As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role thereand later
The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns"The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. Either way, his views played a part, so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like James Esses was kicked out of Childline for publicly discussing his employment there end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece.
You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU- 1) they withdrew their signature after signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids [60]
You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.- I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.
Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt?- WP:FRINGE applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read conversion therapy#gender exploratory therapy, which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the SAMHSA criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) NARTH (yes, that NARTH) endorses it...
how was the reader misled?Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often. Here's a big issue:
Either way, his views played a part- nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (immaterial of what position was advocated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.OK, so how is that evidence of WP:FRINGE? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. [61] Specifically, that
At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that
without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of WP:FRINGE views. I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors. [62]
basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", you have only been able to provide that article, the Trevor Project, and now SAMHSA (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO.
how was the reader misled?is because the goal of the WP:Reliable sources policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Wikipedia.
euphemizing conversion therapyand an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? Keep in mind that WP:MEDPOP already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it.
The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on WP:Verifiability already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that directly supports the claim made, "directly support" meaning
the information is present explicitly in the source.
The telegraph- they sayimpliesoutright says the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy
Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds[74]
Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy?- See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning").
What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?- we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, if there was a good reason, but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Wikipedia, why does it matter?
The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat".
Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections.
Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication?
No it doesn't.and
The claim the source makes is false
Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements
Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.
targeting and fearmongeringbased on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting".
the majority of coverage ... is negative. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased.
as a weapon against the very people they seek to supportand argues
that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.
fits the global standpoint of neutralityI don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. Aaron Liu ( talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been
an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to British news media. The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society. YouGov noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while Ipsos found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for gender-affirming healthcare in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.
— Transgender rights in the United Kingdom
is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safetythat is a
reliable source of information and advice. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids,
parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids(contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people and their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as
as powerful, dangerous and controversial. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and linked) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves
The article is a primary source: The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?
Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.: Either Mermaids does for the most part support families (as the Critical Discourse Studies articles states) or it for the most part pits youths against their families (as The Telegraph states); either affirming trans youths is good for their health or it's a 'wrong path' that's bad for them. At some point the premise that it's all mere opinion breaks down. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.Let's say a cannabis advocacy group also provides forums and events for family of cannabis users. Would you support deprecating a source that claims it drives adolescents against family by supporting drug-using habits?The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?
see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is true. But this doesn't explain how the article isn't secondary. Primary research refers to experimental results, often in the hard sciences, where authors present data without synthesis. If the article had been a tabulation of hits for key terms across newspapers, that would likely be a primary source. But by taking on interpretive assessment, the article's authors present a secondary source.
Would you support: If after careful consideration of the evidence I concluded that the periodical consistently advanced claims out of step from an academic consensus around what was best for the health of people experience substance addiction, then I could see myself supporting MREL or GUNREL, depending on the severity of the deviation from reliable facts. (I don't usually support outright deprecation, because I think rendering ourselves unable to link to a source even when, say, verifying a quotation might be appropriate is unhelpful.)
as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims: I'll have to ask you to excuse me for finding this comparison of trans affirming charity work to British imperialism in South Asia out of left field and unconvincing. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.Review articles are secondary sources; research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper.If you believe that that's libel instead of opinion, I think we'd have to agree to disagree. Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper: We'll also have to agree to disagree here as well. A paper that isn't experimentally generating primary data but is instead citing and interpreting primary data is a secondary source. I reiterate that this is a difference between hard sciences and social sciences/humanities; journal articles in the latter are often secondary sources. It also seems inconsistent to look at, say, a newspaper article based on interviews and consider that a secondary source while treating a research paper based on archival discovery and interpretation and to call it primary. To elaborate by comparison, this biographical article is a secondary source; the archival documents it cites are primary sources. Likewise, the Critical Discourse Studies article is a secondary sources; it treats the journalism it cites and examines as primary sources. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. starship .paint ( RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’and that '
It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the Telegraph. The objections to the Telegraph in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracyfor well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the opinion pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles,Makes directly false claim that XXY or XYY "does not alter a man's biological sex"
Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome.Same thing for XYY.
The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.claims binding is significantly more dangerous than it actually is
As Luna correctly pointed out above, this (misleading about breast binding
breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation,
more than 97 per cent of adults who use [breast binders] suffer health problems [(which refers to any health problem such as slight pain)] as a result) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.
It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)citing Maya Forstater as a reliable source on the issue
As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.
Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, "Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome." Same thing for XYY.
It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source.
thanks for the morning laughIf I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?
I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex".
Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".It just says "campaign group".
Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion"
examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women. Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. Walsh90210 ( talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimumsuggestion. I'll also echo the
update the RSP entry to be clearcomment by -sche. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that.
