Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392

RfC: The Times of London
What best describes The Times ' news coverage of transgender topics? gnu 57 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Context: The Times of London
Note that recent discussions in article Talk where questions have been raised about the coverage in question include several discussions visible at Talk:Mermaids (charity), as well as this discussion on transgender medicine. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: The Times of London

 * Option 1. This is a standard quality press WP:NEWSORG based in the United Kingdom. It seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no WP:NEWSORG is WP:MEDRS, so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human biomedical information, much in the same way that we should not use the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for claims relating to human biomedical information.—  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said on the other two RFCs, this seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have WP:MEDRS which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used. The Sunday Times has a different editor. The Times published this Editorial which is strongly anti-trans but not as rabid as The Telegraph, such as their agreement that the fuss afforded to this issue is out of place in a world where we are at war and have an economic crisis, and they put the word "woke" in scare quotes. The Times recently published a guest piece by Kezia Dugdale which was pro-trans rights. I'm not clear that this paper is unreliable but its editorial bias is clear and should be bourn in mind when determining the weight and balance in our articles. -- Colin°Talk 14:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A reminder that Editorials and op-Ed columns are opinion pieces, and are held to a different standard of reliability than strait news reporting. Opinion pieces are expected to be biased on the issues they opine about, so we use in-line attribution to indicate that they ARE just opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, we shouldn't be using pieces written by opinion columnists for claims of fact except for claims about the opinions of the columnist. Are you suggesting that we should be using editorial commentary from The Times in articles? In any case, what's that got to do with the reliability of its news reporting? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this. I cited the editorial to explain their editorial stance. -- Colin°Talk 18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And…? How does their editorial stance impact the factual accuracy of their basic news reporting? Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This question is (partially) answered in my !vote below. I will add additional independent sources about the coverage in question when I am somewhat less pressed for time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. One of the most reliable newspapers in the world. This has been a newspaper of record for two centuries and arguments that we should be counting the number of pro-trans/anti-trans editorials published by The Times don't carry water. The fact The Times put the word "woke" in scare quotes is not enough to designate them as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 and suggest SNOW closing this. If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions. --M asem (t) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions. Trust me, this has been discussed. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - the biases of this broadsheet in its coverage of transgender rights issues have been repeatedly noted in scholarly and other high-quality sources, which is pretty much the definition of additional considerations apply. For example, peer-reviewed scholarly source concludes as follows:


 * I wouldn't mind if this filing were closed as premature, however, since the editor filing has not linked to any of the previously presented evidence or prior discussions on the topic, and this seems to be a "gotcha" filing intended to precipitate !votes from editors who haven't seen any of the relevant commentary and who would precipitate an ill-informed SNOW close that could then be used as a cudgel to insist that the coverage of trans issues by The Times is unproblematic, when high-quality sources on the topic suggest the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 standard, reliable. Andre🚐 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per the convincing analysis by and . This is an established newspaper of record,, I sincerely appreciate your willingness in settling this matter succinctly. Nevertheless, I would be interested if you could provide multiple scholarly sources instead of just one. I acknowledge that on transgender issues it has significant WP:DUE concerns per , and while centre-right it is a WP:BIASED source. Further, it is definitely undesirable for medical claims per WP:MEDRS, but I do not see a serious claim that would push this to additional considerations apply.  VickKiang   (talk)  20:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I have time, I will add sources.I regard this filing as an ambush, frankly, and have not brought the multiple sources I have read on this matter into an organized presentation suitable to post here - I am not confident that I will have time to do so before Sunday.
 * The nature of the problem is that The Times and The Telegraph pursue their "gender critical" editorial objectives through supposedly "investigative" reporting, and compete with each other in offering this flavour of "red meat" to their readers. In site of this, editors such as gnu57 insist that reportage in The Times and The Telegraph is sufficient in and of itself to make an "investigation" WP:DUE for inclusion in wikipedia article text, no matter how misleading the information presented in the broadsheets may be and even if the supposed "issues" are not picked up outside of the echo chamber of discourse against transgender rights.
 * To me this is a prima facie case where additional considerations apply, and as previously stated I see the nature of the initial, decontextualized filing as an attempt by gnu57 to socially engineer a finding that, essentially, other considerations do not apply when they quite obviously do. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The nature of the problem is that The Times and The Telegraph pursue their "gender critical" editorial objectives through supposedly "investigative" reporting, and compete with each other in offering this flavour of "red meat" to their readers. In site of this, editors such as gnu57 insist that reportage in The Times and The Telegraph is sufficient in and of itself to make an "investigation" WP:DUE for inclusion in wikipedia article text, no matter how misleading the information presented in the broadsheets may be and even if the supposed "issues" are not picked up outside of the echo chamber of discourse against transgender rights. If you could provide information from WP:RS stating this, I'd be more than willing to have a look. Like I said, I acknowledge WP:DUE concerns, I'm not stating this source is better thnan WP:MEDRS. But this is a forum to discuss source reliability, not to criticise one editor's conduct. There are other venues more fitted for that. Until then, I'm thoroughly unconvinced, you could state that I'm biased... but I won't change my vote until you provide further evidence. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which I do not have time to do until Sunday. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, wait to comment until Sunday then, instead of vaguely complaining about others. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If my comments about gnu57's conduct in the objectives, absence of context and timing of these filings were vague, I apologize. I certainly did not mean for them to be. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean for this. You stated that and as previously stated I see the nature of the initial, decontextualized filing as an attempt by gnu57 to socially engineer a finding that, essentially, other considerations do not apply when they quite obviously do. If you believe the OP statement fails the brief and neutral requirement, you can post at WP:AN, which is the venue for poorly-constructed RfCs and for challenging RfC closes. If you would like to comment on another contributor's objectives or motives, discuss on their UTP or somewhere else. WP:RFC states the two points:
 * Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions.
 * If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. A tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.
 * I'm interested, are you stating that their RfC wording is inappropriate (which seems fine to me), or are you questioning their objectives and motives? If the latter is applicable, WP:RSN is not the venue, UTP, ANI, and other places are better suited for those complaints, but this is the venue to discuss reliability. Again, many thanks for your participation!  VickKiang  (talk)  21:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In many cases, such as gnu57's previous filing concening LBC above, the filer links to discussions that prompted the filing at this venue. I am assering that this would have been appropriate in this case, and that the discussion was distorted in the first instance by the filer's decision no do so. Many of those !voting appear to have read neither the article Talk discussions on these sources' reliability in specific contexts, nor the independent secondary and academic commentary on this coverage, nor even the coverage itself. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't just make vague references to article talk pages that supposedly have discussions on these sources and expect us to read them. That doesn't count as evidence. You're expected to post this "independent seccondary and academic commebtary (sic)" yourself to convince others. Not just handwave it that it exists, but you're unable to show it to us. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When. I. Have. Time. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Typo fixed, btw. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When will you have time? It looks like you're quite busy starting new RfCs on tangential points to this discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You've also posted a ton of replies to these three RfCs. Does this "independent secondary and academic commentary" exist or...? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was told that we have at least three more weeks. To produce somehing comparable to my detailed evidence on The Economist (which wasn't enough for some people) will take a number of hours. It isn't just a matter of dropping a few DOIs into the discussion and shouting "QED!" Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The frank problem here is that much of the British media has serious problems with transgender coverage. The two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head are:
 * The BBC's "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" controversy, where the BBC published an article which interviewed several anti-trans sources without identifying them as anti-trans and without publishing any interviews from trans rights activists despite provably conducting them, where one of those sources about alleged sexual misconduct by trans women had been credibly accused of sexual misconduct herself, and where the only data in the article was a convenience sample survey produced and distributed by anti-trans groups. This rightly was extremely controversial, and the article has been amended several times, including by fiat from the regulatory body above the BBC.
 * The Guardian, who are actually better than average here, got some pretty strong criticism from their American division on this issue.
 * (There is of course peer-reviewed data on the situation as well, but I don't have it on hand easily.) The problem here is that this general situation is hard to explain concisely, and further it's hard to connect this general situation to particular newsorgs. Loki (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes aren't an argument, and it's hard to rely on your assurances that you have "multiple sources" that you've read on the matter that you won't post here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of those talk discussions on specific contexts raise concerns about WP:DUE, not reliability. It is not mandatory for editors to read all of the discussions, you might be a WP:EXPERT who is extremely knowledgable with this topic, but that doesn't mean that other editors who haven't participated or read as many discussions as you have incorrect, invalid, or biased opinions.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors !voting on this discussion based on a general impression of the London broadsheets, and not having examined any of the reception/commentary on the coverage in question, are contributing little of note to this evaluation, I feel. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors !voting on this discussion based on a general impression of the London broadsheets, and not having examined any of the reception/commentary on the coverage in question, are contributing little of note to this evaluation, I feel. Like I said, if you should wait to comment until Sunday your claims would be much more convincing. otherwise, I don't believe others and I are contributing little of note to this evaluation, but I could see your viewpoint somewhat. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  21:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had waited until Sunday, this could been SNOW closed as "Option 1" (which might have been the point). Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will post them on Sunday. I'm not responsible for the timing of this filing nor for the inclination from certain editors to issue a quick rubber stamp on a complex issue. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as an update: as Sideswipe9th has noted, there is a lot of evidence to consider (though I am not employing a "god's eye view" methodology). I'm not convinced that I will be able to get longer comments on all three sources posted on Sunday, though I should be able to manage The Economist, at least. I still think a non-ambush format would have been better, and I have a concern that a "these sources are ok" or even a "no consensus" result will simply come back here in another year after more academic sources are published. I'm not entirely convinced that holding this discussion right now isn't a waste of everyone 's time, but I try to convince myself... Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reserving comment until stronger evidence of bias can be provided. I'm more familiar with the Telegraph than the Times, and so while I find the general claim plausible (as many British newspapers have problems with trans issues), I don't want to vote without evidence either way. Loki (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Forgot to update this at the time, but I'm now voting for Option 3, per the sources I found below. Loki (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Switching to Option X below. Loki (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Same; I'll wait until the option 2/3 side has had enough time to present sources. DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A few sources I have found on the general issue (not necessarily the Times specifically, although some of them are):
 * CNN: Anti-trans rhetoric is rife in the British media. Little is being done to extinguish the flames
 * Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: Representing trans people in the UK press – a follow-up study (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
 * Xtra: British media is increasingly transphobic. Here’s why
 * Them: Meet the Trans Storytellers Fighting British Transphobia (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
 * PinkNews: Journalist Juliet Jacques on how UK media is trying to ‘crush’ trans people: ‘We’re not in control’
 * Gay Times: Meet the journalist navigating Britain’s anti-trans press
 * USAToday: The Roots of Anti-Trans Feminism in the U.K.
 * Vice: The UK Is So Transphobic That Some Trans People Are Leaving
 * Insider: The BBC and The Times are accused of stoking a 'moral panic' against the trans community
 * Loki (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you highlight the ones that describe The Times specifically as transphobic? This isn't an RfC on the entirety of the British media establishment; it's an RfC on The Times. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the pieces critiqued by CNN is this. But it's worth noting that it is a weekend essay, an essay or editorial should be regarded as WP:RSOPINION. I though this RfC is about its news coverage, not opinion/essay/commentary/editorial ones.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the CNN piece is labeled as "analysis", which is to say that it's a opinion piece itself. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Or rather, it's reported by a CNN journalist and hews to the same editorial standards as this piece about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is also marked as "analysis". "Analysis" in this case does not mean "opinion" in the sense of persuasive writing, but rather that the journalist is not just reporting facts but attempting to interpret those facts. That's worth knowing but it doesn't make it at all an unreliable source: Vox does basically only analysis and they're green at WP:RSP. Loki (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These articles are either a mix of opinion and anlysis, low-quality, or "X accuses Y of Z". This is certainly not enough to criticise a newspaper of record. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:A960:7681:3CB9:A529 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely not trying to be mean about this but I need to ask: as this is your literal very first edit, could you please explain how you found yourself on a somewhat obscure policy page without ever having edited Wikipedia before? Loki (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP addresses change and there are plenty of long-term IP editors around. Why would this be my first edit? Was initiating a dispute resolution at DRN really your 10th edit? 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:A960:7681:3CB9:A529 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - and Im getting a bit concerned at the removal of sources for wrongspeak. Like it or not, this is a mainstream paper with mainstream views. Those views might not be the same as what one might wish they were, but as ever our goal here is to reflect the sources, not correct them.  nableezy  - 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you see any comments here advocating he removal of sources for wrongspeak? I'm not seeing any. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the people arguing to disqualify what is clearly a reliable source for being biased.  nableezy  - 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What's your response to the sources above about the bias of the British media in general on this issue? They demonstrably do not have mainstream views from an international perspective, as several other international newsorgs have reported on the fact that the UK media has a clear bias in this area. Loki (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That bias is not related to reliability. The world is moving very fast on this topic, and you may well find that in five years that people and sources that have espoused certain views to look back in shame at their actions. But our purpose here is to reflect what the breadth of sources, including biased ones, say about topics. The Times represents a mainstream view on these topics. It may not be my view, it may not be your view, it may be the WrongView entirely. But it is a mainstream one and it should still be reflected in our articles. Honestly, it seems like this topic has seen a carve out from our usual policies, purposely so and with the sympathy of what I would guess would be most editors who are aware of it. We have decided that we are going to, as a project, take an editorial position on any number of topics, such as MOS:GENDERID and deadnaming, that would usually be settled by our normal analysis of sources and determining the weight they should be given. And maybe thats appropriate in these cases, but this RFC is imo a bridge too far. What is being proposed is saying that we are disqualifying a source on the basis of its editorial views.  nableezy  - 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How could WP:BIASED sources automatically be regarded as unreliable based on dubious "evidence"? They demonstrably do not have mainstream views from an international perspective- sources that support this?  VickKiang  (talk)  23:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See above. Vice, CNN, and USAToday have all reported on the problems with the British media in general on trans issues.
