Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444

RfC: RFE/RL
Is the U.S. Government agency "RFE/RL" (AKA "Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty"): Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate


 * Previous discussions (as near as I can find - please feel free to edit with anything I missed): 2008, 2019, 2021.Chetsford (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See also 2021 RfC and 2022 discussion on Radio Free Asia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey (RFE/RL)

 * 4 While it's possible to find individual instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS, common sense would dictate that robust content analysis on an outlet's unreliability or propensity to publish falsehoods should be given more weight in source evaluation than a drive-by "according to X" mention. Following is a non-exhaustive (and easily expandable) list of 14 pieces of evidence documenting RFE/RL's unreliability:
 * a. RFE/RL has a documented history of broadcasting lies, rumors, and conspiracy theories
 * From 1950 to 1971, RFE/RL disseminated overt lies to its audience about something as basic as the identity of its editor. That year, an expose revealed that editorial decisions at RFE/RL were being secretly made by the CIA, something RFE/RL falsely denied over a period of decades.
 * Penn professor Kristen Ghodsee writes in The Baffler that - well after the CIA had divested itself of RFE/RL - executives continued managing the outlet to advance "a new genre of psychological and political warfare", that the outlet trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories, and reported "unsubstantiated rumors as fact".
 * b. RFE/RL has a documented history of intimidating -- up to and including firing -- its own staff to ensure reportage aligns with U.S. global ambitions
 * In 2023, Blankspot reported that multiple RFE/RL "journalists" who reported critically on Azerbaijan were fired during a period the U.S. was cozying up to the Azerbaijani government.
 * Also that year, Arzu Geybullayeva, in her blog, explained that her conversations with RFE/RL journalists found that they faced "systematic harassment" from management if they veered from the U.S. foreign policy line.
 * In 2018, the entire staff of the RFE/RL station in the Republic of Georgia protested the firing of their director and asserted "growing intimidation, unfair treatment and attacks from RFE/RL management" over the topics and tone of their reporting.
 * The GAO has documented that USAGM's own staff, generally -- including staff from RFE/RL, specifically -- have stated that management has meddled with editorial independence by taking "actions that did not align with USAGM’s firewall principles".
 * c. RFE/RL is both objectively and subjectively non-WP:INDEPENDENT and has been described as "propaganda" by RS:
 * According to Jennifer Grygiel, a media studies scholar at Syracuse University, under U.S. federal law, "RFE/RL is required to support the U.S. government abroad".
 * The objective fact of its structural non-independence has been subjectively confirmed by studies; an article in the scholarly journal UC Irvine Law Review in 2020 reported that RFE/RL operated by "not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policy".
 * In 2018, the New York Times implicitly described RFE/RL as propaganda, writing that it "used Facebook to target ads at United States citizens, in potential violation of longstanding laws meant to protect Americans from domestic propaganda".
 * Magda Stroínska, scholar of linguistics at McMaster University, describes RFE/RL as "propaganda" in her 2023 book My Life in Propaganda: A Memoir About Language and Totalitarian Regimes (no online copy available).
 * As reported by the Wall Street Journal, a variety of sources have criticized RFE/RL for distributing "foreign propaganda favorable to authoritarian regimes in Central Asia".
 * d. RFE/RL has no legal incentive to be accurate in its reporting on BLPs Under federal law, RFE/RL has the unique position of being absolutely "immune from civil liability". Even fully deprecated outlets like Gateway Pundit and Occupy Democrats have a pecuniary interest to get claims about living people roughly correct. RFE/RL, however, does not as it can never be sued.
 * e. RFE/RL is closely associated with deprecated outlets. RFE/RL is operated by the same controlling mind (U.S. Agency for Global Media) that oversees Radio y Television Marti, which has been deprecated by community consensus as a purveyor of falsehoods.
 * Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * a. This material relates to a very long time ago. I don't think we consider it a reliable source for geopolitical topics during the Cold War.
 * b. There are a bunch of legitimately concerning issues raised here, which point to some management failures, both in the USAGM senior management during the Trump period and in specific national teams at various time limited periods. Without trivialising these, including the labour disputes and internal politics involved, I don't think these sources suggest reliability issues. It suggests the potential for bias, with the recent Azerbaijan case being most concerning, but even that article explicitly says Despite the criticism towards editor Ilkin Mamamdov, it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.
 * c. These speak to bias not reliability. The tl;dr of the Conversation op ed is in the sub-heading: Major US outlets present mostly facts – that support American values It talks about the "firewall" eroding under Trump (the issue covered in b, but remaining mostly in place. The Irvine Law Review piece (same author) speaks about trustworthiness as a form of propaganda, i.e. building a reputation for honesty as a way of building soft power - again bias alongside reliability. Stroínska talks about listening to RFE while growing up, i.e. during the Cold War, so that's not relevant. The WSJ piece covers material on specific central Asian services under Trump that fits with the stuff in (b); in all of the cases the complaints (relating to bias not reliability) triggered action to correct them, so don't raise critical reliability issues.
 * d. This speaks to a theoretical issue rather than actual identified problems.
 * e. In previous RfCs, "association with deprecated outlets" has been dismissed as a factor. I think it's only significant if RFE is sourcing material from the deprecated outlet or using the same authors.
 * In short, a strong case for bias (especially at particular times for particular national services) but no reason to depart from general reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 No evidence of unreliability has been provided, and in my experience it is a generally reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Unanswerable - What is the context in which we are examining the source? What information are we citing it for, and in which WP article? Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4 Per Chetsford - the US state-owned anti-socialist propaganda structure is not, nor has it ever been, from a mission perspective, the equivalent of state-owned media such as BBC or CBC. CIA documentation refers to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty as two of the largest and most successful covert action projects in the U.S. effort to break the communist monopoly on news.  - We cannot possibly see this as a reliable or neutral source. Furthermore this non-reliability has been demonstrated via the recent use of antisemitic conspiracy theories within the Cuban broadcasting arm of the US propaganda apparatus. It's quite clear that, rather than being editorially independent if ideologically suspect, media outlets, these propaganda vehicles will say whatever they believe most likely to serve their mission of undermining US enemies. This is not what we should be basing an encyclopedia off of. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats talking about the original implementation, not the modern implementation that has no relationship to the original beyond the name. BilledMammal (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that quote that is not where the sentence ends (despite the period used here); it is specifically referring to the communist monopoly on news and information in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. - which was absolutely real. (p. 2) Relatedly, it's also highly relevant that this document is from 1969 (p. 11), over half a century ago during the Cold War. Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 the source received broad citations (below) and is generally respected (ex.: b. 2. above). While some arguments can be made about not citing during CIA control, those generally were not shown to be applicable after. While it could be called propaganda, it was not successfully shown to be propaganda in the sense that is relevant to reliability (see 2019, per @X1\), and was considered closer to BBC than to a propaganda outlet in the more contemporary sense of the word (see 2021, by @Shrike). In particular, internal conduct is generally concerning from a human but not generally from a reliability perspective, and I see no conflict of interest with the government that is not equal or worse compared to Al Jazeera Media Network, Deutsche Welle or many others. Regarding @Chetsfords last argument, I would like to mention that the discussion on USAGM, which was closed as SNOW, showed that there was broad consensus that USAGM is not a sign of unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I say only with the most respect to X1, etc.'s opinions from previous discussions you cited, but referencing the opinions of people (myself included) who have registered free Wikipedia accounts as sources to establish a site's reliability may be less convincing than referencing the research of RS to establish a site's reliability. "RFE/RL is reliable because HomicidalOstrich1987 said it's reliable" is maybe not the equivalent of "RFE/RL is reliable because the New York Times said it's reliable." Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1- I don’t see anything here that’s especially concerning except they were kind of dubious 50+ years ago. The evidence of them being propaganda in the current day is slim and a bunch of passing mentions. No actual evidence of incorrect information has been provided. Unless we want to mark all state owned broadcasters as generally unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - No current and concrete evidence of unreliability has been provided here, only characterizations that appear to be used to conflate what it was decades ago with what it is today. - Amigao (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4: RFE is clearly propaganda produced by a government. As such, it's not making even the careless attempt to be factual expected of WP:GUNREL sources. It's an active and knowing source of false info, which is prime deprecation territory. Loki (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Per others. Source appears to be well-respected and cited by other outlets. Deprecation or downgrade would not only be excessive, but outright unwarranted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4. While it is historically significant, it is still a propaganda outlet established by the CIA; see eg. - arguments above that "what it is today" has somehow shifted aren't really meaningful, since independent coverage doesn't actually document an improvement or provide any reason to think that it has changed from its propaganda roots. (It is obviously a given that statements from figures within RFE, the US government, or the CIA are not usable to establish reliability for WP:MANDY / WP:INDEPENDENT reasons.) And I'm not convinced by what WP:USEBYOTHERS exists, for several reasons. First, as Cone documents, the CIA (and RFE itself) went out of its way to manufacture signs of support for RFE in the US media; and many there, despite knowing that RFE was a CIA propaganda operation, collaborated with them to give it the veneer of legitimacy. There's no reason to think that this has stopped - statements from the people involved that amount to "we stopped after we got caught" are not persuasive. Second, ultimately, use by others isn't as convincing as outright coverage describing it as a propaganda outlet; the best way to establish reliability is with sources outright discussing a source's reliability, and in RFE's case they're pretty clear that it's a propaganda outlet rather than a legitimate news source. This is starkly distinct from the more legitimate government-funded news sources some people have tried to compare it to, which were open about their funding and which have in-depth independent coverage describing them as reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Stacey Cone article is about RFE in the 1950s and 60s, not its current form. RFE's current funding and financials are available in its annual Form 990, available here. - Amigao (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are numerous examples, I've provided, of more recent editorial indiscretions - as recent as 2023 - taken by RFE/RL, such as firing journalists who report factual information that doesn't align with U.S. government policy and its 2016-renewed statutory mandate to support the U.S. Government. Insofar as the fact RFE/RL now says it's not secretly controlled by the CIA, it made the same claim over a period of 25 years. Why is its current claim more believable than its last claim (which was proved an elaborate lie that it falsely reported thousands of times over a period of decades)? What changed that allows us to now take what its says at face value, no questions asked? Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided none regarding RFE's current funding to back up your claim. - Amigao (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I specifically said, nothing anyone has produced has demonstrated that their reputation has changed, which would of course require similar WP:SECONDARY coverage specifically describing a change with a clear-cut line we could use; you assert that that article does not apply to its current form, implying that you believe there is a clear line, but obviously their own 990 Form is useless for establishing something like that. If its assurances that it has changed have been taken seriously - and have actually altered its reputation - you should be able to produce secondary sources proving that. The fact that you had to resort to their own 990 form to argue it via WP:OR using WP:INVOLVED primary sources implies that secondary sources establishing its reputation has improved do not, in fact, exist and that it is therefore still as unreliable at best and more likely an active source of misinformation. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this (linked below) might get me partial credit regarding your request FortunateSons (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 Perhaps option 2 for non controversial stuff but for anything impacting US relations/policies, seems like propaganda push, even if no outright falsification. Not 4 because prefer 2/3 first and then see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2, u:Chetsford has provided compelling evidence that the source is biased and therefore may not be suitable for certain areas or to determine due weight. Editor discretion is definitely required. I'm reluctant to !vote 3 or 4 without any examples of deliberate and/or uncorrected falsehoods. Alaexis¿question? 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 ~ Per State Media Monitor it's parent oragnisation is considered "Independent State-Funded and State-Managed (ISFM)" -- which they describe as having a "medium" level of independence. Prior to '71 it should definitely be considered a propaganda broadcaster, but I don't see reason to do anything more than mention it's circumstances somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * State Media Monitor is, itself, questionably RS and certainly not INDEPENDENT. It began as a project at CEU but is now the singular writing of a man named Marius Dragomir who is a former RFE/RL employee (and whose qualification to engage in media studies analysis includes a B.A. degree).He is unquestionably wrong in his assertion it's "independent" since it is run by a single person who serves at the pleasure of the president of the day, unlike independent state broadcasters such as Deutsche Welle who are run by a multi-stakeholder board. Why he would make this clear error, one can only speculate. Chetsford (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 at worst. We classify Xinhua as option 2, even though [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately. It is already clear from the above discussion that RFE/RL is in a substantially better position than that.


 * Furthermore, I find the OP’s argument to be particularly unpersuasive. While I don’t doubt that there are more sources that could be used for this, the claims presented here appear to be a mixture of relevant, irrelevant, and cited to marginally reliable or unreliable sources. In addition, many of the arguments are not supported by the sources, particularly involving substantial overstatements of what the sources actually say, or missing substantial context from the same sources.


 * Point A bullet 1 is sourced to a long list of links to primary sources with little associated analysis. The claim that [pre-1972] editorial decisions at RFE/RL were being secretly made by the CIA is contradicted by the Radio Free Europe article, which states only that they received covert funds from the CIA during this period and that the CIA and US State Department “issued broad policy directives”, but that the policies were “determined through negotiation between them and RFE staff”. Regardless, as others have noted, this is more than 50 years ago and is irrelevant today.
 * In point A bullet 2, supposedly the source supports that executives continued managing the outlet to advance “a new genre of psychological and political warfare.” However, the source says that [one of the RFE directors] argued that the Radios should traffic in “a new genre of psychological and political warfare.” (emphasis added). In other words, it’s a statement about something that RFE was not doing at the time, and it’s about a single executive, not executives broadly. This is still a valid argument, but it is considerably weaker than the argument that is actually presented.
 * Point B bullet 2: the source is marked as unreliable by WP:UPSD.
 * Point B bullet 4: the source describes several instances in which firewall principles to preserve journalistic independence were not observed. It also documents the existence of those firewall principles and states that journalistic independence is in fact the policy.
 * Point C bullet 2: The claim that RFE does not always address facts unfavorable to U.S. policy does not logically support the broad conclusion that [t]he objective fact of its structural non-independence has been subjectively confirmed. (Also, what does it mean to appeal to subjective confirmation when arguing for an objective fact?) An argument can be made based on this source, as it discusses a concern (raised by the staff themselves), that a 2017 restructuring made them more susceptible to interference, but that is not the same thing. It does document interference, which is a valid criticism, saying that the policy of editorial independence was officially rescinded during the several months of Michael Pack’s tenure, but I would presume the policy is now reinstated given that the new CEO is one of the people who resigned at his appointment.
 * Point C bullet 3: Again, this does not logically follow. Laws are overbroad and catch unrelated conduct all the time. Describing the original purpose of a law does not imply that someone who may have violated it (and subsequently stopped the relevant conduct) was necessarily committing the type of action that the law was designed to prevent (let alone that it usually commits such actions, which is the implication from describing it as propaganda without qualification). Furthermore, the article implies that being state-funded is one of the relevant issues, which does not entail the organization being propaganda.
 * Point C bullet 5: According to the same source, the result of this was that RFE/RL said the Tajikistan service had "failed to live up to RFE/RL standards", and announced the resignations of both the Tajikstan branch director and the Central Asia regional director. In other words, it shows acknowledgement of error. It may be justified to consider specific regional RFE branches unreliable, such as this one (or the Azerbaijani one mentioned in one of the other points). It could also be justified to be more skeptical of branches of RFE/RL that appear to promote authoritarian regimes, but I doubt this is the majority of their overall content.
 * Point D: This statement is unsourced and I cannot find any secondary sources supporting it. Perhaps it is true, but when I narrow my search terms I get the text of specific laws such as this one that appear to discuss immunity only for the board of directors. While this could still be a relevant argument, I would presume the liability of the actual journalists to be the most important. It's certainly not the same thing as saying there is no legal incentive for the entire organization. On the other hand, perhaps it is a reference to sovereign immunity (assuming it both apples to RFE/RL and there is no relevant exception, neither of which I have information about), but then it would certainly not be in a unique position as it applies to every government agency, including highly reliable sources like the CDC.