The review also claimed that, while research suggests that hormone treatment “reduces” the elevated risk of suicide, there is “no clear evidence” that social transition has any positive or negative mental health outcomes.
86. It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.
Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review.
15.43 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.
-from a post by User:Chess in this RfC Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news.
The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title "Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times", but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? Astaire ( talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability?
The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspapernone of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable now. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining.
I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different.The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still generally reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
outright conspiracy theoriesare you referring to? BilledMammal ( talk) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created.[79]
This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.[80]
Transgender Ideology Hurts Kidsand suggest conversion therapy as an alternative
The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.\ [81]
As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country. [82]
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered[83] [84] [85]
many such examples may be found, it would be helpful to provide specific quotes from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?" It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist has brought up examples of other sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph.
Debunked pseudoscienceand
the opinions expressed are verifiably falseare hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "
This is potentially the most contested explanation" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that.
The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.
debunked pseudoscience".
advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people.
exhausting amount of good work, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
— sole line of WP:ARDA
Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.
Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination)p 161
Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it".[89] This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women.
This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards.and
Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of [the expert]who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue.
from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.
The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex
Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place(a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women) [97] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals"in a certain country. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally WP:FRINGE.
The council supports festivals and celebrations…other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. starship .paint ( RUN) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.This shows a consensus that bias can negatively affect reliability.
there definitely is a consensus for bias here, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative, and therefore designating The Telegraph as WP:MREL or below will stop lies from getting onto Wikipedia.
I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide your summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voicegrants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since WP:Verifiability prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per WP:MEDRS.
new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine.
Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate.
I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children.Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Telegraph is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against The Telegraph's general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.BilledMammal ( talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable
because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias
bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, directly contradicts global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
a trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Commenters supporting this wording at that RfC viewed that as being a fact that is true. [99] Other commenters wanted to avoid treating it as a fact. WP:NPOV says that
If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, but treating that claim that "trans women are women" as an opinion would endorse the meta-POV that this is something you can have a point-of-view on.
POLRSfor trans-related subjects imply the mere existence of trans people is political. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen far too many criticisms of it to be able to say that.And besides, the article suggests that Harvie "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" when it does not even make clear who made the accusation. There's no way this could be from a "generally reliable" source, and given the countless other examples given above (plus many articles I have read on the Telegraph on trans topics) I have to agree that this is generally unreliable. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, but we're in a discussion about whether that applies to The Telegraph. You can also say Fox News is a well-established news outlet and therefore it should be considered generally reliable, but we've also decided that it is generally unreliable for politics and science. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion
Such vagaries, or even outright lies, are a popular tactic of the UK press when it comes to (mis)representing trans issues. To give a few examples, in an interview with the Telegraph, popular children’s author Jacqueline Wilson is “very, very worried” about “young children taking any kind of drugs, hormones or whatever” and “having major surgery” (Wilson 2019). The interviewer does not bother to point out to Wilson that no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to children
citation without comment for factswhich
is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for factsThat is simply not true and I would urge anyone to verify for themselves. A substantial number of the links I posted involve PinkNews heavily dependent on the Telegraph's reporting. Beyond the first list of six, there are articles such as this and this. In fact, that second one so closely hews to the Telegraph that the paragraph beginning "Separately, culture secretary Oliver Dowden..." is directly copied (plagiarised?) from the Telegraph article. Clearly PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable". Astaire ( talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to childrenis simply false even discounting blockers, seeing as GenderGP gave testosterone to at least one 12-year-old and multiple others under the age of 16. Void if removed ( talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
an attempt to make them look bad" but actually escalated to a statutory inquiry into the charity's governance, which is still ongoing to this day. None of this is actually about unreliability, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Void if removed ( talk) 08:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources.
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does a paper that endorses conspiracy theories like gender ideology, that refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about, that publishes articles every day intended to mislead the reader about trans people, really have
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Loki ( talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel like "not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source" is being used as a thought-terminating cliche here.yes, there is a disappointingly large amount of "bias doesn't automatically mean unreliable" being understood as/claimed to mean "bias cannot mean unreliable", which WP:RSP and any discussion regarding state-controlled media demonstrate is simply incorrect. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
bias cannot mean unreliable
When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.So the statement that bias alone can mean a source is unreliable is flat out untrue per our policies. Bias can mean it deserves a closer look to confirm it complies with other parts of the reliable source policy. And it may even be more likely that biased sources do not comply with the RS policy. But if there are no violations of the actual policy, then no matter how strong the bias is, it is not an unreliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about
It is not required to use "neutral sources" and there generally aren't any. The Telegraph's editorial slant on this particular issue is held in common with most of the rest of the British press, and is widely reflected also in the general British populace (to what exact extent is a moving target). And European in general, from what I can tell. What's happened here is that a predominantly American and urban and left-progressive view, which is also increasingly common in academic material, is being held up as if an objective and incontrovertible Truth rather than an ongoing socio-political divide, and one that is an even bigger (yet much less a party-politics-polarization) split in the UK than it is in the US.