 * Would people prefer if I launched a separate RFC on the British media in general? I notice people seem reluctant to draw conclusions about specific newsorgs from evidence about the British media in general, and I understand that reluctance. But I also really can't drop this point, because obviously if the mainstream media of a country is verifiably biased on an issue according to international media organizations, it's a big problem for our coverage of that issue. Loki (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually not USA Today- it is US News. You ought to get this fact right here. See above. Vice, CNN, and USAToday have all reported on the problems with the British media in general on trans issues- simply asserting that Vice should be presumed as WP:RS per your POV seems to be a stretch.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are very much right about U.S. News vs. USA Today. My fault, while I was gathering sources I misread that.
 * I also agree that Vice is yellow on WP:RSP and was not claiming otherwise.
 * Now that those issues are out of the way, what is your opinion on the (green at RSP) U.S. News source and the (also green at RSP) CNN source? Loki (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The CNN source quotes media issues from several interviewees. One of its examples describe that When it comes to trans rights “polling shows that the public isn’t necessarily as hostile as the media, but the media [continues] to lead the conversation,” Shon Faye, trans advocate and author of “The Transgender Issue,” told CNN. According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment. This could be convincing to show WP:BIASED but does not depict unreliability. Moreover, Better political leadership is needed to counter the media narrative that trans people, particularly trans women, are taking resources away from cisgender women, Faye said- I don't see how The Times could automatically fit into this "media narrative", there are a wide range of media in Britain, it didn't really explicitly call out the "mainstream quality-press", and might also refer to tabloids and mid-market papers. Moreover, it quotes this article from The Times, but it is noteworthy that it is a weekend essay piece, which is commentary and falls under WP:RSOPINION. Similarly, They do not represent or reflect the views of U.K.-based feminists as a whole, and most U.K. based feminists reject their ideas and arguments, and consider them outdated or harmful. This does not mean they have no influence or impact, however. The trouble is that even though they are a minority, they are a vocal one, and they often have their views platformed by the media, including mainstream media. Stating that it is the view of others does not mean that US News is condemning The Times for unreliability. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "they were all negative" is just Shon Faye's opinion. She is not a scholar. Ironically, Faye's book, The Transgender Issue, was positively reviewed by... The Times. DFlhb (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vice just repeats the claims of the interviewees with attribution, which is not the same as Vice saying that there are issues. US News does not say what you claims it says about UK news, but has an interviewee say it. Same issue as with the Vice article. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:A960:7681:3CB9:A529 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I don't see the reason for these three RfCs. The proponent should have made the effort to provide clear examples of fabrication or inaccuracy - linking to talk page discussions with long walls of text is not helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who started these RFCs launched them, IMO, prematurely, because they are, IMO, attempting to trade on the strong reputation of the names of these newsorgs in general to have them all declared reliable before evidence to the contrary on this subtopic can be presented. Loki (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1/2: Reliable sources may be biased. Also it seems in a previous discussion, a correction in an article was presented as evidence of unreliability, but the timely publication of a correction is precisely the opposite: evidence of reliability. MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the result of this RFC should not be reflected in WP:RSP. While the source is generally reliable, we shouldn't imply that it is more reliable on this topic. It's not WP:MEDRS, it is simply reliable generalist press. MarioGom (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Same comment as above. Separate to the question of reliability is the question of bias, which some assert, and some dismiss as constrained to op-eds. But I think option 1 supporters should clarify whether they consider the factual reporting biased or unbiased. I also invite option 2/3 supporters to provide evidence of bias in specifically the news coverage, by linking us to individual articles they think are biased, rather than by using academic sources that are commenting on the op-eds. I've yet to see arguments of ideological or opinionated bias in the news coverage, and would like to see individual examples. DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 At the risk of pointing out the obvious, anti-whatever bias is not a reliability issue, per WP:BIASED. If one throws out WP:BIASED, one loses the NYT, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, professors generally, and so forth . . . is there even a single source that is so unbiased we could keep it? One "modest" proposal would be to limit ourselves to journalists who have worked on both sides of the aisle: Megyn Kelly, Judith Miller, Chris Wallace, Jennifer Rubin (columnist), and so on. Good luck with that. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 While all sources are biased to a degree, even UK broadcasters, which are regulated so as not to be, I don't see any evidence of consistent factually false reporting. Ample evidence has been provided that in the opinion of other reliable sources the Times opposes the expansion of trans-rights and surgical transitioning of minors, and that many feel this to be transphobic. However, we can not state it is unreliable on this topic unless it is shown to consistently publish false information at a higher level than the rest of its output. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Again, standard quality WP:NEWSORG with editorial oversight. No proof of unreliability provided. I have to say, the fact this has been nominated alongside the Telegraph does start to negate my AGF about the idea that this is a WP:POINTy nom against right-leaning sources.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who nominated this wants it to be declared reliable. They are WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Loki (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. This is the most slam-dunk case that appeared on RSN for months. The Times has been the UK newspaper of record since the 19th century. So you don't like the coverage of one issue, then discuss how to cite it on that single issue. No case, nada, has been made for a general judgement of unreliability. Zerotalk 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, nobody has asked for a general judgment of unreliability. The case has been made for a judgment of unreliability only on the question of transgender issues. I would probably rephrase/reassess your post because, as it stands, the closer would be forced to disregard it as irrelevant to the RfC. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who nominated this wants it to be declared reliable. They are WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. (Also, for the record, they are discussion how to cite it on that single issue, and not generally. Read the prompt carefully.) Loki (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option X: Scrap RfC. This seems to be a case of someone asking a question on which they favor the status quo, without presenting any of the arguments that have been given elsewhere against the status quo, to drum up easy !votes on their side. Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Times on trans topics. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider reading Requests for comment. RfC statements are required to be neutral and brief; not to present arguments against the status quo. It would require an extremely creative reading of WP:RFCNEUTRAL to say that implies any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Times on trans topics. It is your responsibility as a person commenting at an RfC to bring up points and arguments against the status quo. It is very easy to drum up !votes for an Option 1 when the people against the status quo have provided no evidence and denigrate the RfC process. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They should also be honest about the context. Which this was not. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X per Tamzin et al. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X In retrospect I should have voted for a non-neutral RFC for the beginning. The circumstances of these RFCs are clearly not neutral. Instead, they're clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Loki (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X no FORUMSHOPPING, please. HouseBlastertalk 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X since this is forumshopping from an ongoing talk page RfC and trying to present this as a general "is this newspaper reliable" is purposefully misleading toward said ongoing talk page RfC about the reliability and due weight of a specific article. Silver  seren C 19:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUMSHOPPING defines it as: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers". I see the same editor created an RfC at Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People: "Should the article mention the controversy over the Eunuch chapter in SOC8?". Creating an RfC here – "What best describes The Times' news coverage of transgender topics?" – doesn't look like "essentially the same issue" to me; if anything, it helps separate out the general question about reliability from whether inclusion of particular content in a particular article would be undue. EddieHugh (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the three threads OP has made here is to try and use a "reliable" decision on RSN to argue for DUE inclusion on the article talk page RfC. Hence why it is forumshopping because the RfC there isn't going the way they desire. Or are you saying that why they started these RSN discussions has nothing to do with that discussion and they just independently decided to make these RSN threads for no reason? Silver  seren C 21:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If reliability of sources became something to resolve, then including it here – Wikipedia:Reliable sources – looks ok to me, instead of attempting to resolve it on the talk page of an article that averages 50 views per day. EddieHugh (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I decided to open an RfC after this discussion on Newimpartial's talk page, plus Newimpartial and Sideswipe's comments in the LBC News thread above. I had no intention of canvassing, forumshopping, or prematurely SNOW closing the discussion. Anyone who believes these publications are unreliable is welcome to present their evidence at any point in the next several weeks. gnu 57 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ...after lots of people have voted already. Also, several of us said specifically in the previous discussion we didn't have the evidence ready at hand, and no notification was given to anyone on the previous discussion whatsoever, nor was there any attempt to start a discussion here before going straight to a (binding) RFC. It's as clear a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING as they come. Loki (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think per WP:RFCTP: After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, by editors that watch the RfC lists, and by some editors subscribed to the Feedback Request Service (FRS), who will be automatically notified by Yapperbot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations... I don't think that notifying other about a RfC is mandatory, given the line you may, but I could see your point of view. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  23:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a general "is this newspaper reliable" RfC; it is a specific RfC regarding the reliability of this newspaper for its coverage on a particular topic. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, no evidence of unreliability for facts has been presented. As for the claims that this RfC is forum shopping, many in these discussions have been arguing repeatedly, not just at the Standards of Care RfC but also at Talk:Mermaids (charity), Talk:LGB Alliance, and elsewhere, that these sources are actually unreliable and rejecting the consensuses documented at WP:RSP. They variously seem to expect us to take their word for it, or cite the same few op-eds and similar from 'progressive' American media complaining that British papers of record don't go all-in on their preferred policy of absolute gender self-identification. These complainants either need to stop making this disruptive argument or present a case to change the community's mind. After months they failed to do so, preferring to instead disregard RSP on individual talk pages, and so someone else started a discussion. They keep saying a discussion needs to happen, so let's have it. Crossroads -talk- 21:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X I agree with Tamzin that this RfC has not been presented in a way that encourages informed discussion. The context of the underlying discussions that lead to the snap creation of this RfC has been left out by the filer, which is interesting when you compare these three RfCs, with the related discussion on LBC News, also started by the filer. Uninvolved editors are being asked to ask blindly whether or not these sources are reliable in a specific context, without any information as to why they are being discussed as unreliable in that context. While I have been preparing for an eventual RfC on how the anti-trans bias of The Telegraph and The Times is impacting on their reliability in this context, and I've not been shy on stating that I'm preparing for such on relevant article talk pages, I am not yet ready to present this information in a clear and succinct manner that uninvolved editors will be able to follow, and will need time to formulate such a response. This is simply a premature filing of a discussion that requires a great deal more care than has been given to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If understand correctly… there is a question at the article level as to whether material cited to these sources is DUE or UNDUE… and that question hinges on whether we consider these sources Reliable or Unreliable.
 * If that is an accurate summary of the situation, then I think it makes perfect sense to pause the DUE discussion at the article and get an answer to the RS question here first. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a month to comment on this RfC. Complaining that you are not yet ready to present this information is not a legitimate point and neither is expecting dozens of other Wikipedia editors to wait on you until some undefined point in the future where you feel like you're ready to !vote. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The attempts to classify this RfC as forumshopping are entirely without merit. This RfC relates to specific claims that certain organisations are not reliable on trans issues, over their entire output. This is the correct venue for such a discussion. As for the claims that the original poster should have outlined the case against reliability, this is entirely spurious. The OP is not obliged to outline a case they do not believe to be true, that is the job of those who believe the outlets to be unreliable. The sophistry on display on these pages is very concerning, I hope it is not run of the mill on talk pages in the transgender subject area, or we have a big problem. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 As per my comments for The Telegraph, and per my comments for The Economist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. A top tier source, and the fact that we need to have this discussion demonstrates why the RSN process needs to be overhauled or abandoned.
 * I note that editors opening an RFC are forbidden from presenting an arguments for or against the status quo as part of doing so, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again. This is not true. -- Colin°Talk 09:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a user does present a summary in their opening, other users will generally state that this is not helpful, and will often vote BadRfC. However, we can surely agree that there is no obligation to present a summary of the opposing arguments in the introduction? The vast majority of RfC's do not have this on this forum. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1. No evidence has been provided of false reporting by this highly reputable source. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Similar to my response in The Telegraph RfC: I am in agreement that no evidence has been provided to support the claim that The Times of London is not a reputable source and that it lacks factual reporting. (What I'm getting from this RfC -- and The Economist RfC, and The Telegraph RfC -- is an attempt to attack and censor newspapers and magazines that don't kowtow to special interest groups.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Clearly a reliable source. The arguments presented above that it is not a reliable source on these topics are unpersuasive and misdirected, and the arguments that this RFC is procedurally improper are misconceived. This should be closed as WP:SNOW. The same rationale applies to the other two sources. Banks Irk (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW does not apply, as policy-based grounds have been presented by multiple editors that Option 1 does not apply - it cannot be taken as a forgone conclusion, nor are the tests set out in SNOW likely to be met. Please see my response to the equivalent !vote concerning The Economist for citations from SNOW. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 The points raised by and Loki are enough to tip this over into "additional considerations apply" territory. Even newspapers of record aren't suitable in every circumstance for every topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Highly reliable sources do not become unreliable because one disagrees with them in some particular case. Of course, if such a source is out of step with the consensus of reliable sources on a given subject, that consensus of sources should still be what the article appropriately reflects, but that does not make the source itself unreliable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So how would you propose that we deal with content, like The Economist's coverage of medical education and "transgender ideology" (which I documented above), where a normally reliable source is demonstrably out of step with the consensus of reliable sources on a given subject? What are we do do when the source is consistently out of step with the consensus of reliable sources on that topic as a whole? Reloanle sources do indeed become reliable when they consistently disagree with the consensus of reliable sources on a topic, even/especially when then agree with a prominent contingent of demonstrably FRINGE sources. Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that it is "demonstrably out of step with the consensus of reliable sources" but as far as I'm aware you've been saying you don't have any time to PROVIDE these sources for three days. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided appropriate sourcing for the example I use here (The Economist and "gender ideology" in medical education in the US) in the appropriate section. The question I am asking here is how we should treat such cases when they arise - to date I have not submitted an equivalent example from The Times and if the answer is "we shouldn't do anything when thwt happens" then why would I bother? Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, in those particular instances, you just say "Hey, it looks like they're not in line with the consensus on this particular topic", and provide material to back that up. That doesn't take an RSN RFC, just a regular old talk page discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the reason this filing was made is that many editors have said of The Economist, The Telegraph and The Times on various article pages that these sources are not in line with the RS consensus on the topics in question, and that one editor wanted to challenge this by having these sources found generally reliable on transgender topics. I for one would be perfectly content to settle the issues on a Talk page by Talk page basis, and I believe most of the "Option X" !voters feel the same way. It is the filer and many of the "Option 1" !voters who seem to have a different view. Newimpartial (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of your first comments in this discussion (about four days ago) was When I have time, I will add sources.I regard this filing as an ambush, frankly, and have not brought the multiple sources I have read on this matter into an organized presentation suitable to post here - I am not confident that I will have time to do so before Sunday.