 * RFE/RL has had instances or time periods of propagandizing, but e.g. they were also a key source of news during the Chernobyl disaster. They may also be one of a very small number of reliable news sources reporting from repressive countries, where at minimum they are likely to be more willing to report criticism that local sources cannot or will not publish. Sunrise (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "a very small number of reliable news sources reporting from repressive countries, where at minimum they are likely to be more willing to report criticism" While that's certainly RFE/RL's boilerplate in its press releases and marketing brochures, independent sources disagree:


 * Wall Street Journal (2019): "Indicating the depth of concern, a group of academics who specialize in Central Asia wrote in a letter published in March on the Open Democracy website: “Radio Ozodi [RFE/RL Tajik bureau], once the most credible source of news and information in the country, has become a mouthpiece for the deeply corrupt authoritarian government of Tajikistan’s President, Emomali Rahmon.”
 * Blankspot (2023): "After Azerbaijani journalist Turkhan Karimov was dismissed from his position as a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) Azerbaijani branch Azadliq Radiosu (Free Radio), at least one person was hired who is accused of spreading Azerbaijani regime propaganda. The new recruit, Mammadsharif Alakhbarov, has worked as a reporter and producer for Azerbaijani regime media for the past 15 years... There, he has been an editor for films that glorify the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and praise President Ilham Aliyev ... In addition to reactions from journalists who have worked for Azadliq Radiosu, the Council of Europe’s media protection body, together with the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), has also responded. On August 8th, they demanded answers from RFE/RL regarding the working conditions for journalists."


 * ... among numerous other examples, etc. Chetsford (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This reply is simply a repetition of two of the same examples from the original comment. I have already said my list is non-exhaustive, but these two are similarly unpersuasive:


 * Point 1 (point C bullet 5 in OP): I already commented on this in my previous reply (one of my bullet points was misnumbered, which I have now corrected). Beyond the points I already mentioned, an additional issue is that the source is prominently reporting criticism coming from the US State Department. In other words, in this example the alleged source of the bias and unwillingness to report criticism is actually working to address bias and ensure that critical material is reported. The quote provided here is presented as supplementary to the US government's role and is placed further down in the article. USAGM is also specifically described as an independent agency.
 * Point 2 (point B bullet 1 in OP): Instead of supporting the idea that independent sources disagree, this source directly supports the claim in question. Specifically, it says that RFE/RL is considered one of the most prominent sources of independent news in otherwise authoritarian countries like Azerbaijan. The source even specifically applies the statement to Azerbaijan, a country where the local branch is currently under substantial scrutiny for not being sufficiently critical. The source goes on to add concrete evidence, saying that Despite the criticism towards [the editor], it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.


 * --Sunrise (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2. In summary, the opening rationale does not adequately distinguish between bias and unreliability, and the cited evidence is largely of the former and not much of the latter. A source can be reliable for facts, while being biased in its selection of facts. Indeed, the most effective propaganda is that which is composed entirely of factual statements, arranged in a biased fashion. Imagine, for example, that a source published an article every time a Russian committed a crime, and never published an article about an American committing a crime. The reader may be influenced to form a negative opinion of Russians, and yet the source could still be a reliable source of information about those crimes. Some more detailed commentary on the given rationale:
 * Point A focuses on Cold War era activity. For content published by this source in that era, an additional consideration is warranted. But it's not clear how relevant this is to the modern organisation.
 * Point B is short on details of actual unreliability. The first bullet point amounts to an accusation of bias. OK, but did they publish false information or not? The second bullet point quotes "systematic harassment", but this phrase does not appear in the source (which is a blog - not exactly the pinnacle of reliability itself). The third bullet point says the protest was "over the topics and tone of their reporting" but the source doesn't support that.
 * Point C is about bias. not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policy is compatible with how I described bias working in practice: the selective omission of facts does not mean the selected facts are not still facts.
 * Point D is dubious. Even if RFE/RL enjoyed immunity in the US, they have operations in less friendly regimes, where presumably there is no such immunity. The reference to BLPs is spurious.
 * Point E is guilt by association. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 (2 at very worst). Evidence has been presented for bias. No evidence has been presented for unreliability, and some of the evidence presented for bias actually affirms reliability. (See my response to Chetsford above for the reasoning - perhaps I should have posted that here and not as a reply in which case feel free to move it.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - should be attributed as we would any statement from any government agency, and no this is not analogous to the BBC. NPR is analogous to the BBC, this however is material the government is publishing to advance its interests to a foreign audience. And that should be, at the very least, attributed.  nableezy  - 19:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Philosophically, this seems like a reasonable solution when attribution is crafted as "according to the U.S. Government's RFE/RL" as opposed to "according to RFE/RL". The very name "Radio Free Europe", presented without context, is violative of our NPOV policy, specifically WP:ADVOCACY, by falsely presenting this is (a) a European operation, (b) free of state influence. If Italy, under Mussolini, had a state-run news agency called "the Most Accurate Sources Available" it would be a little ridiculous if we simply weaved into WP "according to the Most Accurate Sources Available ..." anytime we referenced it. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to agree here -- attributing something to "Radio Free Europe" is pretty misleading (one is inclined to suspect that this might have been part of the idea behind naming it that). jp×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - as long as Al-Jazzera is considered GREL it would be absurd to give RFE/RL less than that.Vegan416 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1ish Bias isn't teh same as being unreliable. None of the evidence provided strongly points to it not being generally reliable on the stuff it reports on, that said it seems that there is certainly cause for concern around it not reporting on certain thing or omission of facts—blindlynx 23:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, 2 at worst. As far as bias goes, I find worse things in NYT. At worst, it's guilty of a bias of omission on certain topics. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Radio Free Europe has clear editorial independence unlike Xinhua and Russia Today. Are we going to deprecate NPR and the BBC now because they're state media too? All sources have biases, so that itself is not a sufficient argument for unreliability, only if the bias becomes so pervasive it directly impacts the factuality of the source. Curbon7 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Are we going to deprecate NPR and the BBC now because they're state media too?" NPR and BBC have insulating, non-partisan governance boards. RFE/RL is run by a unitary political appointee. NPR and BBC don't have legal mandates to advance the cause of their host governments. RFE/RL does (as detailed in my !vote). NPR and BBC don't have a host of RS calling them propaganda and questioning their accuracy. RFE/RL does. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see why some participants have !voted for option 2, but no one has explained sufficiently why it should be fully deprecated, a status that not even Xinhua and Anadolu Agency and Russia Today have. Of course one should scrutinize an article when it is in an area the US government has a vested interest in (WP:COMMONSENSE) or in some other areas identified above like Azerbaijan post-2023, but it seems generally reliable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1. This is one of the best and most informative sources on subjects related to Russia, for example. The source of funding does not really matter per WP:V. What matters is the reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and it has a very good reputation. An explicit attribution to specific author (rather than RFE/RL) may be needed for opinions, as usual. And no, this is not a propaganda source by any reasonable account; it is generally not even a "biased source". For comparison, Voice of America is more biased, less informative and less professional, but even that would be "Option 1" I think. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be objective, the quality of this source may depend on the country it covers, and even on specific program director. For example, Masha Gessen was terrible as a director of Russian program, even though she is a very good journalist. She was replaced by a much better director. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 per Sunrise and My very best wishes. It is an important sources for Wikipedia, because it often attempts to do RS-quality reporting in regions that are extremely hostile to it. Also, other RS trust it enough to rely on its reporting. I also don't see any compelling evidence of unreliability presented here, and too many arguments about theoretical bias that don't even touch on its actual reporting. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2. How many angels can manufacture consent on the head of a pin? I really don't think the precise number matters -- it's preposterous to imagine that we have only two options here, with one being "they're biased which means that their claims are factually incorrect" and the other being "their claims are factually correct which means they aren't biased". Neither of these claims really make any sense. Can't we just put up a post-it note somewhere saying that they're somewhat biased on the issue and move on with our lives? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Compared with other RSs, RFE/RL does not seem out of line with journalistic output. Dramatic restructuring in the last few decades has given it editorial independence from the State Department, for example. While its focus may be on region-specific news to region-specific audiences, the quality of journalistic output itself is not at a low level, and should not be treated as such. Furthermore, there is very widespread skepticism here on Wikipedia, meaning instances of it being cited are very frequently scrutinized as though it were a low-quality source. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 In my experience RFE/RL is a solid source for Russia and Ukraine, particularly when compared with other sources that focus on Russia. There is some discussion in the media and scholarly literature on to what extent it is biased, as there should be, but it does not appear to rise to the level of making it unreliable. Its biases seem similar to the biases you would find in western sources that are widely regarded as reliable, such as The New York Times or The Washington Post. RFE/RL also does report some things critical of Ukraine and the West/the US, such as this or this. However, I do not have experience with all of RFE/RLs various branches across different countries. It may be possible some specific ones should be used with more caution, but even then I'm doubtful they would be "generally unreliable". --Tristario (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Especially in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, their coverage has been on-the-ground and in-depth. I note the repeated mentions of Central Asia, where I do not usually edit. Maybe that is the reason for the difference in perspective. If problems are being noted there specifically, then perhaps a narrower RfC may be in order. If Trump takes office again, perhaps another RfC may be in order. Right here, right now, we are using it extensively in Ukraine without any complaint from anyone afaik until now. Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2: There is some WP:USEBYOTHERS as evidence of reliability in some cases, but also detailed descriptions of editorial lapses and concerns over autonomy (not just bias) for the modern iterations of RFE/RL in some cases (e.g. OP's point C and the WSJ on Tajikistan). At a minimum, attribution should be given in controversial topics. Additional caution should be applied to areas involving the US government. Anything from the old Cold War era RFE/RL should be generally unreliable. — MarkH21talk 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 : the journalistic output of RFE/RL is in line with the standards of many other publicly-funded international outlets that cover foreign-related news (BBC, France24, Deutsche Welle) which have been scrutinized here at RSN for many years. I believe it fully complies with our standards laid out at WP:RS, which is why I think it should be regarded as reliable. As for Central Asia, as someone who has studied Central Asian energy policy outside of Wikipedia, I can say with confidence that I have never witnessed any bias towards any such authoritarian regimes as mentioned by other editors, so I have to disagree with that assessment. I have to agree with that another RfC may be in order if the editorial independence of RFE/RL is, in the future, affected by future US administrations, in which case attribution may become in order. Pilaz (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 When all is said and done, we’re talking about a state-sponsored media source explicitly chartered to further selected narratives. Also per Chetsford's well-researched stuff.


 * In its own words, its mission is . Substitute another adjective, such as “conservative”, “progressive”, “socialist”, etc. and the issue should become clear (unless one ascribes magical or quasi-sacred symbolism to the ideal of democracy instead of merely viewing it soberly as a vehicle to guarantee human rights).


 * I don’t believe that an outward appearance of checking the boxes of “journalistic standards” is relevant here. That checklist was designed for independent media and designed to differentiate between e.g. The Guardian and The Daily Beast; using it as a yardstick is completely irrelevant when the source is ipso facto strongly biased, as here, when the entire purpose of the outlet is to further narratives. Having had a modicum of experience in an analogous sector regarding standards compliance, let me reiterate that not everything can be taken at face value.


 * In the remote corners of this encyclopedia, there still exist a number of articles and places containing statements from the 2000s that, if an editor made them today in favor of Russia or China, would result in a noticeboard discussion, and rightly so, A few such pages are on my low-priority list. There are surely others out there.


 * Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RFE/RL)

 * A recent previous RfC dealt with the Radio y Television Marti (AGM) of which RFE/RL is one of its sibling brands. I'm GF pinging participants in that discussion since this is closely related: User:Toa Nidhiki05, User:FortunateSons, User:Cortador, User:Aquillion, User:NightHeron, User:Simonm223, User:Alaexis, User:Boynamedsue, User:LokiTheLiar. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to tag those that participated in the SNOW-discussion as well? I think that discussion may be relevant here too (unless I missed that you did, in which case I apologise). :) I think it might be beneficial to link to that discussion too, as the SNOW-consensus seemed to be that there can be significant difference between the sources, particularly that their reliability is not necessarily related. FortunateSons (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding participants from the relevant USAGM discussion if not mentioned above:@Amigao, @Red-tailed hawk and @Hemiauchenia FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that WP:RADIOFREEASIA is already listed as a result of a previous discussion.


 * Selection of use by others:
 * 1) https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221002-sergey-kiriyenko-so-called-viceroy-of-the-donbas-helped-launch-putin-s-career
 * 2) https://time.com/5444612/ukraine-kateryna-handziuk-acid-attack-protest/
 * 3) https://www.businessinsider.com/video-russia-soldiers-using-ukraine-pows-as-human-shields-report-2023-12
 * 4) https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/worldreports/world.93/hsw.pdf
 * 5) https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/43964/flooding-in-azerbaijan
 * 6) https://www.nature.com/articles/345567b0.pdf
 * 7) https://kyivindependent.com/investigative-stories-from-ukraine-parliament-still-closed-to-journalists-raising-transparency-concerns/
 * 8) https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video-ukraine-appears-show-russians-121936734.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAApRwJTfaPCfSe5Cgh2IWJ-dgRMeHrWoUOu4emZZR8QMVYEcN17h_ZbyYfNdzj1nvaI8hdwjY8uXyaqwvMFQeiN-bYiJK1pV9D5vvPAK4ddxEN0GzQSM9UEIpRNqxxHzVcDLadz5R8JHYL2cR7bTcZaGxy_QAHnIiTYa-jMu9YMn (from insider)
 * 9) https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/death-toll-rises-to-55-from-kyrgyz-tajik-border-clashes/2230340
 * 10) https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1166583/belgian-air-force-shares-video-of-russian-jet-intercept-over-baltic-sea
 * 11) https://www.newsweek.com/eu-chief-calls-more-ammo-ukraine-top-chinese-diplomat-urges-peace-1782525
 * 12) https://theweek.com/news/world-news/russia/955795/was-cyberattack-ukraine-precursor-russia-invasion
 * 13) https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2012/11/02/ukraines-prison-prone-prime-ministers/
 * 14) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302167295/armed-men-take-police-hq-in-eastern-ukraine-city
 * 15) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/6/who-is-nobel-peace-prize-winner-narges
 * 16) https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/15/politics/who-is-rinat-akhmetshin/index.html
 * 17) https://socialsciences.ucla.edu/2017/08/29/are-islamic-state-recruits-more-street-gang-members-than-zealots/
 * 18) https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/25/putin-losing-ukraine-war-cannot-explain-to-russia-why-says-zelensky/
 * 19) https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-woman-speaks-after-release-russian-captivity-same/story?id=95670746
 * 20) https://thehill.com/policy/international/3484858-heres-who-russia-has-punished-for-speaking-out-against-the-war-in-ukraine/
 * 21) Positive reception: https://www.politico.eu/article/radio-free-europe-returns-to-fight-fake-news/

(Note that no specific selection regarding RS or timeline was made, primarily focussing on getting a diverse list of sourcing. Feedback and additions are welcome)

FortunateSons (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A list of raw links with no context is too onerous to sift through to determine their veracity, however, on a cursory audit, many of these are themselves non-RS (e.g. Newsweek), or are other U.S. Government websites (e.g. NASA), or are reporting on RFE/RL rather than sourcing RFE/RL (e.g. HRW). Chetsford (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to filter them more thoroughly (based on what criteria?), but for example NASA is broadly cited. FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that one completely unrelated organization cited another completely unrelated organization run by the same government once doesn’t mean anything. Dronebogus (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andalou is indeed deprecated, or at least discouraged. Ditto Newsweek. The rest are generally considered reliable with the usual caveats about context, except that if that Forbes is a blog, special considerations may apply. Some are better than others. For what it is worth, Ukraine war articles use RFE/RL extensively and nobody in that topic area ever complained about it. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether or not you consider NASA to be an RS (possible considered the high number of citations) and if you think that they are interdependent enough not to count for USEBYOTHERS. Both positions are valid IMO, but it also doesn’t really matter, because the goal is to show broad use by (preferably respected) sources. FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, it’s just that’s a pretty poor example since, although NASA is respected, it’s both insufficiently independent and not known for being a barometer of where we put our editorial Overton window. Basically what I’m saying is science and politics have different standards of reliability on WP; NASA isn’t a source on the latter so it can’t be used to judge the reliability of a political outlet. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I was trying to also establish reliability for “generic” reporting (read: non-contentious), but I understand that those two may be too “close” (despite the older organisational structure being likely applicable here, per the discussion I linked above) for comfort. FortunateSons (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?

Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)

 * Option 3, and I'd vote 4 if I thought deprecating in a single topic area made sense. The Telegraph has lied repeatedly about trans issues. In one case, it promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week, and even when the hoax was proven false they didn't retract or correct any of it. In fact, in the final article in the series it seems to double down on its dubious claim despite it directly being proven false. Also the second article in that series makes several other similar hoax claims that are completely and totally unsourced.
 * This wasn't a one-off incident either. Here are several more examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues:
 * 1. They regularly ask anti-trans interest groups for comment while calling them subject-matter experts or trying to disguise their affiliation. See here (James Esses is not and has never been a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group), here (the idea that the UN is violating international law with a tweet is pretty transparently ridiculous, and yet they have the person saying that positioned as an expert), and here (anti-trans interest group Sex Matters is positioned as a women's rights group) but there are many many other examples.
 * 2. They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic. And they're not even consistent on this, this is a factual question they don't appear to have a single position on either way. One way or the other they must be saying something false.
 * 3. Here they try very hard to cast doubt on what reading between the lines appears to be a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on. Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.
 * I'm not just going based off direct evidence either: there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well. I have even more evidence here because it's frankly unending. Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did they promote the litter boxes in schools thing? I can't find it in the articles you linked. The only mention I could find in those articles was them saying it was a hoax? tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? Endwise (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that according to the article on the hoax, it's not just about literal litter boxes but any accommodation for students that identify as animals. Sorry for the lack of clarity, but I partly blame it on the article title and the lead being so strongly focused on this particular iteration of the hoax, when the rest of the article has followed the myth as it's actually evolved. Loki (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no mention of a litter box. The viewpoint seems to be that any mention of a child identifying as an animal is an example of the litterbox hoax.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressing a few different points discussed here:
 * As noted above, the statement that the Telegraph "promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax" is misleading at best.
 * The Telegraph does not mention that litter boxes were involved in this incident. In fact, this article places the incident in its broader context and denies the hoax:
 * The Guardian and PinkNews articles do not show that the story was "directly proven false". The central question here is whether a student truly had a feline identity. These articles do not disprove that. They state that an investigation exonerated the behavior of the teacher and school (reprimanding the students who mocked the idea of a feline identity).
 * In general, pointing to an article from an otherwise reliable source and saying "This story resembles other incidents that were hoaxes, therefore this is also false and an instance of the hoax" is not a sound argument. Consider the example of snuff films. The Wikipedia page says that snuff films are an urban legend because there are videos of people being murdered, but none of them have been sold for profit. But if such a film were to emerge and be sold for profit, and then be reported on by a reliable source, we wouldn't say "This is clearly an example of the snuff film hoax, therefore we should deprecate the source that reported it".
 * The Telegraph article describes James Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people. Esses is a counsellor according to this article, which calls him a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists".
 * The characterization of this article as "whining" does not appear to be a good-faith summary of the article. The IOC paper's critics raise several issues that, if true, are significant and problematic: small sample size, self-selection bias, failure to control for important variables like hormone treatment and body fat percentage, etc. It is not "whining" to raise these concerns.
 * The "even more evidence" linked further down is largely unconvincing in terms of reliability issues. Stories are described as "extremely dodgy", "dubious", and "suspicious", but with no explanation for why this is so. Without further elaboration, this strikes me as precisely what the IOC study's critics are being accused of—complaining about articles with an unfavorable perspective—but from the opposite direction.
 * Astaire (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps important to point out that seemingly the only mention of litterboxes wre this in The Telegraph (search query: "telegraph litterboxes lgbtq") is this article, about the school denying the rumors. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See above: the litter boxes in schools hoax is about any accommodation, not just litter boxes, and this is clear if you read the examples and not just the lead. Loki (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the way it is framed in the article or how a reasonable person would understand it.-Boynamedsue (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is? The article uses all the following as examples of the hoax:
 * In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.
 * In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".
 * Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.
 * "Litter boxes" specifically is the central example of the hoax but it's not the only way it can manifest. Loki (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's assume any claim of accomodations for animal-identifying students is a hoax (even though you have been unable to show that despite being pressed on this issue by many people).
 * Can you provide some actual examples of The Telegraph saying that students identifying as cats receive accomodations? More specifically, some kind of quote? Accommodation is a broad term; a student could self-ID as a variety of things and yet not need individualized accomodations from the school. If your claim is that The Telegraph falsely promoted the idea that students received accomodations for identifying as animals, you should be able to a) point to specific examples of accomodations and b) quote The Telegraph saying that students received those particular accomodations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles repeatedly claim that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. That sounds like an accommodation to me, right? Loki (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Negative rights (such as punishing other students) are not an "accommodation" in the same way as positive rights (such as providing litter boxes). And the litter box hoax article contains no similar stories where students or school officials were punished for refusing to respect any feline identities. This story does not slide into the "litter box hoax" framework as neatly as you want it to. Astaire (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This said it better than I could. Even if the claim that is false in every case, that's not even what LokiTheLiar is saying The Telegraph said. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Astaire Okay then, so, was the story true?
 * Even if you disagree that it's an example of this particular hoax, it's still definitely false reporting every day for a week, right? IMO this "which hoax is it" stuff is a red herring: it sounds compelling but doesn't actually make the Telegraph any more reliable that they promoted a false claim that was merely similar to a well-known hoax rather than an actual example of it. And again, never corrected nor retracted said false claim. And tried to imply it was true even in an article directly mentioning the proof that it was false. Loki (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just now entering the discussion, so I may have missed this, but...what exactly did the Telegraph say that was "proven false"? I'm having a hard time finding it. Pecopteris (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They claimed multiple times that a student identified as an animal, and that a teacher strongly insulted another student who questioned this identification. None of this is true according to the school itself. It's a misinterpretation of a (real) recording, on which the idea of identifying as an animal was brought up rhetorically to insult a trans student. Loki (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim you're disputing is that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a specific classmate's identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not true at all. The student was reprimanded for attacking another student's very real trans identity using the metaphor of animal identity. Loki (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I'm getting this straight, @Chess and @LokiTheLiar.
 * A student at a school (call them student #1) identified as trans. Another student (student #2) objected in some way to acknowledging student #1's trans identity, and rhetorically brought up animal identity...i.e. "if we respect student #1's identity, what's next, does that mean we have to respect animal identity, too?" Then, the teacher reprimanded student #2, and told student #2, essentially, "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that, and it's insensitive and wrong to not respect animal identity."
 * But the Telegraph missed the "rhetorically" part, and instead inaccurately reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal.
 * Obviously I am paraphrasing, but do I have the gist correct? Want to make sure I understand the objections before I weigh in on the survey. Thanks. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One small misunderstanding; the Telegraph never reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal; they only reported that students #2 and #3 were reprimanded for not accepting classmate #1 identifying as an animal, which is true. BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Close, but the teacher didn't say "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that". She just said, essentially, "you're being very disrespectful and you need to stop".
 * BilledMammal above is incorrect, here's the direct quote of what they said: A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation is also saying that the prime minister resigned. Loki (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep using The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation, but the equivalent hypothetical would be The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
 * In addition, at the time of publication, no one knew whether the classmate actually identified as a cat or not, and as such there was clearly no issue with them not taking a stance on whether the classmate did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk)
 * If you really insist, I will use the longer example, because it clearly doesn't make a lick of difference. You cannot make a false claim not false or not a claim by adding more subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A question to all participants. Where can we see a full, accurate and reliable transcript of this video, or even better the full unedited video itself? Vegan416 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The best option is the Daily Mail's one which has captions but is edited to have scary music on top of it. WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated for a reason though, so I'd take anything not substantiated by another source with a grain of salt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've placed a transcript here if you don't want to sit through the Daily Mail vid:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Void_if_removed/sandbox/Catgate_transcript Void if removed (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. I think the teacher was less clear than you're making it out to be, but you have the gist of it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two examples referring to extreme non-litter tray accommodations in our article, but the point is that they were not true. Hence the word "hoax". The Telegraph does not make any claim of accommodations, merely stating that children were called despicable for refusing to identify a classmate (who it does not specify is real or hypothetical) as a cat.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Loki, please stop moving this down to discussion; you don't get to present your arguments and deny those who disagree with those arguments the opportunity to reject them in context.
 * As a general rule, if you are going to hat or move something, the highest level reply included within the hatting or moving should be one you made. For example, you could move 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC), but not 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC). BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it incredible that you won't let me move a discussion that's several pages long down to the Discussion section where it clearly belongs.
 * Let me ping an uninvolved admin to settle this. @ScottishFinnishRadish, twice now I have tried to move this incredibly long thread responding to my !vote to the Discussion section. Twice now BilledMammal has brought it back up, and this time they're accusing me of attempting to eke out some sort of advantage by doing this. Could you please settle where it belongs? Loki (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Loki, I don’t see you moving your own rebuttals to others !votes down to discussion.
 * As I said, if you want to shorten this, do so from your own replies; allow the immediate rebuttals to stand, and move your replies to those rebuttals, and all conversation from those replies, down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I put comments I expect are going to lead to long threads in the discussion section in the first place. But I do and have moved other threads many times without regard to whether or not it helps "my side". Honestly the idea you think this is partisan is baffling and is indicative of a huge WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.
 * I'm not moving just my comments down because that wouldn't help. There are five responses to my !vote, counting this thread, and one of them is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. If you want I can move the whole thread including the !vote down and re-vote, but that would make several other people's !votes not make a lot of sense in context so I'd rather not do that either.
 * (Why did you put this in the Survey section, by the way? It's clearly not a !vote, you could have put it in Discussion and pinged me.) Loki (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IMHO, we might as well leave everything as-is and just stop making the wall of text bigger. If anyone has more to say about this thread, just put it in the discussion section and ping everyone from this thread. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The general rule, when refactoring a discussion you are involved in, is don't refactor in a way that gives you the last word.
 * As for just moving down just your comments, and the responses to your comments, it would reduce the length of the responses from ~2600 to ~800. For context, the length of your !vote is ~800. If your concern is length, I'm not sure how removing ~1800 words wouldn't help.
 * No objection to moving this discussion over refactoring down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At least 3 editors have independently brought the !vote out of the moving/collapsing now. I hope that we can take that as consensus. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given editors are taking Loki's claims at face value, apparently without reading this - probably because it is collapsed - I'm uncollapsing it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that and have collapsed it again. The biggest chunks of rebuttal text, including Chess's (the most cited!), are outside of this !vote. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See Daveosaurus' !vote. Regardless, there is no basis for this collapse under WP:TPO; please stop. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was caused by this !vote being collapsed due to the overwhelming amount of Option 1 arguments others have referenced, but whatever. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3. The Telegraph is generally unreliable for topics involving transgender people, matters, etc. There is extensive evidence that the Telegraph's coverage of trans topics defies relevant academic consensus around the reality of trans experience and existence and favors sensationalist parroting of rumors without contextualizing the content as unreliable rumors. Secondary sources, including scholarly pieces published by academic presses Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury Publishing as well as conventional journalism, have reported on this unreliability. This unreliability cannot be reduced to a "bias" that editors are expected to filter out when citing the coverage. A "bias" is an implied frown or favor; it's not a failure to get facts right or a disregard for academic consensus. The Telegraph's coverage entails the latter. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. It was extensively proven that The Telegraph constantly propagates blatant lies and misinformation regarding transgender topics. Skyshifter   talk  03:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 We're not quite at Option 4 yet on trans topics in particular, but we're rapidly approaching that with The Telegraphs seeming turn toward Daily Mail esque misinformation when it comes to topics involving transgender people. Actively promoting extreme fringe people without including their pseudoscience position in their articles, making up incidents and conversations that didn't actually occur in events involving trans people and gender identity and then trying to pass things off as "well, the things we said could be true and may still be true" is some high level gaslighting nonsense from a supposed mainstream news source. Like I said, we're not quite at Option 4 yet, but I feel like we're teetering on a knife's edge and one more extreme case of this sort from the paper would push it over. Silver  seren C 03:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The evidence provided here by Loki distorts the articles and mainly hinges on The Telegraph not taking a pro-trans viewpoint, same as the last RfC. The Telegraph never said students have litterboxes in schools, did proper journalistic due-diligence on the possibly cat-identifying student, quoting opposing views on a subject is standard journalism, and saying that "trans women aren't biological women" doesn't make it unreliable. A drug that the manufacturer states could be harmful to breastfeeding babies does in fact make chestmilk less safe and a self-selected study of 69 people does not conclusively prove that trans women are worse at sports than cis women.
 * To go point-by-point (starting with the 0th), The Telegraph never promoted the "litterboxes in schools" hoax. The articles cited by claimed students identified as animals, not that they requested accommodation in the form of litterboxes. The first claim is much more believable than the second, and was based on a recorded conversation in which a teacher at Rye College asserted a student was offended because their identity as a cat was questioned.
 * Specifically, this controversy was because a student was reprimanded for not accepting that a classmate of theirs could identify as a cat. This student recorded the conversation and leaked it to the media. The contents of the conversation itself implied that a classmate *did* identify as a cat, which Pink News acknowledged. In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?” And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story.  While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said: Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way” in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals.
 * It's bizarre to claim that The Telegraph knowingly spread false information when the contents of the recording the story was based on indicated that a student did identify as a cat, and the school did not even dispute the truthfulness of the allegation. How were they supposed to know that this was false when they published the story?
 * If Loki wants to refute my point that The Telegraph said that animal-identifying students are getting litterboxes in schools, merely provide a quote from the article saying so.
 * In response to Loki's first point, that quoting anti-transgender activist groups makes The Telegraph unreliable, this is standard journalistic practice. A newspaper giving both sides of the story does not make it unreliable. Loki's standard, that The Telegraph should not quote any anti-trans activists when covering transgender-related topics, is untenable. The Telegraph does not misrepresent Esses' affiliation by describing him as a therapist, only as a spokesperson for a group of therapists.
 * In more detail, James Esses is a spokesperson for Thoughtful Therapists. He is passionate about this issue because he was thrown out of his master's program for holding gender-critical beliefs.  One does not have to be a therapist to be an activist about therapy. Should the Amazon Labor Union be deplatformed because it's chief organizer, Chris Smalls, was fired from his job at Amazon?
 * In the first article cited by Loki, the article accurately describes Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people The article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology.
 * The second article provides a quote saying that the tweet Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity. contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. While Loki describes this as pretty transparently ridiculous, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females  Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.
 * The third article says that Sex Matters is a women's rights group. They advocate for what they see as women's rights, which they don't view as including trans women. At best, this demonstrates that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical viewpoint since they're adopting the preferred verbiage of such. This isn't a factual distortion and isn't very WP:FRINGE given that the UN says women's rights refer to ciswomen's rights.
 * On Loki's 2nd point, the statement that trans women are women or that trans men are men is a litmus test for agreement with the transgender movement. It's a commonly-held political position, one held by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and the Education Secretary of the UK . Proposing to designate The Telegraph as unreliable on that basis alone is illogical since by that logic we should get rid of Reem Alsalem. But the sources Loki provided don't even authoritatively state that trans women aren't women.
 * Loki's first source says that It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards. It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women.
 * Loki's second source says that a 13-year-old socially transitioned without the mother of such knowing. The Cass Review, a systemic review of evidence in the field of transgender medicine, points out the same concerns on page 160, point 12.16, and says that socially transitioning young girls could reinforce feelings of gender incongruence. Saying that a socially transitioned 13-year-old might not really be trans is not saying that "trans women are not women" and that is not asserted in the article.
 * Loki's third source does dispute that trans women are women, but appears to be an outside opinion piece from Richard Garside, who "is the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies". That's not an official policy of the newspaper, and per WP:OPINION, opinion pieces already have a lower standard of reliability.
 * Loki's fourth source says that there is a distinction between biological sex and gender, then acknowledges that students can change gender, i.e. be transgender.
 * It is telling that Loki did not provide any quotes from these articles despite the claim that they all "alleged directly" this claim. If they make these direct allegations, one should be able to provide quotes for the ones I have refuted.
 * For Loki's third point, the first article just reports that transgender women can produce milk to feed babies and an NHS trust says that this is equivalent to normal breastmilk. Then it discusses how the patient leaflet for the drug used to facilitate this, Motilium, says Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. [It] should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary. I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph?
 * The second article for Loki's third point quotes Dr. Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, saying that the study compared unathletic trans women to athletic cis women. It had a self-selected participant base of 69 volunteers responding to a social media advertisement. The claim is that the study is poor-quality research funded to advance a viewpoint. Loki says that the second article is anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what WP:MEDRS tells us to do. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.
 * Please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective. Future comments should be more specific because otherwise they are unfalsifiable generalities Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'll add on, that in your linked page you acknowledge that your problem with Thoughtful Therapists isn't that it's being inaccurately described, but that The Telegraph uses biased phrasing in favour of it. They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".
 * Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, it can be and is both. Loki (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this position paper states the following on it's last page:
 * See also United Nations special rapporteur.Flounder fillet (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, since I wrote this already, here's The Telegraph making a similar mistake and the BBCs better coverage of the same situation. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chess I think that this response, despite being long, doesn't have a lot of substance. A couple of quick points:
 * First, the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't necessarily about litter boxes specifically but any accommodation. A teacher defending an animal identity and punishing other students for questioning it certainly is an accommodation and the Telegraph repeatedly made this claim in those articles. And regardless of whether it was an example of the hoax, the fact of the matter is that it is definitely and unambiguously false, and the Telegraph repeated it over and over again and never retracted or corrected it.
 * Second, I specifically do not think that quoting anti-trans activist groups makes the Telegraph unreliable per se. What I'm objecting to is hiding the nature of those anti-trans activist groups, and also quoting them repeatedly as experts, and usually without any reference to pro-trans activist groups at all.
 * Third, I agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false. But it's clearly misleading because it makes it seem that he is a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is a reliable professional organization when neither is true: he got kicked out of his program for bigotry of the sort that he is being quoted to repeat, and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans activist group which clearly does not require you to be any sort of psychotherapy professional to be a member given that James Esses is a member. Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading. It would be like describing Andrew Wakefield as "a well-known doctor": not technically false but clearly misleading.
 * Fourth, as Flounder fillet said that's Reem Alsalem's own personal opinion and is honestly not directly related here anyway. The claim being made here is ridiculous no matter what Reem Alsalem thinks. The UN cannot violate international law with a tweet.
 * Fifth, see Talk:Trans_woman/Definitions for an exhaustive list of sources on the matter of trans women being women. TL;DR no matter how much you think it's gender ideology or whatever, saying that trans women are men is very much not in keeping with reliable sources. I think your close interpretation of these sources to deny that they are calling trans women men or trans men women is pretty clearly untrue. As briefly as I can manage: in the first article it's the headline and the first sentence among other times, second article calls the transmasculine subject of the article a girl repeatedly, the fourth article calls people binding their breasts "girls". The third article you concede but say is opinion is marked in the URL as news, and not marked as opinion in any way. So it's either news, or the Telegraph is mixing opinion and news, which would make it unreliable generally and not just for trans issues. Being from a writer that does not usually write for the Telegraph does not make something opinion.
 * Sixth, for my third point you're trying to make us focus on the trees and ignore the forest. (Honestly, I think that's the whole reply, but especially on this point.) Yeah if you ignore that the NHS is officially saying a medical statement you can make it look dubious. You can also make a whole study look dubious if you quote one doctor and a bunch of non-experts. Here at Wikipedia, we wouldn't say that a single doctor's professional opinion is even WP:MEDRS but for the Telegraph it's apparently better than a study. Loki (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim that the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't literally about litter boxes is both untrue and irrelevant to the point, which is that The Telegraph did their journalist due diligence. They had a recording where a) the teacher said a student identified as a cat, and b) the school didn't deny that in their initial statement. Only a week later did the school deny the story after intense media pressure, but no one other than the school ever denied a student ID'd as a cat. If your claim is WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL, show why the fact-checking of the source was deficient, because even reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, and the most evidence you have the Telegraph made a mistake is the school's denial after the article came out.
 * On your 2nd and 3rd points, the purpose of designating a source as unreliable is to prevent using it in articles. Citing a reliable source for what it implies (and does not directly support) can already be challenged and removed from articles per WP:Verifiability. Since you acknowledge that the false claims you've drawn from the Telegraph are only misleading implications, designating the Telegraph as WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL is redundant as those claims already cannot be cited. Please give directly supported claims from The Telegraph that are false and could be cited under our reliability policies if the source was declared WP:GREL.
 * On your 4th point we will have to agree to disagree over whether United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Reem Alsalem is a WP:FRINGE perspective on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, since you acknowledge she agrees with the claims Women's Declaration International made against the tweet.
 * On your 5th point, I've explained how articles 1, 2, and 4 are saying that the definition of "trans women" is too wide, not that "trans women =/= women". I'm not going to go in circles on whether taking the position "trans women are women" is a good litmus test to apply to reliable sources, we've both written our views. Article 3 is either a single example of an opinion miscategorized as a news piece (which I believe happened) or it's a regular news article and the only factual error you've pointed out is it saying trans women aren't women.
 * Your sixth point doesn't explain how the Telegraph was wrong in saying the Motilium patient leaflet contradicts the NHS guidance nor does it address why the Telegraph was wrong in saying that the IOC study had a small sample size and a discrepancy in fitness between the trans athletes and the cis athletes. If the Telegraph isn't wrong, why does quoting these views make the Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On your 5th point, I've explained how articles 1, 2, and 4 are saying that the definition of "trans women" is too wide, not that "trans women =/= women". I'm not going to go in circles on whether taking the position "trans women are women" is a good litmus test to apply to reliable sources, we've both written our views. Article 3 is either a single example of an opinion miscategorized as a news piece (which I believe happened) or it's a regular news article and the only factual error you've pointed out is it saying trans women aren't women.
 * Your sixth point doesn't explain how the Telegraph was wrong in saying the Motilium patient leaflet contradicts the NHS guidance nor does it address why the Telegraph was wrong in saying that the IOC study had a small sample size and a discrepancy in fitness between the trans athletes and the cis athletes. If the Telegraph isn't wrong, why does quoting these views make the Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1, although I'm open to Option 2. So far, I don't think any of the arguments made stand up to Chess's rebuttal statement. Looking forward to seeing a counter-rebuttal. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 There is clearly no presence of a litter box hoax in the linked articles. The Telegraph made a largely accurate report of that situation. The rest of the complaint is simply a protest about the political positions of the Telegraph. Sources have political positions, we can only reject them when they publish false content. The milk thing, again, they don't say anything false, and I am deeply uncomfortable with wikipedia mandating holding a political position that transmen are men and transwomen are women as a barrier for RS. Obviously, the Telegraph has a strong bias when it discusses trans topics, and that is something we should be aware of, just as we should when we read something from the Pink News. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. See my reply above disputing many of the arguments made for lowering reliability. A good argument has been made for bias, but a much weaker argument has been made for reliability concerns. Astaire (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Biased source for this topic, but clearly reliable (as demonstrated by Chess above). Pavlor (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1: In summary, practically of Loki’s third-party sources of the Telegraph amounts to bias, not of unreliability. If sources take a position of X or Y on certain controversial areas, not is not indicative of reliability in those areas. I believe the only instances of true factually errors came from the two IPSO complaints. However, this “evidence” undermines the OP’s argument that the Telegraph is unreliable since the IPSO noted how quickly and responsibly the Telegraph fixed their errors. I brought up how the Telegraph is a noted newspaper of record. This is not to say newspapers can’t make mistakes. Rather, it signifies that for some time—over 150 years in this case—the newspaper has been a beacon of peak journalistic performance. It would take mountains of solid evidence to overturn the Telegraph’s status of a newspaper of record. Such evidence has not been presented. This is a clear slippery-slope RfC that has the potential to overturn many of our other most ironclad RSs—such as the Times and the Economist—into sources equivalent to tabloid media. What a shame that would be. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Strong evidence has been presented that Telegraph is not generally reliable on this topic, with its extreme bias leading it to report in misleading way. But I do not yet see enough evidence to consider it generally unreliable on this topic. My view is that this is a contentious topic where we should only use the very best of sources and/or triangulate reliable but biased sources, and so the presumption should be against using the Telegraph anyway, so I'd be comfortable with option 3, but I think we need a stronger evidence base from other reliable sources before designating it generally unreliable, let alone deprecating it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I'm disappointed to see the opening vote on this RfC repeat several points that were rebutted in the RFCBEFORE discussion. has done a good job of addressing them. Many of the points seem to fundamentally conflate bias and reliability. We are told there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Wikipedia considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has alleged directly that trans women are men. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be unreliable. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically false. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are generally reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Wikipedia. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think something you say here is the key to all the recent RfC's on news sources and trans issues. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.--Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1: In the discussion earlier I was leaning towards “additional considerations” and I'm not personally a fan of the Telegraph’s spin so I wouldn't lose sleep over Option 2, but I have found the comments about the difference between bias and unreliability persuasive.