A British newspaper's reliability (whether it can be relied upon to do fact checking, using human sources that are subject-matter experts, and to not make up false claims, fake quotes, and other bullshit) is not in any way dependent on how well it reflects a particular socio-political viewpoint that is somewhat ascendant in another country. (And part of the reason for that difference is divergent legal–constitutional systems, raising distinct legal questions that differ between the two jurisdictions.) No such "it can't be an RS if it takes a socio-political position I don't like" principle emerges even if most of us as editors agree on the same particular socio-political viewpoint.
There is no such thing as a source that is reliable 100% of the time even on a single matter. (Even the world's most reputable journals publish retractions and other corrections as the need arises.) And a newspaper is a totally generalist source type, so sometimes being either factually wrong or societally tone-deaf on particular matters is guaranteed to happen with any and all newspapers. It doesn't make a particular newspaper categorically unreliable on something. What does is publishing paid pseudo-news as various Indian newspapers do, publishing blatantly fabricated nonsense as far-right American ones do, and similar programmatic falsification.
PS: If anyone has approached any subject from the viewpoint that what some newspaper says will be taken uncritically by our readers as Truth, or in other words a belief that any newspaper that says something some editors think is untrue must be RSN-banned, then they have misunderstood what newspapers are, what sources in general are, what WP is for, and how WP approaches sourcing. (Hint: start at WP:DUE.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Loki ( talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.The above !vote appears to do exactly that, because the rationale is that they don't want to
support transphobic viewpoints that go against academic consensus on the topicor platform transphobic viewpoints.
that go against academic consensusmeans. Loki ( talk) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't trust "academic consensus" very much: You and William Buckley might not personally, but the the consensus on Wikipedia does (
academic and peer-reviewed publications[...]
are usually the most reliable sources). Buckley may, as you say, prefer someone randomly chosen from the phone book, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability favor academic training.To Loki's point, our guidelines about reliability mean that !votes which consider the Telegraph unreliable because it goes against the academic consensus aren't
tactical maneuvers that 'cross the line'; they are editors' good faith attempt to help our community produce content based on and in line with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 15:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
usually. This guidance works best in the physical sciences where research is believed to converge on an objective truth about the universe, refereed impartially by empirical results from nature. This is not to say that the hard sciences never err, but their empiricism puts their truth claims categorically higher than those from disciplines like gender studies, where academics share their beliefs about social constructs, and there is no privileged access to truth. That's before we get into the fact that we have reliable sources indicating that some strands of academia have become closed shops, forcing out dissenting viewpoints: [133] [134]. This is why we need sources that are biased in the opposite direction. "Going against academic consensus" is a worthy attribute where academic consensus itself is an encoding of systemic bias. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
the dominance of investigative discourse implies that Mermaids’ activities are shrouded in secrecy, and must be uncovered. Two newspapers, the Times and the Telegraph, take a strong investigative stance, with the Telegraph publishing reports that ‘expose’ Mermaids’ support for trans young people, including help accessing chest binders and name-change documents.
the danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint, so you need to provide a reason that isn't "The Telegraph doesn't support my desired viewpoint". Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
They don't share that evidence, but other sources reporting on this story treat the claim as reliable: [137] [138] ( WP:USEBYOTHERS). Is it true? Perhaps the charity commission investigation will clear things up, but for now we don't know. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Evidence obtained by The Telegraph shows that the charity’s staff have offered binders to children as young as 13 who say that their parents oppose the practice.
there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable.says it succinctly . Plus the detailed arguments by several editors, including Chess. Telegraph is a conservative (politically and socially) publication with a predominantly elderly readership, its bias(es) "stick out like sore thumbs", but no evidence is presented of any tendency to make factual errors. Pincrete ( talk) 06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
So, pretty much just shorthand for “the things my political enemies believe about gender and trans people”. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)The Tory guidance proposed a ban on schools teaching gender ideology – which states that people can be born the wrong sex and that they can change their identity to the opposite sex or other categories such as “non-binary”.