 * So far I am still waiting on this "consensus of reliable sources" or "organized presentation". You constantly refer to this documentation that you've provided or how these sources are demonstrably out of step with reliable sources, but you haven't bothered to document or demonstrate the claims you've made. You can't just reply to everyone, assert that you're right, refuse to elaborate, and leave. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FFS, Chess. I spent hours assembling the "organized presentation" for The Economist, which I submitted first (on Sunday) because it was the case where the independent RS sourcing about the coverage was the weakest, and I wanted to steer that discussion away from the SNOWfall it seems that you so earnestly desire. That presentation, in spite of its limitations, required me to include dozens of references within my comment and to assess many more (not a kind of effort I have seen you make in this discussion, by the way).
 * So, 48 hours later, you complain that I haven't done the equivalent for the two broadsheets - even though you are the same editor who insists that we have so much time before the RfC closes that we have nothing to complain about in terms of effort and deadlines. The fact is, I have a full-time job and family responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, I submitted 14,000 characters of evidence-backed commentary on The Economist on Sunday, and if it takes another week for me to get through an equivalent presentation on The Times  you are in no position to insist that I WP:SATISFY you in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm complaining that you make reference to evidence you haven't provided yet. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 15:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X While the RFC itself is phrased neutrally, the author is WP:FORUMSHOPPING for editors to sway onto his/her side. I will not support that. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);-webkit-background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine |  talk  02:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In what other forum has the matter been raised? The talk pages of individual articles don't count.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why exactly don't talk pages count? They're fora, just like noticeboards like this. They're covered by the forum shopping policy. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);-webkit-background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine |  talk  21:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the main purpose of this forum is to consult uninvolved users when there is a disagreement over reliability of a source on a talkpage. Taking a reliability related discussion from a talkpage to this forum is not forum shopping, if it was almost everything that ever gets here would be classified as such. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Without doubt a reliable source (excluding WP:MEDRS area of course). When reliable sources disagree over some topic, then there is simply no consensus on that topic. Pavlor (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Same responses as to The Economist and The Telegraph above.  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 15:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 My impression is that the Times' editorial slant is less pronounced than that of the Telegraph, and as I said up there, we have things like WP:BIASED, WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:HEADLINES to help with bias in newspapers. The Times is a quality broadsheet with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, and I'd judge it as being as good as a news source can be for assertions of fact. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add to the above - by 'as good as a news source can be', I mean that it's obviously not OK for biomedical information, and even for stuff about science in general we shouldn't be going to newspapers. And I'll echo what MarioGom has said above - however this is closed, we shouldn't be giving the impression that the Times is especially reliable in this area. It's merely generally reliable, in a newspapery sense, with the usual newspapery caveats. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Scrap the RFC 1.  Trying to derive an overgeneralization   2. Trying to do so based on conformance to one side of a political debate.  3. Conformance to one side of a political debate is not "reliability".   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1. Bias on one topic has no bearing on the use of this newspaper as a source of factual information. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Per Chess, one of the world's most reliable publications. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Option 1. The evidence presented for any other option is very weak. EddieHugh (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only a fool would deny that The Times covers trans topics in an acutely biased way. This can be fixed with attribution. Using RfCs to obtain an advantage in a content dispute without noting the context is a shitty trick. How much weight to give to a piece in The Times is very obviously a question of editorial judgment and can easily be decided by reference to other known facts about the publication's agenda. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - The Times of London is a top-tier WP:NEWSORG and is generally reliable for all topics, including transgender topics. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X per Tamzin and Guy. Starting three simultaneous RfCs, taking a huge amount of space on a popular noticeboard, and a huge amount of volunteer time, in order to try to make a point in specific contexts, should result in a temporary topic ban from opening RfCs. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to see this - I have a high regard for your comments, but calling for sanctions against the OP in a !vote at a well-attended RfC that has been running for weeks seems inappropriate. You haven't commented in the two RfCs below this one - are they any less POINTy? (To be clear, I do not think that either OP should be sanctioned.) Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  23:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: The Telegraph
What best describes The Daily Telegraph 's news coverage of transgender topics? gnu 57 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Context: The Telegraph
Note that recent discussions in article Talk where questions have been raised about the coverage in question include several discussions visible at Talk:Mermaids (charity), as well as this discussion on transgender medicine. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: The Telegraph

 * Option 1. This is a standard quality press WP:NEWSORG based in the United Kingdom. It seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no WP:NEWSORG is WP:MEDRS, so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human biomedical information, much in the same way that we should not use the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for claims relating to human biomedical information.— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. The Sunday Telegraph has a different editor. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have WP:MEDRS which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used at all. Of the three sources published recently, The Telegraph is the most problematic wrt transgender issues. Its editorial stance is strongly hostile to transgender rights. It publishes trans-hostile articles nearly every single day, and sometimes many on one day. As I posted elsewhere on the 3rd November, a glance at the previous day's news, 2nd November, produced for anti-trans articles:
 * Daniel Radcliffe is surely the world’s most ungrateful man: The actor has once again sought to cancel his creator JK Rowling for believing that women are women and trans women are trans women
 * Transgender criminal makes history by appearing in court as both a man and a woman: Offences committed by Alan and Alannah Morgan - the same person - heard at Dundee court
 * Nicola Sturgeon’s trans crusade will cost her dearly: By allowing herself to be captured by extremists, she has united both nationalists and unionists against her
 * Data on trans BBC staff to be collected by Ofcom: Regulator seeks to better understand gender identity of employees at major broadcasters (if you read other sources on this, gender identity is one of many changes in recent diversity questionnaire, which affects all broadcasters, not just the BBC, but trans, and the hated BBC are the only ones to make the title of the Telegraph article).
 * Given the small number of trans people and the fact that we are in the middle of an economic crisis, political turmoil and a war in Europe, this does suggest the Telegraph has entirely lost its head wrt transgender. The Telegraph routinely uses the transphobic shibboleths such as "transgender lobby" and "extreme trans ideology" or "gender ideology". This is a newspaper that regards the mainstream medical profession as extremists. I think it should be regarded as a radically trans hostile publication and treated accordingly wrt reliability and weight. -- Colin°Talk 14:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by getting rid of any source that disagrees with your personal opinion on transgender people. It was definitely WP:INCIVIL to express this with a link to the tendentious editing policy, but removing the comment entirely would get rid of context.Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 15:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chess em, I'm not entirely sure what planet this accusation belongs on, but the one where I didn't create these three RFCs is the one the rest of us are on. Have you received your discretionary sanctions warning about this topic, because comments like that are an easy way to earn a topic ban. -- Colin°Talk 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm here because I randomly got a notification from the feedback request service to comment on one of these three RfCs; I don't participate in transgender-related areas very often (though I'm WP:AWARE from way back when due to participating in WP:GGTF) and these sorts of discussions is part of the reason why.
 * You said The Daily Telegraph "should be regarded as a radically trans hostile publication and treated accordingly wrt reliability and weight" partially because "we are in the middle of an economic crisis, political turmoil and a war in Europe".
 * I don't really see the point of these comments that say we should consider reliability of sources based on how many pro/anti-trans opinion pieces they publish. The Times and The Daily Telegraph are both newspapers of record and are both the definition of a reliable source.
 * You've said in another comment in this discussion that "The real question is not whether the Telegraph consistently makes up untrue trans stories, but whether its coverage on the matter is more like a pamphlet from a hate group than reporting one might expect in a broadsheet newspaper." You're acknowledging that you're not commenting about the topic of the RfC, which is whether or not The Daily Telegraph is reliable for factual reporting.
 * The thing that virtually all pamphlets from hate groups have in common is that they're full of fabrications about a group they wish to defame. If The Daily Telegraph is fabricating stories on transgender people and promoting false information such as the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory or the litter boxes in schools hoax, then say so. I don't see that here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're missing here is the context of several protracted disputes about due weight with respect to the Telegraph and Times' reposrting on transgender issues. This RFC was started in response to one of those higher up on this page, so regardless of what the formal question reads, this is not just about factual reliability. There is also a connection between these two issues, as noted by on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People: a source focusing on something can be taken as a statement of fact regarding which their reliability is relevant: the statement "this is a thing worth discussing".  ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 18:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "regardless of what the formal question reads". This is an RfC. Those who create an RfC are allowed to choose the question, and it's expected that they choose a question that accurately reflects the underlying dispute.
 * Secondly, the onus is on you to provide this mysterious context if it is so crucially necessary for me to base my !vote on. Not just make vague references to something that happened higher up on this massive notice board.
 * If people are creating RfCs to inaccurately designate sources as unreliable because it gives an advantage in WP:DUEWEIGHT discussions, that's very concerning and I hope that's not what is happening here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you assuming that the RFCs were started by someone wishing to designate these sources as unreliable? On the SOC8 talk page, gnu57 has advocated for inclusion on material sourced from these and called them top-tier, mainstream RS. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 19:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed that because I presume someone starting an RfC on a generally reliable source wants to designate it as unreliable.
 * Regardless, this is still a top-tier mainstream RS. And if this RfC was created in bad faith to gain an advantage in some dispute I have no knowledge of, then that's a larger issue. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have linked some of the related disputes at the top of each source's section head. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, in addition to being a personal attack, Chess's claim about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is deeply ironic. That linked guide ensures we represent "the balance of informed opinion" and show the door to people campaigning for fringe viewpoints in science and medicine. Hmm. If you read about WPATH in the BMJ, NEJM, Lancet and other mainstream medical sources, they are referred to as an authority, a collection of professional consensus, and their guidelines widely followed. Their guidelines, like those from NICE or the DSM are of course subject to medical disagreement and change over time. But they represent consensus medical opinion, which is the highest form of MEDRS. And here we have the Telegraph claiming the organisation is a "controversial lobby group" and their "extremist guidelines" are "widely discredited", quoting the words of an actual extremist lobby group (For Women Scotland) founded by a few random people with strong views but no actual qualifications. As the Telegraph reports, they want Scotland's only specialised gender identity clinic, part of that very mainstream healthcare service calld the NHS, to be closed down. Does that sound like a group and a newspaper who are trying to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. Yup. If this was covid, we'd have blacklisted them long ago. -- Colin°Talk 21:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point is meaningless since you seem to be conflating editorial voice and attribution. In the article you're referencing, The Daily Telegraph doesn't actually call the WPATH guidelines "widely discredited". It uses quote marks to WP:ATTRIBUTE the opinion to For Women Scotland. That means that The Daily Telegraph is not directly endorsing this point. You're also not telling the entire truth on what that source is saying. The term "controversial lobby group" is never used in the article; the article calls WPATH a "controversial trans group". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So I conflated "lobbying group" and "controversial trans group". The difference between editorial voice and attribution does not make my "point meaningless", which is that the article and the lobby group they extensively quote is campaigning to discredit a mainstream medical organisation, a mainstream medical consensus guideline and shut down a mainstream medical organisation's clinic that gives treatment to a group they are hostile towards. I'm not the one righting great wrongs here, it is the editors who are proposing Wikipedia push the views of this fringe group, and the papers and journalists who are fully aligned with them. That's where you went very wrong. As in "I embarrassed myself on the internet" kind of wrong. I think you should stop digging.
 * Attribution can be used to distance a statement from that of the journalist or editorial view. Here it is not being used for that purpose, but in a "here, let me make my point by quoting a group you'll have heard of (in Scotland anyway)". It gives weight to the journalist's argument (which is clear). They extensively quote one side, and the mainstream medical side is handled through leaked recordings and unspecified sources and only to cast negativity upon them, never to actually give their side.
 * If a newspaper was covering an issue involving educational support for children in ethnic minorities and refuges, would your first thought be to interview a white Scottish person who had founded "White Scotland"? Would you perhaps think that although this group has strong opinions about ethnic minorities and refuges, they probably know diddly squat about education or about the difficulties those groups face in our education system. It is therefore very telling that this is exactly what the Telegraph did here, but for trans. -- Colin°Talk 10:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what you meant by That's where you went very wrong. As in "I embarrassed myself on the internet" kind of wrong. I think you should stop digging. Specifically, what will happen if I don't "stop digging"? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to elaborate on why that isn't a thinly veiled threat to embarrass me on the internet (i.e. WP:DOXXING), I'm going to ask that you strike or remove that part of your comment. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be managing just fine all by yourself, not sure why you think I need to make any threats. -- Colin°Talk 22:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should bring me to WP:AE for a topic-ban or strike the part of the comment where you threatened it. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first and third pieces you've linked are clearly labeled as "comment" (i.e. WP:RSEDITORIAL). That guideline notes that [e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (internal links omitted). Take that as you will.
 * The objection you're placing on the second piece's factual accuracy is... what exactly? Are you arguing that Morgan did not actually appear in court for crimes that occurred both before and after transition, or that The Telegraph misrepresented the criminal proceedings in some way?