 * Most of the provided evidence hinges on a misrepresentation of the "cat" story. The Telegraph categorically did not promote the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth:




 * The only aspect of the story that actually seems in any doubt is as to whether there actually was a child in the school who did identify as a cat, or whether this was a hypothetical thrown up in the classroom discussion, and it was ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the recorded conversation - and subsequently denied by the school. Everything else is AFAICT pretty factually reported, albeit biased, and audio of the incident was widely available so anyone can confirm this. The "cat-identification" portion is almost irrelevant in the context of the actual discussion, in which a teacher tells a class of students that there are three human sexes, and labels a child despicable for disagreeing as well as suggesting they should leave the school. These are reported accurately, eg.:






 * All of this is true and verifiable and acknowledged by the school:




 * So again - the only aspect of the story that is exaggerated is that there was an actual child literally identifying as a cat in that class, which does not seem to be true, but is also - despite the headlines - a minor aspect of the story and nothing to do with the "litter box" hoax at all. Dismissing it as such serves to obscure than the vast majority of the story - as reported elsewhere - was nothing to do with the cat-identification and actually to do with poor handling of a sensitive subject, and it was this handling which prompted a snap inspection. The fact that media across the spectrum focused on the specific detail of the cat virtually to the exclusion of the entire rest of the story, and that politicians and pundits made much hay with that, is a universal failure and merely representative of silly season to my mind. Additionally, the "rebuttal" is misrepresented - as the Guardian makes clear, the Ofsted inspection did not look at this specific incident, and since the school has already conceded it happened and took action, saying this is "proven false" is, frankly, a misrepresentation. The inspection found that, whatever the failures in this case, they were not systemic.


 * Some comments about the other points.


 * We decide whether a group is "anti-trans" based on how reliable sources refer to them. Deciding a priori that a group is “anti-trans” and that any source that does not denigrate them as such is “unreliable” is begging the question, and POV. Not only that, this sort of reasoning will act like a ratchet, steadily removing all sources except those that adhere to a preconceived POV. This is a rare, non-fallacious slippery slope. Sex Matters are a registered charity, and if reliable sources refer to them as “women’s rights group” then that is how Wikipedia should refer to them, or at the most present different opinionated labels in an attempt to balance a divisive subject.  Deciding the Telegraph is factually unreliable for not strongly espousing a particular subjective POV is to elevate one specific POV to the level of fact, and a blanket decision at the source reliability level on that basis will inevitably entrench that POV across the entirety of Wikipedia, and lend weight to further RFCs argued on the same grounds. This is a concerning move indeed.


 * Irrespective of whether that makes a source unreliable, the complaints about calling trans women "men" don't seem to be supported by the supplied links.


 * On the breastfeeding story - where is a factual error here? And the opener strongly overstates the status of “a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on” in criticising The Telegraph:


 * The letter leaked to Policy Exchange is here, and no-one disputes its veracity. The letter responds to questions raised over the use of the phrase “human milk”, which they defend as intended to be non-gender biased, as part of their policy on “Perinatal Care for Trans and Non-Binary People”. Then in a specific response to a question which uses the unpleasant phrase “male secretions” they make the claim that induced lactation produces milk “comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby”. They do not outright say this specifically applies to trans women, but this is implied by the five citations. The first four relate solely to lactation induction in females, where such a claim may well be true (though one is a very limited two-person pilot study, and another is a “La Leche League” info page that just references the same citations).


 * However the fifth citation makes it clear they are applying the same language to trans women. This references a single case study, with a single trans woman participant, with absolutely no sample control. That is, a trans woman, with a partner who had given birth and was at that time breastfeeding - and initially expressing milk too. The participant would deliver samples they themselves had allegedly produced at home - with no supervision or observation - for testing, and the results were limited.








 * So based on a totally uncontrolled and unverified sample size of one, obtained under an honour system with no source verification, with inadequate volumes and incomplete nutritional testing, it is wishful thinking to consider that a “medical fact”. This is an atrocious standard of evidence, and an NHS Trust shoehorning this in as part of a response to a policy query is, frankly, bizarre.


 * What is however misleading in The Telegraph's reporting is that they segue from talking about induced lactation in trans women to this claim:




 * What they don't make clear in the source is this was referring to a trans man. Now, they don't outright say anything false, but arguably by omission let an ill-informed reader assume they're still talking about trans women, so I think this is marginal. But an obfuscated claim like this does not come close to making them "generally unreliable", rather exactly the sort of biased elision that editors need to be wary of with any biased source.


 * The objection here seems yet again that the Telegraph reported the story at all, not that it was wrong or in any significant way unreliable. And even if it were, when would we cite this article?