The Tory guidance proposed a ban on schools teaching gender ideology- that link clarifies that they are explicitly talking the existence of trans people (because it will confuse the children and poses a "safeguarding risk") and took inspiration from Florida's Don't Say Gay Bill
Like we wouldn't be teaching how Timberlake got arrested for a traffic violation at CHOPSY either: Fair that I didn't put that as clearly as I should've; what I meant was more that if for some reason Timberlake came up in a university setting, a professor saying that Timberlake exists, or that something happened to Timberlake, would not be weird (I would be very surprised to learn is university professors don't think that Timberlake exists and that talking about him as if he does exist, since he does, is normal); the way it would be if a university professor taught 'the gender ideology movement is spreading this idea that people can undergo gender transition'—university professors wouldn't agree on this being the way to teach Gender Studies 101. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
What does that mean?isn't a phrase that can be split up
Well, you should see what I mean. I display an anti−big words userbox on my user page. Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Nobdy would say
Let’s be absolutely clear. There are two sexes, and there are two genders. They’re not 72 genders. There’s not 100 genders, there are two…and
teaching gender questioning to children is confusing to them. It causes them anxiety. I think it’s damaging to them... It is a safeguarding breach.and the one you linked [141] says
Asked on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether she would keep the guidance on banning the teaching of gender identity, Ms Phillipson repeatedly refused to do so.
The idea of gender ideology has been described by some as ... a conspiracy theory- and even there it is describing the term being used in a different manner than the use by the Telegraph and Kier Starmer. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
the most horrible forms of racism, queerphobia etc? Typically, editors are sanctioned for such behaviour. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
per Chessindicates they support Chess's rebuttal of all of the above. Aaron Liu ( talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
the Telegraph solicited false information in the form of a quote so they weren't technically putting it in their voice, it has been pointed out ad nauseam that this means that we wouldn't be able to cite this information to the Telegraph but to the source of the quote, an entirely separate discussion. Samuelshraga ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about.Could you elaborate on whether this applies to other editors or just sources? Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support puberty blockers, not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study.
The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of
warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking. Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after more back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. -sche ( talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics.and that's from 2015. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
which don't appear to have been addressed: They have been; see Loki's post beginning
I think that this response,[that is, Chess's response]
despite being longetc. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.
highly respected model of care worldwide. [1]
97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to bindingand doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that.
egregiously misleading presentation. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention.
Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome.Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues.any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions., implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chairman, said on Wednesday: "After six years of broken promises, the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to ban so-called conversion therapy. This is a craven failure to outlaw abusive and harmful practices. Labour will ban conversion practices outright."
This Telegraph article on the upcoming play about Rowling seems pretty balanced. It seeks out the creators of the play to find out what their motives were in creating it, rather than just talking to the gender-critical people who dislike it without even having seen it. It also labels Breitbart "the far right US website" when it's referenced, going against some of the commentary here that implies that they're frequently referencing extremist views without labeling them as such. *Dan T.* ( talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Without a very clear and universally-agreed-upon definition of what qualifies as a trans issue, every issue is a trans issue. On that basis I oppose the very fact of asking this question. I also think that once a clear definition of "trans issue" has been fully agreed upon by everyone, this question will probably have become unnecessary. I don't read the Telegraph and I don't know what kind of paper it is, but this question seems like just an attempt to discredit them, and not a good-faith discussion. TooManyFingers ( talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.
please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspectiveand here we are, 3 weeks later, with specific examples refuted, editors are now saying
bias alone can be the reason for a source being unreliable.
Shortcut to survey: #Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)
As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard. Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that all option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that
"nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable"is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source is reliable.
I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around 7,000 words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) and Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) sections. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why we would limit: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
an exhausting amount of good workthat improved the quality of the discussion.
this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines? This would also reduce the need for people to reiterate their existing points in the survey section. This would achieve the goal of reducing bludgeoning. As a side note, if people here agree I will be moving this !vote down to the "summaries" section. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section(or "summaries" as you call it in your last sentence): I suppose you can probably guess I would object to such a section, since I don't disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES. Making a new section like that seems to amount to asking everyone to once again explain their positions and restate their comments. We expect a good close to read the entire discussion; why have the discussion, and then also a recapitulated discussion? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
...if it comes to that.Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
wikt:a la UNDUEis that covering the partial truth is biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP.
You directly claimed to Loki thatYou may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that.
you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to [remove sources biased against trans-topics], unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again.
That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now.Thoroughly debated, yes. Refuted, that's not clear-cut - some people think so, others disagree. Please stop prejudging the close. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then.That seems a very valid point. Perhaps it is better that the closer should say something along the lines that evidence of bias should not be used to make the case against reliability in future? Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues." It doesn't say that this RfC should be closed before the outcome is determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
pragmatically if the Telegraph can shift this much in a couple of years, how much further could it shift in another two?Regardless of whether you view it as reliable or unreliable at present, I think we can all hope it gets better, hews closer to the facts, gets more reliable as time goes on... but if it doesn't, if it continues on the trajectory it's on and which we've seen other sources go down, and it gets worse, we shouldn't pre-emptively bind our hands against doing anything about that. -sche ( talk) 22:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
References