 * The objection you're placing on the fourth article is a classic case of WP:HEADLINE. If you read the literal first sentence of the article, the article notes that The media watchdog is to start measuring how many trans and pansexual employees work at the BBC and other major broadcasters in a push to improve diversity. It also describes the granular data collection change practices regarding ethnicity/race and notes changes to data collection practices as it pertains to disabled individuals. You don't actually need to read other sources on this to get that information, so I'm confused as to if your objection is to simply the headline or if you think that something in the article is actually false. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote and I've already noted several times that I think this is trying to oversimplify a complex problem. The complex problem is of course editors who don't understand WP:VNOT and who care not for your nuance about article type and who have in all the recent discussions said effectively that if the Telegraph, a newspaper of note no less, finds something important then we must include it. I listed the above articles merely to note that any national newspaper that thinks running four anti-trans stories of a Wednesday is a balanced and proportional way to report the day's news and events has lost its way. I think participants should be aware of the purpose their vote will be used for. The three sections were created in good faith but also in naivety that votes within this topic domain end up as much more than a popularity count to see how many on each side of the culture war turn up combined with the roulette wheel of opinions of random people on the internet. And as we've already seen above, this topic attracts personal abuse. The real question is not whether the Telegraph consistently makes up untrue trans stories, but whether its coverage on the matter is more like a pamphlet from a hate group than reporting one might expect in a broadsheet newspaper. A statement in our articles on trans issues sourced to the Telegraph is highly likely to be undue and incomplete in important biased ways. I think this is the wrong forum to deal with that, but it is where we are.
 * What got us here is a debate about WPATH guidelines Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. And the Telegraph article is this one.
 * Our article on WPATH describes it as a "a professional organization devoted to the understanding and treatment of gender identity and gender dysphoria, and creating standardized treatment for transgender and gender variant people". The Telegraph describes it as a "controversial trans group" and cites critics (rather than, you know, actual doctors) who claim it is "little more than a lobbying group, set up to legitimise an extreme form of gender ideology".
 * Our article on the guidelines describe it as "an international clinical protocol" that "often influences clinicians' decisions regarding patients' treatment. While other standards, protocols, and guidelines exist – especially outside the United States – the WPATH SOC is the most widespread protocol used by professionals working with transgender or gender-variant people.". The Telegraph describes it as "extreme guidelines" and a "widely discredited treatment protocol". And there is much nonsense about the NHS "secretly use[ing]" these guidelines, as well as prurient content that I have no interest in repeating.
 * So, no, I don't think we can use the Telegraph for sourcing this topic as their standard news reports, in this case by their Scottish Correspondent, are so rabidly frothing as to be on a different world. -- Colin°Talk 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Colin°Talk 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If people are misusing commentary as a source for facts, then that's an issue with the editors, not the reliability of the organization's news reporting. And, for what it's worth, I would caution us against being overly broad in assigning a particular bias to all of The Telegraph's op-ed/editorial content as anti-trans; the paper won won a Chairman's Award in The 2019 Press Awards for columnist Diana Thomas's regular column in which she wrote about her experience transitioning from male-to-female as an adult. I think there's a bit more nuance to the publication's editorial decision making than merely pumping out anti-trans stories. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * random people on the internet ouch :(
 * Reading this, I thought: "finally, a good example of factual inaccuracies". But sadly, no. "controversial trans group" is only in the headline (which we consider unreliable). "extreme guidelines" similarly comes only from the headline. "widely discredited treatment protocol" was a quote from someone they describe as a critic. And there isn't "much nonsense about" "secretly", that's just used a single time in the headline. DFlhb (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "extreme guidelines" phrase is from a headline, as is "secretly use[ing]"; we don't use headlines from any source. The "widely discredited treatment protocol" is not a description made by The Telegraph; they very clearly attribute it to a representative of a campaign group (it's even in quotation marks). EddieHugh (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing we use those words so our guidelines on using them is not remotely relevant. I mentioned them because they reflect the paper's language they think is fit for describing mainstream medicine. Quotes or not, they only quote Trina Budge, who's medical qualifications are founder of anti-trans pressure group For Women Scotland. Colin°Talk 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "they only quote Trina Budge"... this is also incorrect. They quote WPATH guidelines, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, an unnamed "senior clinician", a "probe" of some kind, the NHS, the Scottish Government... and Trina Budge. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the only person they directly quote. The others seem to involve "stuff I dug up" and vague attribution or "leaked" material. Look, if a crank website quotes Dr Crank for his extensively negative views about the WHO or the NHS in a way that is fully supportive of Dr Crank for helping make the case for the journalist, we don't waste our time wondering if some of this negative nonsense about the WHO or NHS is in a headline (I really do boggle at the desperation of that argument made by a few people above) or is editorial or attributed text. We look at it as a whole. I don't know which part of mainstream organisation and mainstream consensus guidelines and mainstream NHS clinic is not clear and how the description of those three things in this article is on another planet from reality. -- Colin°Talk 11:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 No evidence has been provided that this newspaper of record is unreliable/fabricates evidence. WP:RSEDITORIAL applies here as The Daily Telegraph clearly distinguishes between opinion pieces and news reporting. A newspaper that reports true facts should be considered reliable. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 and suggest SNOW closing this. If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions. --M asem (t) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph's trans-related coverage has been discussed at length many, many times on talk pages. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 18:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then those cases should be brought up as evidence of why it should be changed. The three RFCs on this are all RSes in a broad sense so you will have to show with strong evidence that their factual reporting around trans issues is fundamentally bad (eg how the Fox News limits on politics and scientific reporting were determined to be bad). M asem (t) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, show some examples of them making stuff up, not bias, lies. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my above reply to chess. The RFC wording may be about factual reporting, but the underlying dispute fundamentally concerns bias and due weight. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 19:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which are not RS issues they are wp:undue issues. This is solely about are they an RS, bias is not part of the equation, only factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my !vote below. There is a point beyond which one-sided coverage is essentially unreliable, and coverage of transgender issues by The Times and The Telegraph is far beyond this point. Otherwise there would not be critical scholarship addressing this coverage in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we take what has been presented re the bias of these papers, then we need to apply the same principle across a wide range of RSes for a wide range of topics, such most mainstream US paper on politics in the US. Which, no, is not going to happen.
 * We have to understand that bias on a topic is not a reason to make a source unreliable. It is when that bias causes a source to purposely falsify the news (read: Fox News, Daily Mail) that we should take action. That's simply not shown, just that these papers tend to focus on a position that is seen as anti-trans. M asem (t) 16:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrt making stuff up, the WPATH and their Standards of Care are mainstream consensus guidelines by professionals in the field. The Telegraph writes like a covid crank, claiming they are extremist and discredited. This is simply not true in the medical profession, only among gender critical writers (none of which are experts in the field). Taking the same attitude, here's how the Telegraph would write about covid: "The so-called World Health Organisation, more like World Unhealth Organisation, released controversial guidelines on treating covid that promoted anti-viral therapy. Clinging to the extremist germ-theory ideology, they ignore ivermectin and injectable bleach. The NHS are leaving our children and elderly vulnerable to the death rays from 5G mobile masts." Thats what, as a MEDRS author and long-term WP:MED member, the Telegraph sounds like to my ears. -- Colin°Talk 20:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "here's how the Telegraph would write about covid"... to be clear, that's not how they wrote about covid, is it? EddieHugh (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to making stuff up, you're the person writing false quotes from The Daily Telegraph about COVID-19 like that has any relevance to this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - the biases of this broadsheet in its coverage of transgender rights issues have been repeatedly noted in scholarly and other high-quality sources, which is pretty much the definition of additional considerations apply. For example, peer-reviewed scholarly source concludes as follows:


 * I wouldn't mind if this filing were closed as premature, however, since the editor filing has not linked to any of the previously presented evidence or prior discussions on the topic, and this seems to be a "gotcha" filing intended to precipitate !votes from editors who haven't seen any of the relevant commentary and who would precipitate an ill-informed SNOW close that could then be used as a cudgel to insist that the coverage of trans issues by The Telegraph is unproblematic, when high-quality sources on the topic suggest the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Feminist Media Studies said about the New York Times and Washington Post that:
 * Findings reveal that pregnancy loss coverage reproduces essential and racialized notions of women as domestic, submissive, pious, and pure; reinforces problematic postfeminist rhetoric; and sensationalizes women’s grief in the service of profits. The main contribution of this study is the finding that journalists are perpetuating heteropatriarchal and post-racial ideology in service of the narrative of U.S. exceptionalism by framing miscarriage as an exclusively devastating experience.
 * Now maybe it's possible that the NYT and WaPo are both racist and heteropatriarchal organizations that shouldn't be trusted on women's issues, or Feminist Media Studies is a rather biased journal. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much as I don't want to encourage editors to free-base source criticism as a general rule, O will point out that the exclusion of trans voices is rather better-demonstrated in the article I linked than racist heteropatriarchy is supported in the article you linked. I don't believe anyone ought to be using one article's publication to discredit the other. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe in using one article's publication to discredit the other, what are we doing at RSN? This entire board is centered around analyzing reliable sources, but let's grab a pull quote from the very article you posted:
 * Does using the term "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" sound a little biased or WP:FRINGE to you? By that article, we may need to designate The Daily Telegraph as being on the same level as The Daily Stormer given that both wish to uphold white supremacy according to the source you've provided. Or maybe it's possible that Feminist Media Studies exaggerates how extremist publications really are given that they just accused The Times of supporting white supremacy. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it common practice at RSN to take one article a peer-reviewed journal has published and use that as an argument to deprecate all other articles pubished by that journal? Because that's what I meant by using one article's publication to discredit the other.
 * And to answer your other question: using the phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" does not work for me as a "gotcha" that discredits arguments made in that same article that do not depend on the existence of white supremacy or patriarchy. But clearly YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I highly respect feminist media studies scholarship, and don't disagree with that paper's perspective (I'll note I'm trans myself, and very familiar with these arguments in general, though not with specific arguments about The Telegraph), the paper states that it bases its analysis on feminist critical discourse analysis. That's a branch of critical theory and critical literature studies, which I must point out is are rather fringe within radical segments of academia.
 * Part of my degree was in critical theory; all I can say is that it doesn't strive to be objective or "reasonable". I'm emphatically not criticizing it: it's radical, as it very well should be, as its entire goal is to operate outside of societal narratives and cultural assumptions so it can effectively question them and bring new insights. But while it very much is credible, thoughtful scholarship, it would be a category error to see critical studies, as some kind of unbiased, neutral analysis, the same way that, say, scholarship about trans healthcare is neutral and unbiased. Critical studies fields are unabashedly radical, much to their credit, but we should be very mindful of how to use or interpret them.
 * To give a slightly off-topic but highly revealing example, several of my uni friends have degrees in both accounting and critical accounting studies (a fascinating field for which we lack a Wikipedia article); in the latter, they learned all the ways in which accounting is complete bullshit, relies on arbitrary delineations, and is largely corporate fiction. They went on to become accountants, and while their critical accounting theory (CAT) background gave them a sophisticated understanding of the assumptions underlying accounting, they still disagree with many CAT arguments, and practice accounting in a conventional, "orthodox" way. Critical studies are meant to provide "food for thought" and make us beetter people, but all my critical theory teachers kept reminding us that their field wasn't the end-all-be-all.
 * For those whose curiosity I piqued, there's a really good book illustrating the sometimes dead-end nature of critical theory arguments, whose name I forgot; I'll try to find it. DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All I will say at present is that I dispute that feminist critical discourse analysis is fringe within academia, and point out that critical discourse analysts are far from being the only critics of coverage of trans issues by The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much per, I'm frankly unconvinced that a journal on feminist critical discourse analysis is the be-all-end-all in terms of evaluating source reliability. And, even so, the quoted bit that you're taking is a critique related to the omission of transgender voices. While that might play a role in source bias, that is nowhere near the same thing as saying that the news organization is not reliable for the facts that it reports. Are you saying that the news organization actually makes factually incorrect reports here more frequently than we expect of a typical NEWSORG, or does it simply not incorporate transgender voices in its reporting as much as the author of the Feminist Media Studies piece would like? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply here; I don't have time to provide additional sourcing today. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to the concern about using that journal, even if we take the journal itself at its word, we should be including the Guardian among the sources of concern since they are stated to be heavily pro-trans-rights in contrast to the Telegraph or Times. Which would not be reasonable. I think editors should be aware there are biases here, but by no means these should move these papers out of being reliable sources. M asem (t) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the article says about The Guardian, Masem. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the article says about The Guardian, Masem. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 per Newimpartial. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unlike the Times of London and the Economist which might have a little bit of a lean or a POV but are reliable, there is copious criticism of the Daily Telgraph that it is owned/influenced by political parties and advertisers to the extent that I feel option 2 is merited. It has promulgated Covid misinformation. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Newimpartial, since we're talking about their transgender coverage specifically, and their transgender coverage is where we have evidence of dubiousness. Option 2 for the Telegraph taken as a whole, with the additional consideration being that they are unreliable on trans issues. Loki (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC) See amended vote below. Loki (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A few sources I have found on the general issue with transphobia in the British press (not necessarily the Telegraph specifically):
 * CNN: Anti-trans rhetoric is rife in the British media. Little is being done to extinguish the flames
 * Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: Representing trans people in the UK press – a follow-up study (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
 * Xtra: British media is increasingly transphobic. Here’s why
 * Them: Meet the Trans Storytellers Fighting British Transphobia (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
 * PinkNews: Journalist Juliet Jacques on how UK media is trying to ‘crush’ trans people: ‘We’re not in control’
 * Gay Times: Meet the journalist navigating Britain’s anti-trans press
 * USAToday: The Roots of Anti-Trans Feminism in the U.K.