 * I have no doubt that The Telegraph have their own interest in focusing on and generating such inflammatory stories - but they aren't notably unreliable more than any other biased source IMO. They are biased in what stories they choose to report on and how they choose to present them and what they choose to leave out, but virtually none of what's been presented here amounts to false information. That this cherry-picked handful of coverage spanning years is supposedly the strongest evidence, I find highly unpersuasive. Void if removed (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just since it is relevant - the BBC complaints unit has this week upheld a complaint of inaccuracy about it's own reporting of the story mentioned in point 3, which confirms that this is not at all a "medical fact", and actually concurs with the telegraph reporting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/the-context-bbc-news-channel-19-february-2024 Void if removed (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * • Option 3.  The Telegraph has gone far beyond bias and into unreliability, from the above RFCbefore they advocate for conversion therapy. From  we have the quote "A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat." from which it is clear that the telegraph says someone at the school identifies as a cat. From  we have constant misgendering of a child (honestly I can't remember an article where they respect the gender of a trans child) and the quote "citing the most comprehensive study of the impact of binders to date, which found that more than 97 per cent of adults who use them suffer health problems as a result." which seems to be mentioning  where the most 5 reported health problems were backpain (53.8%), overheating (53.5%), chest pain (48.8%), shortness of breath(46.6%) and itchiness (44.9%). I think one could get similar health problems (in terms of severity) from people who consistently wear high heals and possibly at a higher frequency. Another point people seem to be bringing up is that it is normal (and best practice) for newspapers to bring activists or campaigners from both sides on any issue, whilst true the telegraph doesn't do this. They rarely balance with a campaigner or activist from stonewall or mermaids or any number of local groups, somehow they always manage to bring in an activist from Safe Sex Matter, Thoughtful Therapists, Safe Schools alliance, Protect and Teach and more. They also promote the myth that most children with gender dysphoria will desist and are in fact gay in some kind (one example) a myth based on studies that assume any gender nonconformity is the same as gender dysphoria and based on outdated definitions.  LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — LunaHasArrived (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The claim that anybody has ever identified as a cat appears to be culture war bullshit. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/01/30/how-furries-got-swept-up-in-anti-trans-litter-box-rumors/
 * The Telegraph has reported Birbalsingh as a factual source on this thoroughly-refuted bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To add more evidence in this article There is the claim
 * "Feminist campaign groups criticised..."
 * The telegraph then goes on to add comment from Sex matters and transgender trend.
 * In this peice Sex matters explicitly says "sex matters is not a feminist organisation"
 * I could find no claims by transgender trend on the matter.
 * This is alongside feminist groups generally saying that these kind of groups are not feminist and their views are incongruent with feminism
 * In this article The telegraph describes one Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull As a feminist campaigner. Similar to sex matters this is a label she actively rejects and feminists do not label her as.
 * These instances of consistently misusing the "feminist" label are lying and misinformation. This is a case where bias has gone in to unreliability. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sex Matters one is a good point, but as for KJKM, that article is from 2019, and the earliest source we have for her not being a feminist is from 2021. So that easily could just be a timing issue. Loki (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Transgender Trend's founder, Stephanie Davies-Arai: "She explains how feminism informs what she does at Transgender Trend..."
 * Sex Matters' About Us page:
 * Maya Forstater: "I am also a mother and a feminist..."
 * Helen Joyce: "I’m a feminist campaigner..."
 * Laura Pascal: "An active feminist..."
 * Beck Laxton: "A lifelong feminist..."
 * Naomi Cunningham: blogs as Legal Feminist
 * It's really not a smoking gun that groups comprised of feminists, attending feminist conferences, and making arguments about women's rights, should be described as feminists, even if those groups seek to distance themselves from being labelled as capital-F feminists. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the above is disputed. We do not say that filia (the feminist conference mentioned above) is feminist in wikivoice, neither do we with Maya Forstater or Helen Joyce. Being generous 2-5 out of 11 "members of the team" are feminist, this is more akin to has some feminist members not is comprised of feminists. These groups aren't comprised of feminists, do not attend feminist conferences (remember this is plural, multiple years of filia would not count) and are criticised for misusing women's rights and platforming with people who seek to remove those rights. This along with not wanting to be referred to as feminist paints a picture that it is inaccurate to refer to this group as a feminist campiaign group.
 * Transgender trend clearly fails to meet feminist campaign group if the only evidence is the founder talking to filia in a podcast during lockdown. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I stopped searching after 5 of them. Here’s another, Jo Bartosch: “Before her career in journalism, she was chair of Chelt Fems, which was one of the largest and most active feminist groups in south-west England.”
 * Feminism has no hard edges or rigorous membership criteria, and Wikipedia is not the gatekeeper of who is a feminist and who isn’t. This is like a Labour Party politician being called a socialist: not necessarily a term they would call themselves, but not wholly wrong, still well within the loose confines of what the word can mean, and certainly not a lie. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This may be true for an individual, it does not make it true for a group. Whilst one may be able to argue about members of Sex matters being feminists, that is a very different story to saying the group is a feminist campaign group. I'm glad you have conceded that transgender trends is by no means a feminist campaign group. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it’s reasonable to not call them a feminist group based on self-identification. I also think it’s reasonable to call them a feminist group based on the duck test. Either can be argued, neither is a lie. Transgender Trend is exactly the same. The word “feminist” isn’t as black & white as you want it to be, and it’s a huge reach to claim that The Telegraph using it in this way makes them unreliable about the topic at hand, which isn’t feminism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it’s reasonable to not call them a feminist group based on self-identification. I also think it’s reasonable to call them a feminist group based on the duck test. Either can be argued, neither is a lie. Transgender Trend is exactly the same. The word “feminist” isn’t as black & white as you want it to be, and it’s a huge reach to claim that The Telegraph using it in this way makes them unreliable about the topic at hand, which isn’t feminism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3. The deciding factor for me is that The Telegraph has presented fringe voices as authoritative, and at times promoted pseudoscience. That pushes it from being biased towards being unreliable. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Since my preferred answer "Do not make such over-generalizations It should be case by case, and in the context of the text which it is being used to support" is not on the list. And in majority of those cases, the answer is "yes". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is also good.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 This is the Telegraphs leader column today. Meanwhile, the Telegraphs columnists include the notorious "gender-critical" activist Julie Bindel "Trans activists and their allies can be the most horrendous tyrants" plus 30 or more anti-trans rants. Look at that page and tell me "this is a reliable source".  Oh and then there's this and this and this and this (which appears to be false) and this is all in the last few weeks. Seriously, if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to delete ’s comment of 19:33? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not being funny, but all of those are just opinions you disagree with, none of it is factually wrong. Your vote here is so far from our policies, I'm not sure if it should even be counted by the closer.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "None of it is factually wrong". Even if you were correct, which you aren't, do you think it shows that the newspaper can be trusted on the topic? It clearly can't. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well thats the rub isnt it. Our sourcing policies do not require us as editors to personally trust the sources, only that they fulfil the criteria for reliability we have set. I distrust the Telegraph because its a mouthpiece for Tory scumbags, but thats not actually against any of our policies. If only it were. Per Chess, pretty much all the rest of the evidence to me shows bias, but not unreliability (as we have defined it), so I am going to have to regretfully go with option 1. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think there is factual inaccuracy, could you say what it is? Whether I like what it writes (and I usually don't) doesn't make any odds at all.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You make the point for us. It's an opinion. A fringe one, that screams out of every single word of coverage on the topic. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That last one misrepresents the findings of the Cass review, on top of whatever else is going on there. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS already recommends against using normally reliable news sources to explain complicated medical studies; what does designating The Telegraph as unreliable add here? Even so, I dispute that The Telegraph is inaccurate. The Telegraph's article says Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.
 * Page 32, paragraph 78 of the Cass Review itself says: Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.
 * The Cass Review also says on page 164 that Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.
 * It's not a misrepresentation of the Cass Review to say socially transitioning could cause feelings of gender incongruence, and there should be clinical involvement in the decision-making process instead of a child unilaterally deciding to socially transition without any advice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. This is not the first time, nor the most severe such incident. See this and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/under-25s-trans-care-must-be-slower-says-cass-report/ (visible URL intentional), where the Telegraph states that the report recommends some sort of restrictions on GAC for under-25s and not just for minors. This is false. Additionally, Telegraph coverage of the Cass Review caused problems at the Cass Review article, at the talk page of which the idea for this RfC started. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. This is not the first time, nor the most severe such incident. See this and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/under-25s-trans-care-must-be-slower-says-cass-report/ (visible URL intentional), where the Telegraph states that the report recommends some sort of restrictions on GAC for under-25s and not just for minors. This is false. Additionally, Telegraph coverage of the Cass Review caused problems at the Cass Review article, at the talk page of which the idea for this RfC started. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is not to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how.
 * If you refuse to say what you believe what the findings of the Cass Review are, it's impossible for other editors to engage with your point and weigh it.
 * Deciding to criticize two unrelated articles doesn't affect the reliability of the first article, it just confuses the discussion.
 * But to address your point anyways, WP:RSHEADLINE says that headlines aren't reliable, so the "visible URL" containing the headline isn't citable in articles anyways (this is the only specific part of the article you bothered to say is unreliable). Additionally, those two articles were published the day before the official release of the report and the day of the report being released respectively. WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news, especially when summarizing a newly-released scientific publication. If you look into what the Cass Review says, on page 224, it says that 17 year olds are getting aged out of their childhood transgender care providers and that a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition.
 * That's the only other inaccuracy I could guess you were referring to; and it did recommend that under 25s not be subject to sudden changes in their care. This fits with the word "slow" which can refer to taking a longer time to complete an action (in this case the action being a transition to adult services).
 * A source having minor errors in an ambiguous situation during a breaking news story doesn't make it unreliable; it's already possible to exclude those two articles under WP:RSBREAKING without designating the Telegraph as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the sake of not looking insane, I would like to state for the record that I agree with your understanding of the stance taken by the Cass Review final report. Anyways, with the two articles not being relevant to this discussion due to WP:RSBREAKING, this discussion about a nitpick is now meaningless and I concede and drop my point for the sake of not making this RfC swell faster than it needs to. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In your last 4 links, do you plan on including a quote or any specific context about what is false about those stories? That would be useful in conjunction with reliable sources that describe the specific claims as being false.
 * Just dumping a bunch of links and asserting that it appears to be false without any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough when you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm merely pointing out that a newspaper, which under its own byline (let alone its choice of bigotry in its opinion columns) posts wildly biased material, is probably not the best one to trust on the topic. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you've conceded that your evidence does not show that The Telegraph publishes false information. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth, please. There is evidence in this discussion that the DT posts misinformation on the topic. And if you think that a newspaper that posts stuff like Bindel's, or like this on a regular basis (did you look at the link I provided?) can in any way be reliable on trans issues is simply delusional.  Yes, the DT does - very occasionally - print more balanced articles on the subject, but it's very noticeable that they usually still come with an agenda. Judging a newspaper on its own material - and that's material printed under its own byline as well as by its motley collection of "columnists" is hardly a massive leap. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for collecting the links. You've got a stronger stomach than I have to be able to wade through that much bile. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3: Their reporting simply doesn't show the respect for facts and getting things right that is required. We've seen plenty of examples of them getting things very wrong; I don't think anyone's pointed to them getting things right, though. Like, it's easy to dismiss their coverage as opinion pieces, but if that's all they have, then they're only really sources for opinion anyway (WP:RSSOPINION), which means they're generally unreliable for actual facts. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 is the sensible answer. I don't see how we can depreciate the whole paper at the moment, although it may come to that later depending on who ends up owning it. Option 2 is arguable but I fear that we would be forever arguing over the details of the "additional considerations" and it's just not worth it. Option 1 is entirely untenable. It is undisputable that they have published stories that were substantially untrue, where even casual enquiry would have revealed them to be untrue prior to publication. That is enough to make them unReliable. It doesn't matter whether those untrue stories were published knowingly in bad faith. I'm OK with them remaining Reliable on other topics provided that we broadly construe trans issues to include all the strange and disingenuous ways in which people talk about trans people without actually saying "trans people". So, for example, the ridiculous "litter box" bullshit hoax (I struggle to see any way that it could have been published in good faith unless the entire editorial team was kicked in the head by a horse!) would have to fall within our definition of "trans issues". We recognise that when people say "lizard people" or "global banking elites" they quite often mean Jews. Similarly, we need to recognise that when the Telegraph, and others, say "children who identify as animals", or whatever nonsense codephrase they come up with next, they are talking about trans people in an intentionally obfuscated way and that is fundamentally unReliable writing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Unfortunately based on the evidence here, I think the Telegraph is undoubtedly biased, but bias is explicitly not something that means unreliable. The Daily Mail had a long long history of factual inaccuracies (not to mention just making things up) before we got to the stage where we said it was an unreliable publication. We are not even close to that level of unreliability with the Telegraph. Who knows, there may be plenty of examples of the Telegraphs actual unreliability (as opposed to editorial bias) but I am not seeing them in the discussion or various links above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 During the last RfC on this, which concluded last year, editors were told there was substantial evidence of problems with this source, but the supposed evidence for unreliability wasn't presented. Looking at the supposed evidence this time indicates that it still doesn't exist. From above... "even when the hoax was proven"; it wasn't... there was a later inspection leading to a report that, as The Guardian source states, "does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals". The PinkNews source quotes the same recording that The Telegraph used: "how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?" Further analysis of this isn't worth my time – it's a silly story, but not a "hoax". "James Esses is not and has never been a therapist"; the source doesn't say that he is. "Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group"; the source describes it as "concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people", which is probably a different perspective on the same thing. Same with "Sex Matters". "the UN..."; I don't see what's factually inaccurate. I stopped there. As last time (and the frequency of the attempts is becoming tedious), there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3. My biggest hesitation is the lack of third party reliable sources labelling the Telegraph as misleading on transgender coverage. I could not support option 4 without that. But it is plainly obvious by the examples provided that the Telegraph is incredibly biased on transgender coverage, and I would prefer basically any other news source when citing sources on topics. The Telegraph routinely flaunts basic journalistic practice, engages in bad faith, and hides context regularly. I don't want them used as a source for this topic. I do not find the arguments for option one convincing - The Telegraph being biased may not immediately mean a source is unreliable, but they regularly post hoaxes as facts. -- Carlp941 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3: Apart from the brief comment I'm unsure how users can acknowledge the clear bias in the Telegraph while voting for option 1 instead of 2, I'll briefly note the evidence I've presented in the RFCBEFORE:
 * The Telegraph has been recognizably homophobic since the 70s, was protested even then based on that fact, and supported section 28.
 * Chess's, lengthy comment, much like the Telegraph, somehow ignores the context that Thoughtful therapists (formerly the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Association") is a pro-conversion therapy group (see gender exploratory therapy). Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs, he was fired because his employer asked him to stop publicly campaigning against bans on conversion therapy using their organization's name - because he holds the WP:FRINGE view that conversion therapy does not include gender identity change efforts.
 * Here is them running an entire article misgendering a transgender teenager and complaining that the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to. In that same article, they use a euphemism for conversion therapy and misrepresent medical information to claim it's a beneficial treatment.
 * Here I presented multiple academic papers criticizing the Telegraph's bias, homophobia, and transphobia.
 * Here I analyzed the Telegraph's reporting on James Esses of "Thoughtful Therapists" and showed that the WP:DAILYMAIL covered it first with less bias and misrepresentation - unlike the Telegraph, the DailyMail 1) actually provided a definition of conversion therapy 2) noted that Esses tried to convince transgender children they weren't and 3) campaigned against bans on conversion therapy for trans kids
 * Chess continues to insist that the Telegraph's reporting of the Cass Review was correct: I previously noted the issues, which the Cass Review noted in its own FAQ, chief of which is the Telegraph said the Review called for slower transitions for those under 25, when the review explicitly did not comment on trans healthcare for those over 18 ...
 * TLDR: FFS they platform WP:QUACKS on trans topics all the time (specifically the conversion therapy promoting kind), say patently untrue shit, and academia has agreed they have an anti-LGBT bias for decades. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted some editors seem to think "journalistic objectivity" means every single article about trans people should quote transphobic quacks (without even getting to the fact the Telegraph disproportionately gives weight to the latter)... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what incident between James Esses and "his employer" you're referring to, because as I said in my original comment, he was expelled from his master's degree before he could become a therapist. Digging through your comment, I can assume you mean his volunteer position at Childline, something I have not brought up at this RfC.
 * Calling my comment a WP:Wall of text (you linked WP:WOT which I assume was accidental) and coming up with fictitious scenarios in which I am wrong undermines everything you have said, especially since your entire !vote is cited to other comments you've made (which makes it difficult to verify the sources) instead of reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting your original comment, Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chess You're right, I made some mistake, so for the record:
 * Chess claims James Esses was expelled from his masters for his GC beliefs, neglecting to mention the GC belief in question was the FRINGE GC view on conversion therapy.
 * I did mean to link WP:Wall of text instead of WP:WOT - your comment was over 1,600 words.
 * My point still stands that you left out the context that he was fired for advocating a form of conversion therapy. You have not addressed any of my other points, only half addressed that one, and those diffs have the sources in them - you are free to click them. If you have more to address, please do so in the discussion section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't simultaneously criticize me for posting a WP:Wall of text and say I didn't include enough context. Virtually all of the sources summarize his views as "gender-critical" including the two you linked, so that's an accurate summary.  The UK College of Psychotherapists also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy.  How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a chilling effect on psychotherapy.  You also have a Wikipedia article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.
 * Anyways, you have now added some more context on James Esses' beliefs. How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? You haven't even attempted to answer that question beyond pointing to a single article from the Daily Mail that supposedly is more balanced than The Telegraph. Your reasoning is seemingly that for The Telegraph to be more reliable than the Daily Mail, every article ever published in The Telegraph must be of a higher quality than any article ever published by the Daily Mail in its history. That's not how reliability works; a stopped clock is right twice a day. A deprecated source putting out a really good article now and then doesn't reduce the quality of an article from a reliable source.
 * I have also said above that regardless of Esses' personal beliefs, quoting him in a news story doesn't mean that The Telegraph endorses his views. They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. Even if James Esses' is unreliable, that doesn't make The Telegraph unreliable for quoting him. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid Ah yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids. - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya WP:FRINGE.
 * We can agree to disagree on whether or not it impugns a source's reliability to publish more blatantly biased pieces that omit information than the WP:DAILYMAIL. You think that's an excusable issue, I think it's a profound indicator of unreliability.
 * There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy. FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on gender exploratory therapy in the article conversion therapy... And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
 * How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? - In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline.
 * They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. - I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU, and nowhere does this MOU say that "gender exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy. Here's the PDF: It calls out ‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’ by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy.
 * You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.
 * Meanwhile, the Mother Jones article says nowhere in its own voice that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. It quotes Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project as saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position.
 * If we rank up the evidence, we have someone from the Trevor Project and an inconclusive talk page discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy saying gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. On the other hand, we have the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy and the interim version of a systemic review saying otherwise. Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? Because the burden of proof for WP:FRINGE isn't that it's just an alternative theory. You have to show that his views are pseudoscientific quackery, not just controversial, because as you said, a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.
 * And I'm unsure if you're interpreting this article correctly. It clearly says As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there and later The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns" The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. Either way, his views played a part, so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like  end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece.
 * And the Daily Mail is unreliable for facts, so the Daily Mail asserting that James Esses said something isn't proof he said that thing. You need to provide a corroborating source to show that what is said in that article is true if you want people to believe it. Even so, the best two aspects of the Daily Mail are that Esses supposedly treated kids with gender exploratory therapy (which has nothing to do with him leaving Childline) and that the Daily Mail gave specific ages.
 * If you're asserting that the Telegraph misled readers by omitting these facts, how was the reader misled? What false belief would someone have by reading the Telegraph that they wouldn't get by reading the Daily Mail? Because it's not just about saying that the Daily Mail was more interesting to read, you have to show that the Telegraph was less reliable because it omitted those facts. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU - 1) they withdrew their signature after signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids
 * You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy. - I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.
 * Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? - WP:FRINGE applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read conversion therapy, which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the SAMHSA criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) NARTH (yes, that NARTH) endorses it...
 * how was the reader misled? Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often . Here's a big issue: Either way, his views played a part - nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (immaterial of what position was advocated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident. OK, so how is that evidence of WP:FRINGE? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. Specifically, that At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of WP:FRINGE views. I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors.
 * Anyways, according to WP:RSPWP, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, because anyone can edit it and so you're just citing the result of a discussion on a talk page elsewhere on this site. That is why I have repeatedly asked for the underlying sources for your claims, given how contentious this topic is. Despite your repeated assertions that basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", you have only been able to provide that article, the Trevor Project, and now SAMHSA (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO.
 * The reason why I asked how was the reader misled? is because the goal of the WP:Reliable sources policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Wikipedia.
 * All of the stuff above matters only to the extent it impacts The Telegraph's reliability, which is why I asked to see a connection between the Telegraph euphemizing conversion therapy and an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? Keep in mind that WP:MEDPOP already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it.
 * So far, you've only provided one claim you say is false that could be cited to The Telegraph. It's that The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on WP:Verifiability already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that directly supports the claim made, "directly support" meaning the information is present explicitly in the source.
 * It's already impossible to cite the implication you're referring to in an article, so what harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chess, I think you've posed the most important question. "What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?" That really cuts to the heart of the matter. Pecopteris (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a discussion section so the survey section doesn't get bloated. If you want to leave a few hundred more words in reply to this, please use it - otherwise I won't respond and make this even more difficult for the poor closer.
 * 2) Since you refuse to click the links at Gender exploratory therapy: WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and the USPATH say its conversion therapy SAMHSA and the Trevor Project says its conversion therapy. These academic RS say its conversion therapy. Here's one that notes it's been described as conversion therapy and notes there is no evidence whatsoever it is useful or effective. Here are more RS calling it conversion therapy. Here is the Southern Poverty Law Center calling it conversion therapy. And here is a reliable source noting  NARTH (the original pro conversion therapy lobbying group) endorses "exploratory" therapy and works with those pushing it .
 * 3) Here's a Telegraph piece saying the UKCP dropped out because of their support for "exploratory" therapy and this led to calls to change the board. Funny enough, it repeats the false claim wrt the Cass Review that "The former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found that no one under 25 should be rushed into changing gender." (so your breakingnews argument from earlier doesn't apply)
 * 4) I should have said The telegraph implies outright says the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy - they say Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds
 * 5) Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? - See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning").
 * 6) What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? - we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, if there was a good reason, but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this brief as you asked. The only specific use of the Telegraph you say is preventable by designating unreliability is point 4) as point 3) falls under WP:MEDPOP and I've argued 4) above.
 * Re: point 6), evaluating it on a case-by-case basis would be WP:MREL (use sometimes), not WP:GUNREL (use almost never), contradicting your !vote. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.
 * A local consensus arrived at by derailing discussion onto the FRINGE board trying and failing to establish UKCP and NHS England's service specification and the landmark Cass Review as FRINGE.
 * Please stop misusing WP:FRINGE in this hyperbolic way. It is exhausting. None of what you're complaining about is FRINGE. The Cass Review explicitly highlighted the weaponisation of discourse around "exploratory therapy" and "conversion therapy" and specifically stated that the continual conflation of the two was harmful.
 * Using any of this longstanding medical dispute over highly contested terminology to argue for the unreliability of a source is well out of scope for this RFC. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using any of this longstanding medical dispute over highly contested terminology to argue for the unreliability of a source is well out of scope for this RFC. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 (sorry for the lengthy !vote). u:Loki has made 3 main arguments 1) coverage of the student-identifying-as-a-cat story 2) "going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things" and 3) secondary sources criticising their coverage. Re 1) I agree that they could've done a better job covering this story (see my comment 08:36, 12 May 2024) but if it's the worst thing they've done it doesn't justify a downgrade. Re 2) I think that the provided examples indeed show a bias but nothing more than that. Are you suggesting that platforming anti-trans groups makes a source unreliable? Also, they did not say that James Esses was a therapist in the linked article. Re 3), I've reviewed the article by Bailey and Mackenzie and haven't found where they say that the Telegraph is unreliable or give examples of falsehoods (but I may have missed it). The IPSO ruling is from 2021, and has a bit of hair-splitting feel to it (see item 22 in which the inaccuracy is described). Anyway, all British newspapers have had IPSO rulings against them, so by itself it's not a disqualification. Since the whole thing is voluntary, it's actually a positive sign as they have subjected themselves to an external regulator. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You also have. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Plus, we're supposed to have a global standpoint. You can't see all this evidence talked about in the overall analysis of headlines in the paper and think that fits the global standpoint of neutrality. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) And again, from the evidence presented in the T&F paper above, don't you think that the Telegraph seems biased based on your personal experience of the things you've read? Yes, this is obviously original research just like your conclusion from the 10%, but in the latter case the people who came up with the figures actually published their say in the matter. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) It is possible to support groups equally and pit them against each other, as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I do not find the defense of the Telegraph's reporting on the cat identifying controversy convincing. From what I've seen it was obvious that the discussion of the students did not involve someone literally identifying as a cat (it involved a student using that as an example to criticize people identifying as another gender), and I don't think any of the quotes from that discussion support that someone literally identified as a cat when those quotes are taken in context. Whereas The Telegraph reported it as if someone was actually identifying as a cat, and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner . Taken with other questionable reporting relating to this topic, I think it should be classified under Option 2, as its reporting may sometimes still be useable.--Tristario (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per Chess and others. As for the cat story, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat". This is true; there is a tape recording of students being reprimanded for this, which is a different claim from the one editors above are concerned about, that a student did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the concept of a presupposition in linguistics?
 * In short, "students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat" makes all of the following claims:
 * 1. students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat
 * 2. students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat
 * 3. a classmate decided to self-identify as a cat
 * (plus several trivial claims like "the students exist" and "the classmate exists")
 * This is obvious if you consider a sentence like "The queen refused to accept the prime minister's decision to resign". Obviously this sentence asserts that the prime minister decided to resign. Loki (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, your hypothetical differs from the quote; the equivalent hypothetical would be "The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime ministers resignation", which would imply that "the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation", and that implication would in turn imply "the prime ministers resigned". The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.
 * Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Wikipedia, why does it matter?
 * Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections. Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication? BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. (Arguably its truth value is indeterminate if the prime minister didn't resign but see the article this is a huge tangent.)
 * We absolutely could. Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements.
 * Known for sure, yes that's true. Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.
 * The claim the source makes is false. Presuppositions are claims by the source. You cannot defend a shoddy source because it puts its false claims in subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. and The claim the source makes is false
 * You're assuming that a sentence can only produce one set of presuppositions; that isn't accurate. Take the hypothetical provided above; if we insert a presupposition trigger on the attitudinal verb "chastised", we get at least two possible presuppositions:
 * The queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation
 * The king believed the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation
 * So long as one of these presuppositions is true, the statement is true. The same is true of the second order presupposition "the prime minister resigned".
 * Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements
 * By definition, presuppositions are a type of assumption - see the article you linked.
 * Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.
 * My understanding is they reached out to the school, and the school must not have clarified that a student didn't actually identify as a cat - possibly they didn't know, given that people do actually identify as animals. However, even if they hadn't reached out to the school, "failing to get clarification regarding an implication of an implication" wouldn't suggest any reliability issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is literally semantics of the truth-conditional variety. If we can just start backtracking from any statement in a newspaper article to find logical presuppositions that might be wrong, even the slightest contradiction implies that an article has lied about every fact in the known universe due to the principle of explosion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: While I was origionally open to the notion that the source was biased, discussion below has lead me to reconsider this. Editors had argued that the source was engaged in targeting and fearmongering based on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting".
 * Additional research has found that the opposite is true. As proven with sources below "watchful waiting" is in fact a highly respected model of care, and the Telegraph was likely following best practices with that article by aligning their reporting with the mainstream medical guidance the child had been recieving. Given how incorrect this argument of bias was I'm no longer convinced by the other arguments; I would oppose adding a note regarding bias to their RSP entry. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Watchful waiting" is not a (major, anyway) part of the argument that they are biased. The argument consists of them misgendering, deadnaming, and asking anti-trans groups for opinions on nearly every article related to trans people. And that's disregarding the opinion column. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The misgendering appears to fall under the same topic; the gender they used was aligned with the medical advice provided by the treating clinician in accordance with the "watchful waiting" model.
 * My overall concern is that the arguments being made for this source being biased are themselves WP:FRINGE. In this case, we were able to prove that - but many of the other claims are not as easy to objectively assess, and it is a very realistic possibility that many of them are just as incorrect as this one was. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, Loki has presented a plethora of secondary sources as well (see the last sentence in their !vote) that believe the Telegraph's biased against. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking through those 6 sources, three are from Pink News, which has its own bias on this topic. Of the other three, one is an IPSO ruling which rejects most of the concerns raised by the complaintant (which, interestingly, are similar to concerns raised here by editors about the same article), upholding only one minor issue which it notes that The Telegraph issued a correction for promptly. It doesn't say anything about bias.
 * The "Critical Discourse Studies" article appears to say that the perspective on Mermaids changed to a collectively negative one - and that while the Telegraph led that change, it was aligned with the rest of reliable sources in doing so; the majority of coverage ... is negative. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased.
 * I don't have access to the "Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies" book.
 * As far as I can tell, those sources don't support a claim of bias. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think they're deep enough to warrant moving, I won't object if anyone does. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did just mean any further discussion, rather than moving the whole thread. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Critical Discourse Studies" paper studies in-depth how the Telegraph and most of the British press covered Mermaids with a strong negative bias. Nearly the entire British press is biased, yes, but we have a neutral, British academic standpoint here that directly says the press uses Mermaids as a weapon against the very people they seek to support and argues that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
 * Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think they're deep enough to warrant moving, I won't object if anyone does. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did just mean any further discussion, rather than moving the whole thread. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Critical Discourse Studies" paper studies in-depth how the Telegraph and most of the British press covered Mermaids with a strong negative bias. Nearly the entire British press is biased, yes, but we have a neutral, British academic standpoint here that directly says the press uses Mermaids as a weapon against the very people they seek to support and argues that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
 * Because on Wikipedia, "bias" typically means they don’t align with the average position of reliable sources. Both those articles appear to be saying that the Telegraph does align with that position, and so aren’t biased. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do British newspapers have a monopoly on rs about this topic. Because it seems that (some) British newspapers went out of step with rs. Having a quick look both the BBC and the guardian (just using their website, searching mermaids and ignoring anything not about the charity). I saw that they discuss that the times and the telegraph both seemed to be digging up dirt, and that the charity commission where investigating (and openly said this does not mean any wrongdoing happened). So it seems that a couple of RS went out of step with the rest and then academics criticised this as a 'hit job'. This sounds like bias LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.
 * fits the global standpoint of neutrality I don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Ipsos survey is limited to 30 countries, mostly Western or otherwise progressive on these issues; in Africa it only included South Africa, in Asia it only included South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Japan.
 * Further, even within the six metrics of the Ipsos survey, the United Kingdom was closely aligned with the average on three, and even on the other three it wasn't significantly off - roughly 10% less support/more opposition.
 * I tried to find a true global survey, but was unable to. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can't find a true global survey, shouldn't we go for the widest-encompassing? And I don't see why you think that 10% is a very small number when the people behind the report clearly emphasize that this is way below average. I don't trust either of us to know what every 1% actually means nominally.
 * Critical theory (an offshoot of Marxism) is without a doubt one of the most leftist subsets of academia there is. Something being in an academic journal does not mean it's neutral or even scientifically based. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article in Critical Discourse Studies, an academic journal that per WP:SCHOLARSHIP constitutes one of the best sources for Wikipedia to cite, reports that the organization called Mermaids is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safety that is a reliable source of information and advice. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids, parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids (contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people and their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as as powerful, dangerous and controversial. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and linked) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is a primary source. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves
 * It presents it in a negative light without saying anything actually false. Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.