 * Vice: The UK Is So Transphobic That Some Trans People Are Leaving
 * Insider: The BBC and The Times are accused of stoking a 'moral panic' against the trans community
 * Loki (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked 1, 2, 3, 4 are general critiques that doesn't mention The Telegraph, could you elaborate? General critiques of the media doesn't seem to be evidence in downgrading The Telegraph specifically. Moreover, Insider is a marginally reliable source.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is definitely part of the UK mainstream press which all these articles criticize. Also, picking out one of a list of nine sources as marginally reliable I don't think is a reasonable tactic. Loki (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is definitely part of the UK mainstream press which all these articles criticize. That you are inferring and drawing a conclusion not directly implied by the sources seem inaccurate to me. And by the way Vice is also marginally reliable.  VickKiang  (talk)  23:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is a community piece, not a piece published by the staff or editorial members. Worth pointing it out IMO.  VickKiang  (talk)  23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - I see nothing wrong with the Telegraph's coverage of transgender issues. Have they made any factual errors? I haven't seen any. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 The Telegraph is occasionally factually incorrect about transgender issues, and always has a transphobic bias even in otherwise correct reporting.
 * From news sources
 * They made false claims that Mermaids was under investigation by the charity commision.(1)
 * Their coverage of transgender people is overwhelmingly negative (2, 3, 4, 5)
 * They have used the slur "tranny" in a headline (6) (Removed because it is from Sydney not UK telegraph)
 * Their headlines are often discriminatory transphobic clickbait (7, 8)
 * They frequently phrase things in terms of the "transgender debate" (see also, the jewish question, the negro question, etc, when a demographic is a "debate" or a "question" things aren't going well) (9)
 * Their reporting on the NHS and trans rights was described by IPSO, their regulator, as innacurate and they were reprimanded for it. (10)
 * From scholarly sources
 * Montiel McCann 2022: Applying a feminist critical discourse approach (Michelle M. Lazar 2005), I expose how hegemonic femininity is reproduced by broadsheets with an allegiance to the right-wing British Conservative (Tory) government—The Times and The Telegraph—to “other” trans identities and, therefore, justify discourses of anti-trans discrimination. (Thanks to for bringing it up)
 * Fae 2022: Second up? This would be the story that the Cass Review – an inquiry into trans healthcare – has re-issued and doubled down on a recommendation it made a few months back, that the NHS wind up the Tavistock Clinic, at present the only facility in the UK providing support and healthcare for trans youth. Awful news for the trans community, you’d think, and the usual suspects were there to gloat. The Daily Telegraph unleashed at least four articles on the topic in two days. The Times went sensational, with a piece headlined “Tavistock gender clinic forced to shut over safety fears”. The all too predictable narrative: treatment of trans kids is speculative and wrong. And it is now being closed down for good. The problem is that this narrative was almost entirely false... The closure was broadly welcomed in the trans community, not least because the youth service is to continue, in the form of de-centralised local services. The exact solution that trans folk have been asking for since pretty much forever. About the only news outlet to report the story accurately was Pink News, under the heading “NHS Tavistock youth gender clinic to be replaced under sweeping trans healthcare reforms”. ...Bailey herself tweeted, saying: “I have lost my case against Stonewall.” Much rejoicing in the trans community. Which is why the mainstream media reported it as, er, a defeat for Stonewall! No, honestly. Fringe commentator Unherd reported “How Allison Bailey crushed Stonewall”. An interesting verdict, given that Stonewall was so comprehensively exonerated. The Telegraph went with “Barrister wins discrimination case against Stonewall”. Well, that was their first attempt, though after the inevitable complaints, they amended it to “Allison Bailey was unlawfully victimised for opposing Stonewall’s ‘trans extremism’, tribunal rules”, although the URL for the piece still reflects the initial headline.
 * Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent 2020: In the UK, ‘gender critical’ opinion pieces are regularly published in both left- and right-leaning outlets including The Observer, The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday. A Google search for articles on ‘transgender’ published in The Times in 2018 alone yields approximately 230 results, with headlines such as ‘Girl Guide leaders expelled for questioning trans policy’ and ‘Picking and choosing gender is demonic, writes churchman’. Multiple ‘gender critical’ events have also taken place in the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, hosted variously by Conservative, Labour and Scottish National Party politicians.
 * Pearce 2020: During my first month of fieldwork, a public debate took place across numerous media platforms over the value and limits of free speech with respect to commentary on trans issues. A particularly inflammatory column by journalist Julie Burchill was published in the Observer, entitled ‘Transsexuals should cut it out’. The Observer’s editor rapidly pulled the piece and issued an apology following a wave of complaints from readers; the article was subsequently re-published in the Telegraph. I wrote: I find it utterly impossible to maintain any kind of objective distance from all this. The Telegraph’s actions genuinely hurt at a gut level. Part of this came from anger at the idea that they consider it so important to ensure that Burchill’s diatribe retains a high-profile media platform, but part of it also came from fear upon seeing the Telegraph’s reader comments. [. . .] The comments were full of such powerful hatred. They would deny us our civil rights, our dignity, our access to medical care. (Fieldwork diary, 15 January 2013) (Auto-ethnographical perspective from a trans researcher)TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
 * Some of your evidence are solid, others less so. it's worth noting that per WP:HEADLINES headlines are automatically unreliable, so it's not relevant here. This source you linked outlines that it's right-leaning, reflective of WP:BIASED, and critiques some headlines, but this doesn't seem to be criticising it as unreliable. Moreover, one of the sources linked, Left Voice, is a revolutionary socialist news site and magazine dedicated to fostering a sustained and strategic struggle against every form of capitalist exploitation and oppression. I'm unsure that a revolutionary site would also have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be considered as WP:RS.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I checked the Reliable Sources Archives I couldn't find any discussions surrounding Leftvoice and whether they're reliable or not. I was unsure if it was considered acceptable or not but opted with innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see how a revolutionary socialist news site and magazine dedicated to fostering a sustained and strategic struggle against every form of capitalist exploitation and oppression directly implies it's unreliable. WP:BIASED also covers that. If anything, revolutionary news sites have more of an incentive to accurately cover things than media controlled by the rich and powerful. Trotskyism aside, I've seen a lot of good factual reporting from them.
 * In terms of WP:HEADLINES, the articles I cited also touch on how they use transphobic language throughout the article rather than just the headline, which I should have made more clear. Also, while headlines are generally unreliable, the fact that they use transphobic clickbait titles specifically points to an underlying issue of bias in the source in the topic area.
 * For the source describing them as "right-leaning", the article discusses gender-critical bias in the media in depth and the bias and unreliablility of those positions, noting the telegraph as an example of a news publication that platforms them.
 * Overall, I find the telegraph incredibly biased but not overtly wrong most of time. However, when it comes to transgender topics, we should note they have a history of transphobic bias and occasional inaccurate reporting on transgender topics. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I checked the Reliable Sources Archives I couldn't find any discussions surrounding Leftvoice and whether they're reliable or not. I was unsure if it was considered acceptable or not but opted with innocent until proven guilty. There is no guideline whatsoever stating that undiscussed sources should be assumed to reliable. If so, should we assume an undiscussed blog to be innocent? Trotskyism aside, I've seen a lot of good factual reporting from them- I don't think your personal liking of that source would result it to be reliable. Either show a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy through editorial policies, or alternatively that the authors are subject-matter-experts, WP:USEBYOTHERS could be fine. Moreover, For the source describing them as "right-leaning", the article discusses gender-critical bias in the media in depth and the bias and unreliablility of those positions, noting the telegraph as an example of a news publication that platforms them- this source you linked discusses ‘Gender critical’ accounts but I don't think generalising criticism on other areas to support this reference's occasional accuracy is the most convicing.  VickKiang  (talk)  23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They made false claims that Mermaids was under investigation by the charity commision. Just happened to see the Guardian reporting this story this week: "Regulator escalates investigation into trans charity Mermaids". I think if The Telegraph and The Guardian agree on something, it is likely to be factual. Andreas JN 466 11:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a note, this RfC is about the U.K. broadsheet, not the Australian tabloid. The coverage about the slur in the headline is very clearly about the Australian tabloid. Please strike that line from your comment. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A good catch. That refers to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), a low-quality tabloid. IMO the headline examples and the examples about the tabloid are irrelevant. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll break down every news and scholarly source you give, and address the claims of factual unreliability:
 * IntoMore
 * Telegraph's claim that Mermaids was being investigated: that's not false. The headline calls it an "investigation", while the body of the article makes it clear that it's a "regulatory compliance case". PinkNews disputes that it's "a formal investigation". That's not a debunking, it's a semantic argument. The Telegraph's reporting was factual here.
 * The Telegraph's other claims (lack of parental consent, a Mermaids trustee speaking to a pedophile support group and then resigning) aren't disputed, and seem accurate.
 * LeftVoice
 * This talks about "transphobic editorials" at the Telegraph. Nothing to do with their news reporting's factual accuracy.
 * HuffPo
 * This talks about "transphobic dog whistles" used by the Telegraph, and links to an opinion piece. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with factual reporting.
 * PinkNews 1
 * This piece condemns The Telegraph for op-eds, and for reporting on a politician's anti-trans comment. I'm unimpressed.
 * PinkNews 2 and PinkNews 3
 * Criticism of the headline isn't relevant, per WP:HEADLINE. This RFC is solely focused on the factual reliability of article contents.
 * GayTimes
 * GayTimes criticizes one Telegraph op-ed; and one news article. The news article covers research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, commissioned to London's City University. The Telegraph attributes "fears" over "freedom of expression" to a few academics who describe being harassed; they don't make claims in their own voice, and I find no factual inaccuracies in the Telegraph piece.
 * Re: "the transgender debate" being equivalent to "the Jewish question": that's a highly offensive comparison. The Jewish question refers to Jews' right to exist. "Trans debate" was only used by Telegraph in the headline, so is irrelevant for our purposes. I'll note that "trans debate" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to trans issues'. Calling it a debate is factual, and many people (including trans people & academics) disagree on how society should best accomodate trans people. That's not to say there aren't bigots, but to imply it's a genocidal dog whistle on par with 'the Jewish question' is utter bunk and worthy of condemnation.
 * The IPSO report:
 * Now, we get to the meat of the matter. The Telegraph issued two news stories in print, which were combined into one article online. They were reported to the media watchdog by a trans advocacy group, for a factual inaccuracy about a legal matter (which was incidental to the story). They issued a correction.
 * IPSO found that the correction was made "promptly and with due prominence", and were satisfied by the Telegraph's response. Though IPSO sided with the advocacy group on one inaccuracy, they disputed the group's numerous other claims of inaccuracy in the article.
 * Now to the research:
 * Montiel McCann 2022: I've already responded to Newimpartial above; I'll also note that as Red hawk says, it doesn't allege factual inaccuracies, just a "lack of trans voices" in media.
 * Fae 2022: though it was published in a journal, that's an opinion piece, not a study.
 * Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent 2020: that criticizes opinion pieces in a single passing comment; not pertinent
 * Pearce 2020: that's again about an opinion article.
 * So, while I'm grateful you provide many links, "there's no there there". DFlhb (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "transgender debate" is absolutely a dog whistle and it's an apt comparison. Quoting from the article on the jewish question: The Jewish question, also referred to as the Jewish problem, was a wide-ranging debate in 19th- and 20th-century European society that pertained to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews. The debate, which was similar to other "national questions", dealt with the civil, legal, national, and political status of Jews as a minority within society, particularly in Europe during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In regards to calling it a debate is factual, that doesn't mean the fact there's a "debate" isn't an issue.
 * In regards to I'll note that "trans debate" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to trans issues'., one could say the "jewish question" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to jewish issues'. The key issues in the "trans debate" are usually things like: should the government legally recognize the existence of transgender people, enforce non-discrimination protections (especially in public spaces), or let them live in society with the full rights of other citizens.
 * The use of "jewish question" in historical sources does not imply a source is calling for outright extermination any more than the "transgender debate" does. The issue is the larger cultural framing where the existence and rights of a demographic are posed as a debate or question that needs to be discussed.
 * Sidenote, I have friends who are trans and jewish who have brought up the connection between the framings. Also seen trans and jewish accounts I follow make the comparison. Or is it still utter bunk and worthy of condemnation when they say it? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have friends who are trans and jewish I am both, and yes, it's condemnable. I'll stay high-level because this has nothing to do with the RFC, but: debates on the legal status of Jews, or trans people, involve discrimination. You said The Telegraph frequently phrase[s] things in terms of the "transgender debate", and claim that's equivalent to the "Jewish question" (i.e. right to exist). The Telegraph was using "debate" (only in its headline, not in the article) to refer to the entire nationwide conversation between TERFS, trans people, and everyone in between; not to refer to a debate about trans people's legal status or right to exist, and not to refer specifically to TERFS. You were putting one of the UK's two newspaper of record on the same level as stuff like Der Stürmer. I realize hyperbole is hugely present online, and that many of your friends may think like this, but I humbly suggest you take a step back from it and see if you really find it rational. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had this discussion in the past w.r.t. other articles. People who use the term Jewish question nowadays usually are doing it because it implicitly invokes Hitler's final solution to the Jewish question and do it as a dogwhistle such as by saying "JQ".
 * You can't really make that comparison to the term "transgender debate" because as far as I'm aware, no world leader created & enacted a plan called the "final answer to the transgender debate" in which all transgender people within a geographic area would be murdered. The claim that some of your friends are Jewish and so you can make this comparison here is a logical fallacy. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The "jewish question" and it's framing of the right to exist does not shed the full light on the situation. The "jewish question" was not just "should we genocide the jews", it was "should we give them rights, if so, which and which not". The "final solution" was only the Nazi's answer to the question, as the "jewish question" as a linguistic cultural framing existed before the Nazis. To help illustrate this divide between the "jewish question" as a debate which existed, a modern dogwhistle, and the "final solution", the article for it states According to Otto Dov Kulka of Hebrew University, the term became widespread in the 19th century when it was used in discussions about Jewish emancipation in Germany (Judenfrage). In the 19th century hundreds of tractates, pamphlets, newspaper articles and books were written on the subject, with many offering such solutions as resettlement, deportation, or assimilation of the Jewish population. Similarly, hundreds of works were written opposing these solutions and offering instead solutions such as re-integration and education.. In short, the "jewish question" was the "debate" playing out in media over whether jews should have rights, not a reference to a particular answer, though the existence of a debate necessarily implies those for and against.