 * I've sampled Loki's examples and discussed them here. You're welcome to add on to the discussion about them there. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is a primary source: The peer-reviewed academically published article in a scholarly journal dedicated to discursive interpretation is a primary source?Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.: Either Mermaids does for the most part support families (as the Critical Discourse Studies articles states) or it for the most part pits youths against their families (as The Telegraph states); either affirming trans youths is good for their health or it's a 'wrong path' that's bad for them. At some point the premise that it's all mere opinion breaks down. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.Let's say a cannabis advocacy group also provides forums and events for family of cannabis users. Would you support deprecating a source that claims it drives adolescents against family by supporting drug-using habits?
 * see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is true. But this doesn't explain how the article isn't secondary. Primary research refers to experimental results, often in the hard sciences, where authors present data without synthesis. If the article had been a tabulation of hits for key terms across newspapers, that would likely be a primary source. But by taking on interpretive assessment, the article's authors present a secondary source.Would you support: If after careful consideration of the evidence I concluded that the periodical consistently advanced claims out of step from an academic consensus around what was best for the health of people experience substance addiction, then I could see myself supporting MREL or GUNREL, depending on the severity of the deviation from reliable facts. (I don't usually support outright deprecation, because I think rendering ourselves unable to link to a source even when, say, verifying a quotation might be appropriate is unhelpful.)as Britain did to Hindus and Southern-Asia Muslims: I'll have to ask you to excuse me for finding this comparison of trans affirming charity work to British imperialism in South Asia out of left field and unconvincing. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. Review articles are secondary sources; research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper.If you believe that that's libel instead of opinion, I think we'd have to agree to disagree. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * research papers aren't except parts that cite another paper for the topic of that other paper: We'll also have to agree to disagree here as well. A paper that isn't experimentally generating primary data but is instead citing and interpreting primary data is a secondary source. I reiterate that this is a difference between hard sciences and social sciences/humanities; journal articles in the latter are often secondary sources. It also seems inconsistent to look at, say, a newspaper article based on interviews and consider that a secondary source while treating a research paper based on archival discovery and interpretation and to call it primary. To elaborate by comparison, this biographical article is a secondary source; the archival documents it cites are primary sources. Likewise, the Critical Discourse Studies article is a secondary sources; it treats the journalism it cites and examines as primary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does any of this really add anything new to the RFC? Once again I urge that you make any new comments in the discussion section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This counts towards whether the closers deem a note at RSP on being a biased source fit. And again, I don't see the point of putting only some reply chains in discussion, but I will not revert if anyone does. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2; it seems pretty clear that they have a decently strong [transphobic|gender-critical|whatever] bias, but I remain unconvinced that this bias impacts their factuality or reliability in a meaningful enough way for gunrel. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 – it's gone far beyond just bias in my view, and the Telegraph, at least in this subject area, is firmly in the realm of disinformation. The thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it's always been reliable" isn't helpful here; if we were analysing a source that did everything the Telegraph is doing here but didn't have the pedigree, it would be deprecated pretty damn quickly. Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Ignoring all the reportage on trans-related matters because some of it may be considered unpleasant by a few editors is antithetical to the interest of providing information to the general public and Wikipedia reader. The Telegraph (Daily/Sunday) has "more than 400 journalists and editors on staff" -- if a handful of writers and columnists don't sing the tune some editors like to hear, well then ... too bad, so sad. Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 07:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But here lies the question. Why use a newspaper with such a determinedly anti-trans viewpoint when there are multiple reliable sources that don't have that baggage?  We wouldn't use a newspaper that was openly pushed racism or religious bigotry such as Islamophobia (hello Daily Mail). I can't help thinking that, even at Wikipedia, "gender-critical" views are the last piece of bias against groups that it seems to be OK to have. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s a question of WP:DUE, not reliability - and it is better assessed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 I've already explained in the earlier discussion and would go further and say The Telegraph is generally unreliable for any topic that has become the focus of its editorial culture warring. It has zero interest in fact checking and accuracy on these topics. The fact that so-called reliable sources influence WP:WEIGHT gives me additional concern because the Telegraph isn't just biased, but is determined to publish anti-trans stories on a continuous basis out of all proportion to proper journalism on the state of our country or planet. We'd have blocked User:Telegraph for WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. They are not here to publish journalistic facts on these issues like we expect of a reliable news story, but are at the level of some kind of wingnut blog. -- Colin°Talk 08:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 No source will be 100% unbiased on any topic but I see no substantive evidence to persuade the Telegraph is biased on trans issues. But even the framing of this as being a 'trans issue' rather than a women's and girls' rights issue lends undue and unnecessary bias to this RFC right from the start. Zeno27 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now there's an interesting comment, as its subtext is exactly what the Telegraph does on regular occasions - insinuates that trans rights and women's rights are incompatible, despite that being obviously untrue. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The rights of (non-trans) women and trans people can be at odds, like the rights of any two groups. For example, if you think that a male-born person who looks exactly like a typical man, declares himself a woman without making any external change (surgery, hormones or even makeup and dress) to look like a woman, has a right to use women's bathroom then it might be at odds with the right of women to feel comfortable in their bathroom. Vegan416 (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And of course, by using the most extreme example possible (how many times has this *actually* happened?) you're doing exactly what the anti-trans culture warriors at the Telegraph are doing as well. As can be determined by reading their transgender articles linked to above, it goes far further than bathrooms, which is only a small part of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times it happens. I don't even know in how many places such a person as I described would actually be allowed legally in women's bathrooms. It was a hypothetical. What is your position on this question by BTW? But in any case that example shows that trans rights taken to the extremes, can be at odds with women rights Vegan416 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Precisely - "taken to the extreme". On that basis, the rights of any group could hypothetically clash with the rights of a given other group.  But what the Telegraph and and its collection of culture warriors are doing is trying to limit trans rights without any criteria, purely because of their status as trans people.  How do they do that?  Well, with tropes like the bathroom one and the ones about what kids are taught in schools (like the one mentioned above, often spectacularly false).  It's insidious and - along with its sudden fondness for climate change denial - it's not worthy of what used to be a well-regarded newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you show an example of the Telegraph saying that trans rights should be limited without any criteria, just because they are trans? I don't think I saw examples for this in this discussion, though as it's grown so long so fast I could have easily missed them. Vegan416 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Take your pick, though some are far worse than others. This is what happens when you employ a "gender critical" extremist.  But it doesn't stop with her; every one of those articles is 10 days old or less. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 I, too already explained my position in earlier discussion, though the accumulation of evidence since has persuaded me to drop a peg further down from my original !vote of "aditional considerations apply". Bias per sé is not a problem, but it is a problem if it leads to issues with factual reporting. I think the way "not caring about the facts" is expressed in the telegraphs regular reporting is mostly(!) through imprecision, but imprecision is still a form of inaccuracy. If a paper presents a story in a way that is intentionally misleading the audience, it is being unreliable, even if technically  no counterfactual claims have been made. A lie by omission is still a lie, in this case. Proper editorial process also means making sure you're not presenting facts in a way that is misleading, and I think that's the part of the process where the telegraph fails the test. Regarding some of the comments above: while columns can't be used for factual claims and newspapers can't be used to support medical information without attribution anyway, I contend the following: A. most of this topic area's problems are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of medical information; B. Nothing stops a paper that misrepresents medical information from also misrepresenting other information, and C. in a similar vein, a newspaper not caring about the accuracy of information in columns can still be a sign of a paper not caring about the accuracy of information, generally. In conclusion, I don't think the telegraph's editorial standards survive scrutiny. EDIT: to add another point I recall making in the RFCBEFORE: I notice a lot of "1" voters reference deprecation. I tend to think there's a world of distance between deprecation and the thing actually being suggested by most other editors in the discussion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. The problems with the Telegraph in this subject area are obvious. The folks in favor of Option 1 haven't (so far as I've seen) answered what ought to be the obvious question: why and to what end would you want to cite the Telegraph on trans issues? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is possible that one may cite the Telegraph because per WP:NPOV: the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are fundamental questions about notability and how we refer to subjects that depend on how they are referred to by assessing coverage in the majority of WP:RS, even if we don't actually cite those sources to construct the article. In this specific area there is a huge amount of controversy and polarisation, with epithets like "anti-trans" and "woke" and "transphobe" and "far-left/far-right" and "TERF" thrown around willy nilly. By making The Telegraph generally unreliable, or even deprecated, its coverage cannot then lend weight to legitimate debates about where the most neutral tone lies.
 * This is particularly important given specific lines of argument made by the opener about tone and which POVs it chooses to seek comment from. In one specific named example, if the charity Sex Matters is deemed "anti-trans" by editors, and thus that a source engaging with them is a basis for deeming that source unreliable, then that is going to irreparably skew all coverage of that charity in any page where coverage may conceivably appear. Any source which offers quotations from representatives of this charity can - and will - be challenged. Seeing as these debates of "unreliable on trans issues" have not restricted themselves to The Telegraph, but also encompass other sources like The Times and The Economist, I urge extreme caution about the wider impact of this.
 * Telegraph quotes group x
 * Assert that truly reliable sources don't quote group x because they are "baddies"
 * Ergo Telegraph is not a reliable source
 * Its a kind of no-true-scotsman ratchet. Any source which does not outright dismiss certain disfavoured groups as "anti-trans" could by this logic end up "unreliable" - and thus one particular POV will be insurmountably entrenched. Void if removed (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This applies to many sources here. As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome. Same thing for XYY.The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.As Luna correctly pointed out above, this (breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation, more than 97 per cent of adults who use [breast binders] suffer health problems [(which refers to any health problem such as slight pain)] as a result) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) (and I still think undue weight is bias, not inaccuracy. I'm sure that we can find a good portion of sources contrary to the Telegraph's biases, especially if the outcome of this were to prefer alternate sources.)Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, bearing in mind that this is for sources which are 'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’ and that 'It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the Telegraph. The objections to the Telegraph in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - in my view,, , and have, in detail, persuasively rebutted Loki's initial claims of unreliability. The rest of the evidence raised by other users seems to be lacking. Particularly, opinion articles are not an excuse to render news articles unreliable, for example, we list The Wall Street Journal as generally reliable, and this refers to their news articles, not their questionable opinion articles or questionable editorial board at The Wall Street Journal. In any case, we should not use any opinion articles for facts.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4 I cannot consider a situation in which we would want to use the Telegraph for an article on trans issues. It has a clear, fringe, bias against trans people and is, at the end of the day, just a newspaper. For anything actually notable a better source can always be found. Let's never use this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How would the WP:DEPRECATION edit filter know The Telegraph is being cited on a transgender-related topic? It isn't technically possible to implement deprecation for a single topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, deprecation in a single area is not currently possible. Deprecation is for sources that fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine |  talk  23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I'm open to logical arguments along the lines of it being overly sensationalistic and tabloidish and needing of more scrutiny and possibly putting it in a lesser category, but the arguments above are more of the sort "it doesn't agree with the properly favored views as handed down by Gender Study departments in academia, so obviously it's not a reliable source." It's on a slippery slope that's destined to lead to demands for other news outlets, even quite respectable ones like The Times (of London) and The New York Times to be deprecated if they dare to depart from the party line. Try installing the "Shingami Eyes" plugin in your browser; it's an eye-opener, revealing what is labeled "transphobic" these days. Hint: Both the London and New York Timeses are in red there, as well as The Guardian. No dissent is brooked. If the ideologues have their way, only Pink News and queer theory academic papers will be acceptable sources. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correcting myself... on a re-check, it appears Shingami Eyes isn't actually putting either the London or New York Times in red any more, though The Sunday Times is, as is BBC News and The Guardian. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shinigami eyes is a plugin that anyone can access that allows people to vote sources positive or negative. There's been lots of discussion even within the community that know about it about it's accuracy and about how because anyone can vote this accuracy is extremely dubious. That you're trying to use this as a point in a slippery slope argument that could be used against making any source unreliable is just a plain rubbish arguement. As for the first point a lot of people are arguing that, alongside embracing fringe positions, the telegraph has started to publish more tabloidy misinformation (I'm honestly shocked any UK paper reported on the cat incident) and advocate for conversion therapy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, though since their extreme bias on this topic is probably the least controversial aspect of this discussion, that's a good place to start: update the RSP entry to be clear about that. However, the extent to which The Telegraph has let that bias get in the way of factual reporting and lead them into distortions and inaccuracies (as has been been discussed to death in the pre-RFC thread and again, above, in this one) is unsettling. Whether they're so often unreliable as to make defaulting to scepticism / 3 the best approach, or simply defaulting to caution, to something like 2 or even a '1 but be cautious', is something reasonable minds can (and clearly do!) differ on. For my part, I conclude based on the evidence presented that for the topic area this RFC is discussing their journalism is sufficiently shoddy (inaccurate or misleading in such a way that if we source statements in articles on it, we'll find ourselves having to correct them later when reliable sourcing becomes available), sufficiently often, that it generally can't be relied upon: i.e., option 3. &#45;sche (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Reliable reporter of facts. The cat story allegation has been exposed as a beat up. Other objections are WP:I don't like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC).
 * Option 2 (or 3). It's abundantly clear from this discussion that The Telegraph (a publication that has been on a slow downward trajectory quality wise for some time) is at the very least considerably biased with regards to transgender topics, to the extent that inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum. How much this bias impacts their reliability is complicated and seems non-uniform - sometimes it has resulted in distortion and misleading presentation that is firmly in unreliable territory, at other times it's merely partisan framing that is exactly the sort of thing that "additional conserations apply" is designed for. In short, in this topic area, it is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable but rather it is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable so we should never be using the Telegraph as our only source and should evaluate its reliability on a case-by-case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, or option 2 possibly extending to other topics such as climate per Colin. I'm not sure how everyone else is assessing things here, but imv the Telegraph of today is not the same Telegraph that broke the MP expenses scandal. It may have had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, same as the source as a whole. First, we have long said that bias doesn't mean not reliable.  We certainly are happy to cite sources with a strong biased that is the opposite of the one discussed here.  The original claims used to say Option 3 have been thoroughly address by  and others.  's comment about people becoming so embedded in a POV as to that POV as objective fact was also an important observation here.  Finally, 's comment about trying to declare source that cites a disfavored source (16:07, 4 June 2024) is also a very legitimate concern with respect to violating NPOV over time.  Like many of the media articles on this topic, we should treat all of these with caution and care but the justification for any sort of global downgrade of this source on this topic simply isn't supported by the evidence presented here.  Springee (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, as per the rest of the newspaper. 2 at a push. I'm afraid I'm not seeing a great deal more than an opposition to the newspaper's political positions here. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Queen of Hearts with the consideration being to prefer alternate sources due to its bias. I would be uncomfortable citing them, but many above such as Void have demonstrated that arguments on factual unreliability remain unconvincing. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also per Teratix. I don't see the Telegraph presenting anti-trans slander as fact. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first three points at User:LokiTheLiar/Times and Telegraph RFC prep, excluding the Cass review coverage, which have already been commented on by Void et al:
 * Misgendering an individual is certainly a factual inaccuracy. If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?
 * In the particular article you're talking about I'll grant you it's less clear because the person in question is underage, and therefore can't legally change their name or gender. But in principle it's the sort of thing that any reliable newspaper would correct if they got wrong.
 * Both of those are listed on our list of intersex conditions. I'm not claiming that they make a man into a woman or anything like that, just that the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex". (Though you're right that I should have been more clear about that.)
 * It doesn't say "political" campaign group, and in fact doesn't give any information about the nature of the group. It just says "campaign group". It also quotes her opinions at length without a rebuttal and clearly in a way that endorses what she says. Shortly thereafter it quotes a "think tank" that is actually a major conservative think tank, again without saying it's conservative.
 * And I'll note here explicitly that the things she says are pretty obviously not true? Like, no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion" or "harmed patient care". Loki (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for the morning laugh . Well, if a reliable source decides to call me Dave while acknowledging my real name, I don't think that should count towards excluding the source for its davery.I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".
 * It doesn't say "political" campaign group, and in fact doesn't give any information about the nature of the group. It just says "campaign group". It also quotes her opinions at length without a rebuttal and clearly in a way that endorses what she says. Shortly thereafter it quotes a "think tank" that is actually a major conservative think tank, again without saying it's conservative.
 * And I'll note here explicitly that the things she says are pretty obviously not true? Like, no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion" or "harmed patient care". Loki (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for the morning laugh . Well, if a reliable source decides to call me Dave while acknowledging my real name, I don't think that should count towards excluding the source for its davery.I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".