 * 2) The Gay City News Article referenced discuss LGBT reactions to posing rights as a "debate", which the vast majority of survey respondents found harmful. The link between the "jewish question" and "trans debate" is the fact that the media has framed the rights of a minority as a debate to be had and settled. Key to a debate, their are two sides, namely should people have rights, or not.
 * 3) The telegraph article itself that used the term "trans debate" (one of many, I should add), states The equalities watchdog has launched a study into the sex versus gender row amid fears that the abuse of feminist academics by trans activists is harming freedom of expression and a vicious debate between those who believe biological sex cannot be changed, known as "gender-critical" views, and trans activists who argue that men who identify as women should be legally recognised as female. and Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the EHRC chairman, has recognised there is "genuine public concern" that women's and transgender rights can be in conflict. In all of these, the debate is framed as between feminists (who support women's rights by opposing trans rights) and the trans activists who speak up against them (who just want rights and to be left alone but are framed in a negative light and their arguments strawmanned), saying transgender rights are dangerous for other people, and the article overwhelmingly takes the side of the gender-critical camp. A quick search on google finds 129 articles by the telegraph referencing the "trans debate" or "transgender debate".
 * 4) I have only heard the "transgender debate" used in real life by those staunchly opposed to transgender rights. In the media, a source saying "the transgender debate" almost always betrays a position opposed to transgender rights. The entire nationwide conversation between TERFS, trans people, and everyone in between is in fact a debate about trans people's legal status or right to exist
 * 5) In terms of the "final solution", which I re-iterate is not 1-1 with the "jewish question", at the moment there is no equivalent (for a start, genocide against ethnic vs gender minorities takes different forms, since eradicating an ethnic community is a different issue than eradicating trans communities because transgender people can continue to be born by those who aren't). But two things play into that. 1) The Nazis also sent transgender and LGBT people to the concentration camps, but did not debate or make a big deal of them in the media beforehand. The existence of the "X debate" is not a 1-1 connection with genocide. 2) People referencing the "transgender debate" have formed answers like, off the top of my head: forcibly detransition all transgender youth, make it more difficult for transgender people to change their name and gender and thus participate civically as cisgender people can, make it a crime to discuss transgender issues or support in higher education, make it a crime for transgender people to use public facilities because cis people might feel threatened, decry transgender people as an infectious ideology that needs to be stopped, and take transgender youth away from supportive parents to place them with unsupportive ones. (See Marjorie Taylor Greene's federal bill and the situation in Texas). In short, transgender people's rights to exist in the public sphere, have their existence recognized, and define their own community and continuity of knowledge. Has the answer been "kill them all" yet? Apart from the most unhinged far-right elements, no, and even then they'll usually just attack the "grooming" adults to "protect the children". Overall, the debate has been "should transgender people be allowed to exist here with the same rights as everyone else", with no as a frequent answer.
 * 6)In short, the "transgender debate" and "jewish question" are both references to an existing media debate over what extent a minority should have the same rights as everyone else. The "jewish question", while inextricably linked with the "final solution", is not 1-1 with it, as there were those who called for reactionary but not outright genocidal answers to it. As in the modern situation. The existence of the "debate" is factual, but how it's framed and used often betrays the publication's biases. A sidenote, I am in fact writing a research paper on the rise and fall of transgender rights from Weimar Republic to Nazi rule, and in fascist states more broadly, and similarities and differences with the modern trans situation in the U.S. in terms of media/cultural framing, legal rights, and medical rights, so this is an area I have extensively studied. I do not feel my comparison is hyperbole or irrational, rather a critical analysis of common rhetorical tactics used to oppose people's rights, namely the persistent framing of attacks on people's rights as a "debate" and widespread media discussions which use this framing. I am not comparing "Der Stürmer" to "The Telegraph", as neither was the only voice speaking of the "X question", merely speaking to the existence and implications of widespread media coverage from all ranges of the political spectrum posing minority rights as a debate/question. There's other work I plan to do on Wikipedia today but I hope this clarifies my argument and positions. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit in the weeds here, but I think the "X Question" issue is a red herring. Basically every national movement of the 19th-20th century was framed in terms of "X Question": see German question, Polish question, Irish question, Romanian Question Austrian question, Italian question, English question, Czech question, Russian question, Spanish question,Turkish question, Finnish question. It's archaic terminology, but not inherently offensive, although I'd readily concede that the misconception that asking national questions leads to final solutions is widespread. signed,Rosguill talk 00:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit in the weeds here, but I think the "X Question" issue is a red herring. Basically every national movement of the 19th-20th century was framed in terms of "X Question": see German question, Polish question, Irish question, Romanian Question Austrian question, Italian question, English question, Czech question, Russian question, Spanish question,Turkish question, Finnish question. It's archaic terminology, but not inherently offensive, although I'd readily concede that the misconception that asking national questions leads to final solutions is widespread. signed,Rosguill talk 00:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 and a trout to the person who started this nonsense.47.160.161.90 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I agree with the comment above. No evidence has been given to substantiate these RfCs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per my extensive (and time-consuming) analysis of the arguments provided for unreliability, which people can see above by searching my name. I do think WP:SNOWBALL applies here. DFlhb (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How can SNOWBALL apply when the !votes are divided? Asking for a friend. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess you're right :) DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one part I agree with you, WP:SNOW probably won't apply at those RfCs, even though the result currently leans towards Option 1.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Separate to the question of reliability is the question of bias, which some assert, and some dismiss as constrained to op-eds. But I think option 1 supporters should more clarify whether they consider the factual reporting biased or unbiased. I also invite option 2/3 supporters to provide evidence of bias in specifically the news coverage, by linking us to specific articles they feel are biased, rather than by using academic sources that are commenting on the op-eds. I've yet to see arguments of ideological or opinionated bias in the news coverage, and would like to see individual examples. DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 as I explained in the previous comments here. The Telegraph (UK) is a credible newspaper of record. I acknowledge WP:DUE concerns, it should not be used at all for WP:MEDRS claims, and as well as  raises good comments on its bias, IMO The Telegraph is slightly more conservative compared to The Economist or The Times. However, I currently see insufficient evidence of repeated inaccuracies and misleading statements in news sections that would push this towards marginally reliable or generally unreliable, though if more references demonstrating that are found do ping me.  VickKiang   (talk)  01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It seems some don't like how they cover the topic but that doesn't mean the coverage isn't reliable. Of course the reliability of any specific article can be questioned even if the source is considered generally reliable on the topic.  IE, treat it as we treat any other generally reliable source.  Springee (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 As with the Times discussion, no real attempt has been made to prove factual unreliability, which is what we need to see. We don't state sources are unreliable because of their biases, the articles linked above show convincingly that the Telegraph opposes the expansion of trans-rights, and that trans-advocates consider its editorial line to be transphobic. But they do not show a higher level of factual inaccuracy on this topic than is displayed in the paper's general output. Ergo, it can not be considered unreliable on this topic. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 A standard quality WP:NEWSORG with editorial oversight. Nothing unreliable here and no evidence for unreliability has been provided. I do hope this isn't another WP:POINT of going after right-leaning sources again (But I AGF and assume it is not).  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who nominated this wants it to be declared reliable. They are WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. (Or in other words: yes this is WP:POINTy but in the opposite direction you think.) Loki (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 In case it isn't clear from my comments. The Telegraph reports on trans issues in much the same way as we see Covid cranks, HIV-deniers, MMR-autism promoters, where the mainstream is considered extreme and where fringe voices are the only one's heard and where interviewing actual doctors or actual trans people is a weird idea, when one could instead interview and give platform to some random person who started a pressure group. Using The Telegraph, on trans issues, is a textbook example of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS with editors frequently push statements sourced to them while denying WP:VNOT. -- Colin°Talk 11:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging non-wikipedia sources by wikipedia policies is not helpful. The Telegraph is not a collaborative encyclopaedia and so our rules on tendencious editing are completely irrelevant. We could equally apply WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS to the Pink News coverage of Trans issues, and we would be equally wrong to do so. The difference between the Telegraph's standpoint and the conspiracy theories that you name is that they are arguing about the social desirability of certain activities and legal situations relating to trans-issues, rather than arguing against the existence scientific facts. That doesn't mean there is no case that their positions are bigoted, but it doesn't make the information they publish factually wrong. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue, I realised I didn't word that sentence correctly. I missed of "Using" to the start of it and have now added that. You are right, I'm not judging the telegraph by our policies, I'm judging the editors. If the Telegraph was arguing about social or legal matters then that might be fair ground for them, but they are specifically discussing a medical professional organisation, medical consensus guidelines and in the case of the clinic in the photograph, an NHS medical facility that campaigners want closed down. None of those things are social or legal. They are medical. We have editors, in the linked case, arguing we must include viewpoints on medical guidelines coming from fringe lobby groups who have no medical training and are not representing any significant viewpoint in the medical profession. They are a political feminist organisation. This is like saying our Covid articles must include a statement that its viral cause is "controversial" because some people think it is caused by 5G. I do think the Telegraph is factually wrong on that. If they were being factually correct, they would acknowledge the mainstream aspect of the organisation, guidelines and clinic and make it clear that it is a minority and non-medical view that is being vocalised by For Woman Scotland. I think they are factually wrong in which group they label "extreme", and its factual incorrectness is demonstrated if you read reliable sources on the matter, or indeed, our own Wikipedia article.  -- Colin°Talk 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree, this is querying medical practice as it exists in a particular place and time, rather than querying scientifically proven facts such as the existence of viral coronavirus and the effectiveness of a vaccine in creating antibodies. The transgender debate clearly has a social aspect around which debate is legitimate, the situation is more similar to that which occurred around the desirability and effectiveness of the various anti-covid measures. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1. I waited until examples of claimed false reporting were presented. DFlhb's summary above matches what I found in reviewing them. The most serious – an IPSO ruling – concluded that "The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered and published promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required" (the other complaints were not upheld). This is in accordance with standard practice. Not liking what a source publishes is very different from demonstrating that a source is problematic. The latter hasn't been done for this source. EddieHugh (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X: Scrap RfC. This seems to be a case of someone asking a question on which they favor the status quo, without presenting any of the arguments that have been given elsewhere against the status quo, to drum up easy !votes on their side. Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Telegraph on trans topics. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand this objection… summaries and arguments for/against the use of a source are supposed to be placed in the discussion section of an RFC… and this discussion contains several of such summaries. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the point is it should begin with a clearly laid out set of reasons why their reliability in this domain is contested. This was always going to be an uphill battle given (a) the number of editors who want to use the Telegraph because it supports their POV on the matter and (b) the number of editors who have no idea that the Telegraph has completely lost the plot when it comes to trans issues. -- Colin°Talk 19:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to begin with a summary of the doubts around a source, I have even been told off for doing so in the past. Do you feel that the problems you perceive with this source are still not outlined here? --Boynamedsue (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the edit notice to this noticeboard titled Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:, editors should include context on 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name. and 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". That information was available to gnu57 prior to posting this, as evidenced by the related discussion on LBC News. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that numerous recent RfCs, including the Fox News RfC this year at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 385, ANNA News at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371, had this structure with no context. In contrast, others, e.g., Insider at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381 and Jacobin at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351, had some context, and I think both are reasonable.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Fox News RfC the context on the past discussions involving that source, and an evidence base in support of its unreliability. You are correct though that the ANNA News RfC lacked context, though some was  after filing by the OP. However while there are undoubtedly examples of previous discussions being filed without context, it does not prevent it from being a valid criticism of how this set of discussions were opened.
 * In this particular filing, context is incredibly important. As can be demonstrated by the very swift replies of "reliable, it's a newspaper of record", there are as Colin has pointed out a great number of editors who have no idea just how unreliable The Telegraph has become with regards to reporting on transgender issues in the last 5/10 years. Both the Telegraph and Times are currently publishing at least one anti-trans article, per day, and have been doing so since at least 2019/20. Filtering through that rather large pile of articles, cross-referencing that against reporting from other sources, and checking archival versions for articles that have been subtly or not so subtly altered post-publication takes time. It also takes time to find, access, read, and assess what other reliable sources (both media and academic) have been saying about these publications so that their findings can also be presented.
 * While there are several editors here who have been preparing for a discussion on the Times and Telegraph, including myself, none of us were prepared for it to be sprung without notice, and without the context necessary for those uninvolved in this content area to understand the nature and scope of the problem. As such we have all been put on the back foot by this, and now face a much harder challenge of informing and convincing other editors as to the problem when it comes to these sources. Tamzin's interpretation of this as a case of someone asking a question on which they favor the status quo, without presenting any of the arguments that have been given elsewhere against the status quo, to drum up easy !votes on their side is a charitable one, as there are far more cynical alternatives both within and without the realm of WP:AGF. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact in this very noticeboard previously I've already addressed some editors' concerns with the CNN ref at here. It would really be beneficial in providing new references rather than repeating the same point over again. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  23:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've cited the CNN source to verify a statement by Shon Faye, a subject-matter expert, who has said of the Times and Sunday Times over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am frankly unconvinced by that Filtering through that rather large pile of articles, cross-referencing that against reporting from other sources, and checking archival versions for articles that have been subtly or not so subtly altered post-publication takes time. It also takes time to find, access, read, and assess what other reliable sources (both media and academic) have been saying about these publications so that their findings can also be presented. Concerns on a WP:SNOW close have been refuted, I disagree with that and multiple later Option 1 voters does not agree with that close. If that is the case, this RfC will be open for a month. I'm certain that those Option 2/3/X voters would find sufficient time to provide at least some evidence instead of repeating the same references over and over again. However, if you do manage to assemble a list that would be significantly more convincing than the weak ones at the relevant talk pages and Newimpartial's talk page, I'd be then content to amend my vote. Until then I will respectfully disagree.  VickKiang  (talk)  23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not addressing the SNOW close calls, so please do not straw-man that as my argument.
 * When I said filtering through the articles takes time, I meant on the order of several months. My current plan was to make two RfCs on the reliability of the Times and Telegraph sometime in January/February 2023. When looking at a 5 year period, there are thousands of anti-trans articles published between these two papers that need to be sorted, and the most egregious cases of misinformation identified. I don't know of Newimpartial's or TheTranarchist's timescales, but I suspect given comments elsewhere they were also looking at this discussion taking place some time early next year. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When looking at a 5 year period, there are thousands of anti-trans articles published between these two papers that need to be sorted, and the most egregious cases of misinformation identified. Again, I find it quite unconvincing that, on one hand you state that you all who vote Option 2/3/X require more time, in contrast, on the other hand you continue to make these sweeping claims of thousands of anti-trans articles... while refusing to provide any evidence that supports this.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, for context, here's just articles that have been published in the past week:        . (And out of these, there's only one of them that's unambiguously pro-trans, and several that are unambiguously anti-trans.) As they've been doing this for several years now, it'd be very surprising to me if there weren't over a thousand articles like this. Loki (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to Loki's list of 9 articles published by The Telegraph in the last week, The Times have published 19 articles that contain the word "transgender" in that same time period. According to the same search page, they have published 795 articles in the last twelve months. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * there's only one of them that's unambiguously pro-trans, and several that are unambiguously anti-trans- Of course, I fully acknowledge that this is not your intent when you wrote the message, so I'm not WP:STRAWMAN or WP:IDHT here IMO. However, I don't see necessarily one-pro trans article whereas several anti-trans article is enough to not only assert WP:BIASED but unreliability in the topic from my view. Of course, I'm not saying that you are suggesting this, it's just my observation.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The point that Loki and I have made here is one of scale. Ask yourself, how long would it take you to just read all 795 of those articles The Times have published in the last twelve months. Not even to eliminate those that just contain the word "transgender" and are otherwise unrelated, or remove those which are covered under RSOPINION. How long to just read them? Now imagine you're having to do this for two papers, and at least five years worth of such articles. Even if you're doing nothing else, this is months of work just to read those articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed marginally reliable on WP:QS like, the latter being have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest on the topic, I'd imagine that even going through the first 100 articles you'd be able to find articles that demonstrate this is unreliable or misleading. Going through 795 articles and finding a couple that might be obviously misleading doesn't seem to indicate that a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in this topic would be violated. And additionally, I already said that Of course, I fully acknowledge that this is not your intent when you wrote the message, I'm not attempting to contradict Loki's statement.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that even going through the first 100 articles you'd be able to find articles that demonstrate this is unreliable or misleading. It's not that easy. Remember that my goal is to convince other uninvolved editors that this source is unreliable. I can't just pick from the 100 most recent articles, because that would at best cover a short time period (2 or 3 months), and some of the best and most convincing examples may have been published 6, 12, or 18 months ago.
 * From the work I've already done, some of my stronger examples are from 2020 and 2021, in no small part because I've yet to read all of this year's content. But I also know from some of the past discussions on this noticeboard that these examples, on their own, are not enough to convince otherwise uninvolved editors of the problem. Like you've already illuded to, picking a handful of obviously misleading articles does not indicated that a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is absent. I and the other editors need to present a breadth of articles, that demonstrate the scale of this problem. That takes time. Time we sadly seem to no longer have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a solid point, I stand by my vote but might change mind if solid evidence are provided, preferably even stronger than those generally well-done, numerous examples in the Fox News RfC, many thanks for your comments!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend against going for breadth; in my experience from past discussions (not on trans topics), that's usually used to hide deficiencies in arguments, and turns an ironclad case into more of a gishgallop. I'd pick the 5 strongest, best examples you have, to avoid people finding that one article isn't as biased as claimed, and dismissing the others. DFlhb (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself, how long would it take you to just read all 795 of those articles The Times have published in the last twelve months
 * Nobody's asking for you to spend a week reviewing proving that 795 articles are flawed. Usually for RSN RFCs, editors can easily point to a piece or two that contain factual inaccuracies. Five pieces and the RFC has a change of succeeding. Apparently this debate came from a prior discussion on a talk page, where the sources were claimed to be biased. Well, why not post them here? DFlhb (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this particular filing, context is incredibly important. As can be demonstrated by the very swift replies of "reliable, it's a newspaper of record", there are as Colin has pointed out a great number of editors who have no idea just how unreliable The Telegraph has become with regards to reporting on transgender issues in the last 5/10 years. I should note in these discussions numerous Option 1 voters have refuted sources provided, e.g.,, , , , and myself but some votes are hasty and without much expalanation. In contrast, some of the Option 2/3/X votes, e.g., , , and yourself provide detailed reasons, whereas some others make more vague assertions of unreliability and WP:FORUMSHOP. Therefore, I object to a statement that most of the Option 1 editors lack sufficient competence, familiarity, and knowledge to be participating on this topic. Many thanks.  VickKiang   (talk)  23:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please strike lack sufficient competence, familiarity, and knowledge to be participating on this topic as I have not said that. What I have said is that many editors are unfamiliar with how unreliable the Telegraph and Times have become when reporting on trans issues, in relation to their editorial bias. That is not a controversial statement, and it is a self-evident one. Both papers are putting out at least one anti-trans article every day, sometimes several, resulting in hundreds every year. Unless you are reading all of them, you are likely not going to be familiar with the scale of the problem. And unless you're reading all of them, and cross-referencing against other reporting, you're likely not going to be familiar with the nature of the problem. Please stop constructing straw-men about things I am not saying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you are reading all of them, you are likely not going to be familiar with the scale of the problem. And unless you're reading all of them, and cross-referencing against other reporting, you're likely not going to be familiar with the nature of the problem- why would persistent WP:BIAS be automatically indicative of unreliability is my question, which is not claimed by the CNN piece?  VickKiang  (talk)  23:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the editorial bias of these two publications is resulting in them publishing misleading and verifiably false information at scale. I have some examples of this, however it is not yet in a form I can present to this noticeboard. The reason why I've !voted for option X is because this RfC is too early.
 * I do not know why you're so stuck on the CNN piece, I have only used it to verify a single statement by a subject-matter expert, as to how many articles were published by The Times in 2019/20. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said below, the CNN source fails to clarify at all whether the so-called 300+ articles are news, opinion. analysis, or commentary. I believe this RfC is treating news articles per the prompt, not opinion ones, which would fall under WP:RSOPINION.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, and if my entire argument was predicated on this, you would have a point. However I am using this statement by Faye to illustrate the sheer scale of the task that is involved here. You said If that is the case, this RfC will be open for a month. however I am telling you that because of the sheer scale, that is not enough time for those of us who were mid-preparation for this RfC to finish our preparations. Simply identifying and reading all of the trans related articles published, by just one of those publications, in a single year, takes weeks. Cross-referencing that against other sources adds complexity. And there being two sources, both with the same anti-trans bias affecting their reliability, doubles all time estimates.
 * Even if I was commissioned to undertake this as a research paper as a full-time job, it would take months just to do the initial corpus search and cross-referencing. And that's before you add on even more time for searching for what other reliable sources (academic or media) have said, and searching for any reports issued by government select committies, IPSO, and similar NGOs Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I have said is that many editors are unfamiliar with how unreliable the Telegraph and Times have become when reporting on trans issues, in relation to their editorial bias. That is not a controversial statement, and it is a self-evident one.- frankly I don't think given the current consensus here that with how unreliable the Telegraph and Times have become when reporting on trans issues is as so-called "uncontroversial" as you state, and it is unreasonable to presume that all of these RfC participants are unfamiliar with these vague examples. It might be uncontroversial to you but not from my POV.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any editor allege "at least one anti-trans article every day". They say British outlets can publish one to two hundred articles about trans issues a year; not "anti-trans", just "about trans issues". That's an enormous difference.
 * And I'd still like a link to even a single article you feel is either biased or factually inaccurate. I don't want to concede either point without evidence, and none so far has convinced me. DFlhb (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the CNN piece: Shon Faye, trans advocate and author of "The Transgender Issue," told CNN. According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published "over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative." According to research commissioned by Mermaids conducted by Professor Paul Baker, Lancaster University and submitted to the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee, in 2018/19 the Times published 1230 articles (a rate of 3.37 articles per day), and the Telegraph published 813 (a rate of 2.23 articles per day). There are, quite literally, thousands of articles to sort through. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do empathize with the work that is; it seems we have thoroughness and conscientiousness in common. DFlhb (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The general stance of opinion pieces is not relevant when assessing the reliability of news. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:4CED:61B9:CCE0:425A (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In instances where a publication declares its policy intentions in editorials, and then platforms the same viewpoint while ignoring or caricaturing other perspectives in its news coverage, its editorial stance just might be relevant, particularly when assessing due inclusion of content in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you are reading all of them, you are likely not going to be familiar with the scale of the problem. And unless you're reading all of them, and cross-referencing against other reporting, you're likely not going to be familiar with the nature of the problem. By the way (just an observation, not saying you are suggesting this) I doubt that anyone here excepting you will be reading 795 articles, including Option 1/2/3/X voters, but it's good for you to be thorough in your analysis.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't make the mistake of thinking that short replies lack thought, verbosity doesn't necessarily equal having put extra thought into something. Also swiftness of posting here gives no way of determining how much time went into that reply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note, apologies if my comment is inaccurate to you, I will strike it soon.
 * I should clarify that the CNN piece actually state When it comes to trans rights “polling shows that the public isn’t necessarily as hostile as the media, but the media [continues] to lead the conversation,” Shon Faye, trans advocate and author of “The Transgender Issue,” told CNN. According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment. Note that: a) it expresses an interviewee's opinion, b) by over 300 articles it does not clarify whether it is a news piece, which is the area of debate set by this RfC, or opinion ones. Indeed, two paragraphs later CNN goes on to say In an essay for the Times decrying “wokeism” last November, Sky News presenter Trevor Phillips said: “The greatest tragedy in all of this is that the gurus of wokedom have persuaded thousands of idealistic young people who rightly want to change the world into supporting what is actually a deeply reactionary movement. The trans activists can only realize their aim of being able to enter spaces reserved for women by erasing the female sex.” But that is a commentary piece, not a news piece, therefore a sweeping statement on the over 300 articles is inaccurate.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it should begin with a clearly laid out set of reasons why their reliability in this domain is contested
 * It cannot. See the pre-RFC Daily Dot discussion, which laid out a list of reasons; and the Daily Dot RFC which had to have neutral wording. The shouldn't contain arguments for a certain option. DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The question has to be neutral and brief. However the material in support of it provided by the filer does not. See the for the recent Fox News RfC. While the question was brief, it was accompanied by some 20kb of examples of that publication's bias and unreliability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * added it in below the discussion part in a section titled in a level 4 header of Status quo from WP:RSP and past RFCs, not the prompt/OP section.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what I said yes. The question was brief and neutral. And it had a supporting section documenting the context from past discussions, and examples of its bias and unreliability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Of course commenting problems in the survey/discussion section is perfectly fine, as long it's not in the original prompt.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just want to avoid another situation like the Fox RFC that came right before. DFlhb (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this.  VickKiang  (talk)  02:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the RfC process and you may wish to read Requests for comment. It is your job as someone replying to the RfC to give evidence supporting your position. It's not the job of anyone else, least of all the person creating the RfC. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option X per Tamzin et al. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 14:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Bias is not a reliability issue. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X per Tamzin: in retrospect there's no way this RFC could have been neutral. The person who nominated this wants it to be declared reliable. They are WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the discussion on Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. They completely skipped WP:RFCBEFORE and instead tried to circumvent the local consensus there by coming here. Loki (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X This is just an attempt to go over the head of an existing talk page discussion and doing so in a misleading way by not presenting the context of what was being disputed in the first place. This was never a question on general reliability of the newspaper in question, but the reliability (and due weight) of a specific article. Silver  seren C 19:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the timestamps, context was included in the form of the "Context: The Telegraph" section less than 6 hours after the RfC was posted. If the question elsewhere is about the due weight (and I assume that you mean 'accuracy', not 'reliability') of one article, that shouldn't be affected by the discussion here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, no evidence of unreliability for facts has been presented. As for the claims that this RfC is forum shopping, many in these discussions have been arguing repeatedly, not just at the Standards of Care RfC but also at Talk:Mermaids (charity), Talk:LGB Alliance, and elsewhere, that these sources are actually unreliable and rejecting the consensuses documented at WP:RSP. They variously seem to expect us to take their word for it, or cite the same few op-eds and similar from 'progressive' American media complaining that British papers of record don't go all-in on their preferred policy of absolute gender self-identification. These complainants either need to stop making this disruptive argument or present a case to change the community's mind. After months they failed to do so, preferring to instead disregard RSP on individual talk pages, and so someone else started a discussion. They keep saying a discussion needs to happen, so let's have it. Crossroads -talk- 21:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X I agree with Tamzin that this RfC has not been presented in a way that encourages informed discussion. The context of the underlying discussions that lead to the snap creation of this RfC has been left out by the filer, which is interesting when you compare these three RfCs, with the related discussion on LBC News, also started by the filer. Uninvolved editors are being asked to ask blindly whether or not these sources are reliable in a specific context, without any information as to why they are being discussed as unreliable in that context. While I have been preparing for an eventual RfC on how the anti-trans bias of The Telegraph and The Times is impacting on their reliability in this context, and I've not been shy on stating that I'm preparing for such on relevant article talk pages, I am not yet ready to present this information in a clear and succinct manner that uninvolved editors will be able to follow, and will need time to formulate such a response. This is simply a premature filing of a discussion that requires a great deal more care than has been given× to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally have a month to respond to this RfC. Asking for an RfC with more than a dozen people to be rescheduled to some indefinite time in the future because you don't feel like getting your !vote ready isn't a valid point. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1/2 but I think it should not be logged at WP:RSP. Otherwise, we might be giving the impression that the source is particularly reliable about this topic, rather than just generally reliably genelist press. Which can also be summarized as Option X. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The Telegraph isn't the paper it used to be, but is still reliable for reporting the facts. Opinion pieces, etc as per my comment for the Economist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. A top tier source, and the fact that we need to have this discussion demonstrates why the RSN process needs to be overhauled or abandoned.
 * I note that editors opening an RFC are forbidden from presenting an arguments for or against the status quo as part of doing so, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not true. -- Colin°Talk 09:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened an RfC and was told that presenting a summary of the issue risked leading to a Bad RfC verdict, so I deleted. It is absolutely bonkers to claim something is procedurally wrong with the opening of these RfCs. Those who say that these sources are unreliable have had ample opportunity to present their arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1. No evidence has been provided of false reporting by this highly reputable source. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I am in agreement that no evidence has been provided to support the claim that The Telegraph is not a reputable source and that it lacks factual reporting. (What I'm getting from this RfC -- and The Economist RfC -- is an attempt to attack and censor newspapers and magazines that don't kowtow to special interest groups.) Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 12:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Clearly a reliable source. The arguments presented above that it is not a reliable source on these topics are unpersuasive and misdirected, and the arguments that this RFC is procedurally improper are misconceived. This should be closed as WP:SNOW. The same rationale applies to the other two sources. Banks Irk (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW clearly does not apply - please see my response to the equivalent vote concerning The Economist. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 At the very least, they're in the region where their reporting (editorial stance, selection of topics, choice of emphasis, etc.) should be considered biased. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X This, along with the Economist and Times of London RFCs, is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I will not dignify it with any response other than to close it. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);-webkit-background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine |  talk  02:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FORUMSHOPPING: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively". Where else has this has been raised? I know of only one talk page; taking an RS matter from a talk page to here is common; it's not FORUMSHOPPING. EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, there has been nothing presented to indicate that the factual reporting of the source is inaccurate. Perceived "bias" is not an RSN issue. However, in many cases this will cross into WP:MEDRS territory, and newspapers do not generally qualify where MEDRS applies, so that should also be kept in mind. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Same response as to The Economist above.  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 15:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I'm not going to delve into whether the Telegraph is reliable for transgender issues, its record on constitutional issues is appalling, so much so that there is an active hashtag #Let's talk about Camilla Tominey's voracious appetite for lying on social media..  Mrs Tominey is an associate editor there and runs a subscription podcast so a lot of what she says is hidden.   This has resulted in unacceptable bias in our article Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.   There are 184 inline citations.   One is a 38-word quotation from Meghan explaining her philosophy, which is fair enough, but the 64-word negative quote from Mrs Tominey breaks all the rules on impartiality and reliability.   According to her, after Meghan confirmed she was married on 16 May 2018 "those working for the Sussexes" announced she had been lying.   Significantly, she did not provide the names of the people who allegedly made the statement or quote from it. 80.47.6.204 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I'm no fan of the Telegraph, and it definitely has a pronounced editorial bias (so much so that it is widely known as the Torygraph), but all papers have some sort of editorial slant, and that's why we have things like WP:BIASED and WP:RSEDITORIAL; its headlines are often clickbaity, but we've also got WP:HEADLINES. At the end of the day, whatever I think of its politics, it's a quality broadsheet with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, and I'd judge it as being as good as a news source can be for assertions of fact. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add to the above - by 'as good as a news source can be', I mean that it's obviously not OK for biomedical information, and even for stuff about science in general we shouldn't be going to newspapers. And I'll echo what MarioGom has said above - however this is closed, we shouldn't be giving the impression that the Telegraph is especially reliable in this area. It's merely generally reliable, in a newspapery sense, with the usual newspapery caveats. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it an accurate statement of fact that the limits of gender-bending trans ideology are now being tested in sport? Or is it true that the parents of children who come out as transgender are rarely heard in this increasingly toxic debate? I don't think so (not to question the toxicity of the "debate", to which The Telegraph has undoubtedly contributed). Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are statements of opinion, not fact. What is the underlying rule here that you seek to enforce? Any newspaper that has an article not supporting transgender women participating in women's sports should be banned? Or any newspaper that says parents should be informed if their children socially transitions are now unreliable? Is the goal of this RfC to make a determination of reliability or is it to designate The Daily Telegraph as an unreliable source because you want to keep these opinions from being mentioned in articles? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you seem determined to caricature (or even WP:STRAWMAN) my comments. I am not seeking to ban any source based on the opinions it expresses editorially or because it quotes a figure for any particular viewpoint. But that isn't what we have in these three sources: we have sources that consistently platform one side in a public policy controversy, including one-sided presentation of "facts" and platforming marginal perspectives on topics covered by WP:MEDRS. Then we have these same sources using loaded language in describing events and situations in their news coverage - not coincidentally, the same loaded language these outlets use in editorial and op-ed pieces.
 * Your comment that Those are statements of opinion, not fact is not, I think, semantically true in these instances and in any cases seems tremendously naive. I can guarantee that, if these filings are closed as generally reliable without qualification, certain editors will absolutely insist that terms like "trans ideology" favored by these outlets be given a FALSEBALANCE treatment in article space that, if followed, would be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I for one regard this as a predictable, but undesirable, outcome. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My !vote is not intended to support the use of terms such as "trans ideology" in WP:WikiVoice. While I can't really stop "certain editors" from advocating the use of loaded terminology, your position that this will necessarily happen from rating the Daily Telegraph as generally reliable isn't really a point. We're not discussing an issue on an article talk page here, but the general reliability or unreliability of a particular source. You seeking to designate this source as unreliable for any reason other than its unreliability isn't a policy-based rationale. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, I am a linguistic pragmatist; I am also pragmatic when it comes to other related matters. "Reliability" is used in Wikipedia policy and practice to mean at least three conceptually distinct things: (1) only making factual statements that are indeed factual, and correcting ones that are not; (2) offering coverage that contributes in a meaniful way to assessing the WP:BALANCE of RS on a topic and (3) using language that can be repeated in neutral wikivoice. The dispute that directly gave rise to this filing is mostly about (2); the areas where I have the most cobcerns are with (2) and with the intersection of (1) and (3) - such as where these sources select only extreme viewpoints on transgender topics to be the basis of their coverage, adopt the language of these extreme viewpoints as the language of their coverage, but report what their informants say in an "accurate" (albeit biased) way.
 * You seem to be arguing that (2) and (3) are not policy-relevant aspects of reliability, but I have seen impacts on BALANCE and NPOV considered previously in this forum; the table of perennial sources expresses a number of such caveats (q.v., China Daily).. These most definitely are aspects of reliability as it is employed on Wikipedia, which is presumably the reason they came up this time as they have in prior discussions at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming that the viewpoints are "extreme" but you haven't really defined that term. What's your point here? That because WP:BALANCE mentions reliable sources, we must designate The Daily Telegraph as unreliable because otherwise articles would have to include anti-transgender opinions? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't build any straw goats. Wikipedia articles do, and must continue to, include anti-trans opinions as attributed opinions. I don't object to that at all. But Wikipedia should not present anti-trans opinions as fact. In the same logic as the China Daily caveats I noted above, we have repeatedly run into issues where the only "RS" publications making statements on certain points are ones that clearly oppose any expansion of transgender rights and transgender healthcare access (these three and also LBC, about which gnu57 filed earlier). These publications also, not coincidentally, oppose the global medical consensus on transgender healthcare, and they often present generally held mainstream understandings (e.g., that transgender identity is not in itself mental illness) as though they were subject to "two sides" and presenting FRINGE beliefs (e.g., those promoted by Genspect and the SEBGM) as though they were widely held by experts and practitioners.
 * This creates situations where only the partisan anti-trans sources bother to write about something, which leaves Wikipedia editors with real problems about NPOV and DUE. NPOV is particularly a problem, because certain editors will insist that only the biased language of the partisan sources can be used about "facts" that are only discussed in these sources. DUE and BALANCE are also problematic, because the criterion of the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources can be massively distorted by campaigns of exaggeration and one-sided coverage by these outlets. There simply are no mass-market publications, in the UK or elsewhere, that give mainstream WP:MEDRS perspectives on these issues the same "prominence" that these BIASEDSOURCES give to FRINGE perspectives. The result of this is that waves of editors arrive on Wikipedia prepared to right great wrongs by "correcting" Wikipedia articles to incorporate more of these activist anti-trans perspectives - and typically distort even what the anti-trans publications actually say in their own voice, making the statements put into wikivoice even more at odds with BALANCE and NPOV. (One clear example is this edit, which states in wikivoice that a controversy is related to "child castration erotica" when the source used does not make that connection, leaving it to readers to be outraged by the juxtaposition of the "facts" it has selected.)
 * A finding in this forum that these sources are generally reliable on transgender topics, without qualifications about their one-sided coverage and biased language (compared to higher-quality sources on these issues), will inevitably be weaponized in the same way a similar finding on China Daily would have been: the rationale for the caveats is exactly the same. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, you obviously care passionately about this issue, and I genuinely don't want to cause you any offense, but I don't think that your rhetorical question above is very helpful. I also don't appreciate being put in the position of being asked to defend the way in which Telegraph columnists write. But has there been recent controversy over the degree to which trans women are allowed to participate in sporting events? Yes, we both know that there has. The stuff about the voices of the parents of transgender children being 'rarely heard' - that's a relative descriptor, and a subjective opinion, not an objective fact - there's nothing to address there. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I for one don't have any difficulty distinguishing between the ongoing policy disputes about trans inclusion in sports and parental authority in education, on the one hand, and "gender ideology" or the Telegaph's statement about the relative access trans children and their parents have to media in the UK, on the other. The former are public policy controversies in which reliable sources document a variety of views; the latter are simply false claims The Telegraph makes in its own voice, in its news reporting. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this page, a finding that The Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues will be taken by editors as an invitation to incorporate the paper's biased language in wikivoice, to present its misleading characterizations as though they were just as plausible as statements in objectively better sources, and to make the inclusion of WP:FRINGE views DUE because The Telegraph has platformed them - particularly on issues picked up only by The Telegraph, The Times and the FRINGE sources. I admit my frustration that this outcome - an attempt at which was the clear motivation prompting this filing in the first place (see added note) - is not being taken seriously by a large number of editors, apparently unfamiliar with the GENSEX area, who seem to believe that The Telegraph is mostly (therefore "generally") reliable and that exceptions can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Literally the whole point of this filing was to generate a "generally reliable" ruling that could then he weaponised to promote the inclusion of views or "facts" that are only documented in these WP:BIASEDSOURCES (see note) Pretending that there is an ontological distinction between facts and opinions simply fails when a publication - and WP editors - are willing to select only the facts that promote the outlets' (or editors') opinions. This is demonstrably the case here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: this filing was a direct response by the filer after they proposed an RfC to add content to a medical article based on these specific sources. The filer became frustrated with the objections raised to their proposed sources (frustration seemingly evident here and here); these three filings appear to be an attempt to overcome objections to the sources, expressed by multiple editors at the RfC, and thereby to ensure the inclusion of the disputed content. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that you are now making accusations of bad faith editing on the part of the person who started this RfC. I know how strongly you feel about this, and while I disagree with your position, I can appreciate your frustration. Nevertheless, I think that you need to retract some of the things you have just said about the motivations of the person who started this RfC - you have crossed a line here. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  00:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck through the one passage of my previous comment which I can imagine being interpreted as implying bad faith editing, and have added a note with diffs to explain the context of these RfCs as best I can. No WP:ASPERSIONS are intended. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 News sources should not be downgraded because of editorial position. It is unneccessary anyway. Newspapers are already not reliable sources for biomed and commentary/analysis/opinion pages are not reliable either.I don't think btw that a news report that the BBC will hire more transexuals for diversity is an opinion piece or biomedical news. But even here, rs is never a conclusive reason for inclusion. Weight also applies, IOW if there is a story about the LGBTQA etc. community that is only covered in The Telegraph and ignored by most other reliable news sources, it generally should not be included. TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Scrap the RFC 1.  Trying to derive an overgeneralization   2. Trying to do so based on conformance to one side of a political debate.  3. Conformance to one side of a political debate is not "reliability".   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Bias on one topic has no bearing on the use of this newspaper as a source of factual information. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Eminently reliable. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC).
 * As with The Times, only an idiot would deny that the Torygraph's editors have a transphobic agenda. This is fixed via attribution and the normal process of editorial discretion, distinguishing between well-evidenced facts and the payload of hateful innuendo that routinely accompanies them. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - The Telegraph is a good-quality WP:NEWSORG and is reliable for factual reporting for all topics, including transgender topics. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. --Andreas JN 466 11:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X per Tamzin. Starting three simultaneous RfCs, taking a huge amount of space on a popular noticeboard, and a huge amount of volunteer time, in order to try to make a point in specific contexts, should result in a temporary topic ban from opening RfCs. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option X: Scrap these RfCs. The Telegraph, The Economist are reliable. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)