 * Option 1/2 they seem to have a clear editorial view on the issue, which should possibly be considered when using it as a source. But the "deprecation" proponents do not make any compelling argument; the fact the Telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe "trans women are women" is not an argument for deprecation. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much of what you've said could be interpreted as a strawman - having opinion columnists with an opinion is indeed not an argument for deprecation, but almost nobody is arguing for deprecation, and their issue isn't that the opinion columnist have an opinion it is that facts are being distorted and/or misleading presented to favour/promote that opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a strawman. Loki (the proposer) is saying this should happen because examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women.  Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think replacing "deprecation" with "generally unreliable" changes the argument in any way. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the larger problem is the "the telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe" statement, these points are generally made in the telegraph's news sections and are statements made by the columnists (not just their beliefs) LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2/3 per Thryduulf, with particular support for the inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum suggestion. I'll also echo the update the RSP entry to be clear comment by &#45;sche. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I'm convinced by the arguments of Chess and Void if removed: Loki's examples show, at best, that The Telegraph has a certain perspective or bias on these matters – which is perfectly acceptable for an RS – not that it is unreliable on the facts. Chetsford has also made an excellent comment which has undeservedly flown under the radar:
 * I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that.
 * I don't trust reliability assessments based on a single editor (who will naturally have their own biases) unsystematically compiling a list of examples. (1) They're just too easy to consciously or unconsciously skew and (2) it's a level of scrutiny no major source would withstand. – Teratix ₵ 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or very good 2 regarding everything that can be cited (as something that is not MEDRS), I'm seeing framing and reporting in poor taste and bias, but no clear indication of unreliability. Some additional concerns regarding due and framing are valid, but not enough to significantly impact reliability to the degree were editorial discretion cannot be trusted to exclude the minimal number of articles that should not be cited or only cited with attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that makes the vote one or two, and it probably shouldn’t have to be said, but: depending on coverage, additional considerations should apply to BLPs, with the phrasing being along the lines of “additional caution should be applied when using the source about living people” FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4 (changed my mind, elaborating below) . Loki has proven that The Telegraph should NOT be used on trans issues. "Bias is fine for a RS"? Really? Maybe if it's stuff like a newspaper supporting a sports team over an other, but not when it comes to basic human rights.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing to option 3. Maybe deprecating the Telegraph entirely for their (admittedly awful) reporting on trans issues is a bit much, considering they can be okay on other issues.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, bias really is fine for an RS. Read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. – Teratix ₵ 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but not the point; the issue is that a biased source such as in this case should not be used to state something in Wikivoice, especially if it is the sole source. For example, instead of "X is a fact" it should say that "AB, writing in the Telegraph, claimed that x is a fact". Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our ordinary guidance on the matter is we already shouldn't be treating seriously contested assertions as facts in any case, not just those which writers in The Telegraph may make. So I agree with you we definitely should be attributing perspectives on controversial issues or contested assertions – but this should be ordinary practice, not Telegraph-specific. – Teratix ₵ 11:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When it's actively harmful? No, a bias isn't fine.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) Writing an encyclopedia requires we write neutrally – giving all perspectives their due weight, including perspectives we consider harmful.
 * (2) I'm not comfortable having you, me or any other editors making binding calls on what perspectives count as harmful. It's far too easy for conscious or unconscious animosity towards a source's perspective to seep in and bias our assessments. – Teratix ₵ 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s a difference between including all significant viewpoints and uncritically including misinformation. “Homosexuality is evil” is a notable opinion, but we don’t put it in the same “weight class” as the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and harmless. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is well-known that news articles should not be used to source science details and can only source science reactions at most. I also don't see how the Telegraph treats opinions as fact. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If bias on trans issues disqualifies a source, I guess Pink News should be marked unreliable, then. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When has Pink News said anything documentedly false about trans issues? Loki (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The libeling of Julie Bindel, settled in Bindel's favor, for one. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Settling libel claims in the UK is not convincing, since the UK's libel laws are tilted very heavily towards plaintiffs. Loki (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Pink News as a source, but on a quick search I found this:
 * This statement is inarguably false. See pages 33 and 186–187 of the Cass Review:
 * This kind of falsehood is what should be presented to call into question a source's veracity—not casting aspersions or equating bias with unreliability, as has largely been done here. Astaire (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Article from April 10, WP:RSBREAKING. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RSBREAKING is a warning to editors to be cautious when including breaking news. It is not an excuse for the sources we use to be inaccurate. Astaire (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * -from a post by User:Chess in this RfC Flounder fillet (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracies in breaking news stories impact a source's overall reliability less than other types of inaccuracies. But they should have an impact all the same. The Pink News example I cited is particularly egregious. Not only is it directly contradicted by multiple parts of the Cass Review, it clearly shares wording with the first quotation I gave from the review ("suggests", "hormone treatment", "reduces", "elevated risk"). So the PN writer likely read this basic, easy-to-parse sentence from the review and somehow reported the complete opposite.
 * Regardless, we are getting off topic since this is not a Pink News RFC, so I will stop here. As it pertains to this RFC, the relevant point (that has been made more eloquently by Chetsford and others) is that cherry-picking negative examples does not provide a true picture of a source's reliability, particularly when these examples are cases of disfavored framing or phrasing rather than actual inaccuracies. Astaire (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In practice, when dealing with the popular media's summary of breaking medical news, their articles have problems. You can easily find examples from any newspaper summarizing some new medical research related press release that fail to understand basic facts of the science.
 * For this reason, we already discourage the use of breaking news in articles when a better source later on is available. Ditto for the popular media without corrobation from more academic RSes.
 * This is relevant because the examples presented of The Telegraph being unreliable can already be removed under our existing policies as we already have "additional considerations apply" in those areas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Flounder has said, I also think quoting the summary only is a little misleading, since the Cass Review mentions a full systematic review which does find that gender affirming treatment reduces risk of suicide and then dismisses its conclusions for methodological reasons.
 * Or in other words, the Cass Review did find research that suggests gender affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. That wasn't the conclusion of the report, but they do report on the other research that does come to that conclusion. Loki (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That interpretation not only pushes the bounds of believability in terms of how we commonly understand language, it would actually make this sentence worse—going from sloppiness to outright misinformation by failing to report the Cass Review's findings. It is also contradicted by the next clause in the sentence, which is clearly discussing the review's conclusions and not the research itself.
 * If someone tried to state in wikivoice that "research suggests that X treatment has Y effect", citing a systematic review that discarded that research for being low-quality, they would be shut down immediately. Astaire (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am to suggest that PinkNews should use in-text attribution in many if not most cases, but that not being the source we are currently examining, I have not looked at it in sufficient detail to make such a statement. It's a little odd it's tagged green but the blurb says additional considerations apply. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole reason why this RfC is happening is because editors on Cass Review don't like The Telegraph and want to strip out citations to it, in many cases with Pink News. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way, this whole thing looks like a tendentious POV-push time sink. Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Colin, the editor making that edit, been arguing with everyone else for the  reliability of the Cass Review! He's also one of the main editors behind WP:MEDRS, so the idea that he's some sort of POV-pusher is absurd (and despite disagreeing with him on the underlying issue there I have defended him against accusations he's trying to push some sort of anti-trans POV). Loki (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was more started because people disliked how the previous RFC was conducted (from what I gather there were 3 similar one at the same time and accusations of canvassing). The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review, mainly misinformation about how the follow -up service will be done. Also of note is that currently that page has 1 reference to pinknews and 2 to the telegraph so any supposed povpushing has been very ineffective.LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the misinformation The Telegraph has provided about the Cass Review?(Also, I think you meant "had no point" instead of "has been very ineffective".) Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They consistently misinterpret the recommendations of Cass for transgender people in the ages of 17-25, according to the telegraph, Cass says these people should go to a different service to over 25s. In actuality it if one received care before they were 17 they are initially seen by a "follow on" service. As well as there seems to be some confusion as to the provision of hrt to these 17-25 year olds.
 * (I was making a small joke that if editors were povpushing and replacing the telegraph with pinknews, those editors have done a very poor job of doing so considering the references) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite the exact article text from the Telegraph that you say is a misinterpretation? I cannot find evidence to support your claim that The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title "Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times", but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? Astaire (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * hit ctrl+f on your keyboard and type "Cass". Flounder fillet (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper, with the editorial content mildly to the political right. Sure, you can no doubt find an article or series of articles where the reporting does not support your viewpoint, because the reporter either selected a different range of sources or drew different conclusions. Or sometimes reporters even make errors in reporting the facts. But this is true of any newspaper reporting on any topic; we all know that a newspaper article produced to a deadline may not be the whole truth. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The other options proposed here are attempts at censorship for political ends. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * none of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable now. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining. The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still generally reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you are misunderstanding my wording as "as reliable as ALL British newspapers", no, I meant as reliable as the best-quality British Newspapers such as the Times and the Guardian. I don't notice any particular decline in its quality and nor do I note general agreement in these comments about that. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jmchutchinson, you consider The Times, a newspaper that went out of its way to deadname Brianna Ghey (1, 2), to be one of the best British newspapers? I guess even the "best" are awful when it comes to trans issues.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If deadnaming makes a source unreliable to you, then enough said; but listen to yourself! JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A little bit up on this page, I was asked to come up with actual factual falsehoods perpetrated by Pink News if I was to assert that it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source due to its bias. I could ask the same of you with regard to The Times; "deadnaming" does not constitute factual falsehood as the name was accurate, and the question of whether they should have printed it or not is a matter for debate under moral philosophy, not a matter of whether they are saying false things. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Wikipedia, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Wikipedia's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Wikipedia to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If deadnaming makes a source unreliable to you, then enough said; but listen to yourself! JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A little bit up on this page, I was asked to come up with actual factual falsehoods perpetrated by Pink News if I was to assert that it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source due to its bias. I could ask the same of you with regard to The Times; "deadnaming" does not constitute factual falsehood as the name was accurate, and the question of whether they should have printed it or not is a matter for debate under moral philosophy, not a matter of whether they are saying false things. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Wikipedia, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Wikipedia's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Wikipedia to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 (Option 3 for BLP material) reviewing the above that's not just bias, that is bad reporting (so bad, there are confused accounts even above), also for much of this topic, we should never use a newspaper for almost anything, and further individual's lives require much more care under WP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - there are plenty of sources available that publish neutral information on this topic; we can safely avoid one that, per the sources presented already, publishes information obviously intended to advance a particular point of view, and publishes outright conspiracy theories as though they are factual. Furthermore The Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic, there's no reason why Wikipedia needs to publish anything that they say about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What outright conspiracy theories are you referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2/3,, Thryduulf put it very well. Option 3. I think Loki and others have established that they promote quackery on the subject; a source that promotes quackery is, by definition, at least generally unreliable (so, option 3, not my earlier "2/3"). This isn't about political disagreement. DFlhb (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) edited 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1/2: I am not convinced by the arguments to designate "generally unreliable", but the bias is evident. I am not familiar enough with RSN's procedures to decide whether that warrants "additional considerations". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per Chess. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per Chess and others. AndyGordon (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. I wish the presentation of this matter had more clearly differentiated examples of the Telegraph having an anti-trans editorial stance from the equally numerous examples of said publication resorting to unethical practices in furtherance of that stance.I advise to pay the most attention to the cases listed at User:LokiTheLiar/Times_and_Telegraph_RFC_prep, where many such examples may be found. Points of note include the Telegraph consistently using quotes to skimp out on journalistic integrity and put forth untrue and unverified statements, e.g. the milk article; and the case of James Esses, whom they consistently quote implying he is an expert, which he in no way is.In all of the Telegraphs coverage I have reviewed, there arises a certain common thread: the use of misgendering language and terms like "transgender ideology" in the publication's own voice. While some may argue that the choice of terminology is a matter of preference, I think otherwise. Using the term "transgender ideology" implies that such a thing exists, which is not in accordance with any actual research. See also Anti-LGBT_rhetoric. Use of misgendering language similarly makes a claim about gender that is far outside what is accepted as fact, vide Trans man and Trans woman. Some may say that what gendered words to use about someone is subjective; that, however, implies the existence of some knowable objective truth outside of the consensus of reliable sources. That lies outside Wikipedias remit. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You state that one must not claim that objective truth exists, and you also state that the Telegraph's statements are contrary to truth, which seems rather contradictory. Ah, but you're not saying that "objective truth" says that one set of language is correct and another set is not, or that there's no such thing as "transgender ideology"... just that reliable sources say that and Wikipedia must fall in line. But then when some sources say otherwise, you use this as evidence that they're not reliable. Seems like a No True Scotsman fallacy, and a circular argument. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the above logic no reliable source could ever be deemed unreliable (as everything a reliable source says would be reliable). What Maddy seems to be suggesting is the balance of sources says that misgendering is a refusal to acknowledge the fact of trans people as their gender and because of this the telegraph publishes against fact (but I'll stop putting words into their mouth). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Care to provide any RS describing transgender ideology as anything other than a nebulously defined buzzword to attack transgender people?
 * If it helps, unreliable sources that define it include:
 * The Christian Institute - Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created.
 * Abigail Shrier in the City Journal - This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.
 * Fun fact, all medical organizations and human rights group acknowledge the existence of gender identities, which have been evidenced by conversion therapy failing to work on trans people.
 * The Heritage Foundation - They don't define it, just take it for granted people will be mad when they make the title Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids and suggest conversion therapy as an alternative The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.\
 * The Family Research Council doesn't define it but sure as hell want you to fight it! After all As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country.
 * Project 2025 vaguely defines it as the think they want to charge people with sex offenses for - Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered
 * Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, instead of just handwaving that many such examples may be found, it would be helpful to provide specific quotes from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?" It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see has brought up examples of other sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph.
 * In order for The Telegraph's usage of the term transgender ideology to be an issue, you have to show that they're using it in an unreliable way. Control+F on Loki's page reveals the only non-opinion article by The Telegraph using the term "trans ideology" to be this one, so I assume that's the one you meant: As far as I can tell, the piece doesn't define "trans ideology" in any of the extremist ways that YFNS cites. The only specific example of trans ideology in the linked page is the use of the term chestfeeding instead of breastfeeding. It would seem to me that the type of person that uses the term "trans ideology" would agree that the term chestfeeding is an example of that, so it doesn't appear The Telegraph is inaccurately applying the term.
 * I'd also ask whether or not usage of buzzwords (see: every newspaper calling everything artificial intelligence/AI) ever been a reason to declare a source unreliable? The reliable sources policy exists to ensure citations aren't used to support false claims. It seems to me you're saying that "trans ideology" is just a vaguely defined and ultimately meaningless ideograph. If the term is devoid of meaning, nothing can really be cited from a source's usage of it. So, I'd also ask, are there any examples of The Telegraph being used to cite false information about the term "trans ideology"? Or is this just hypothetical, in which case, what are you seeking to prevent by declaring The Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Y'know, it's not hard to Google things.
 * They do use the phrase in articles but usually they're either quoting or implicitly quoting someone else, see here and here. Neither of these are good articles, though: they clearly exist to smuggle dubious opinions into the mouth of a quote.
 * Like for instance, here's a whole article on Sex Matters having an opinion. Is that opinion based in fact? Very much no, it repeats a bunch of debunked pseudoscience like the social contagion theory of gender dysphoria. And they do no fact-checking whatsoever of this opinion. It's not news, it's not a noteworthy opinion, the opinions expressed are verifiably false, and they don't bother to fact-check them at all. Loki (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Debunked pseudoscience and the opinions expressed are verifiably false are hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "This is potentially the most contested explanation" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that.
 * As the European Academy of Paediatrics Statement puts it:
 * Branding entirely legitimate POVs taken seriously by MEDRS as "debunked pseudoscience" when they are very much unsettled questions is improper. An RFC like this should be based on actual, provable misstatements of fact not differences of opinion. Was there actually a child who identified as a cat in a classroom? Provably, no. Is peer contagion of gender dysphoria a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence in teenage girls? MEDRS disagree, but on the whole it is treated as controversial, as-yet unknown and worthy of study, and very much not "debunked pseudoscience".
 * Additionally, the claim you point to is irrelevant because we would never use The Telegraph as a source to establish this as fact, but what you seek to do here is exclude it as source generally on the grounds it lends credence to a POV you consider false, and handwaving at the ROGD page to back that up. This is tantamount to saying: a local editorial consensus is fact, and any source that disagrees is not reliable. That is a dangerous route indeed if permitted. Void if removed (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per ColinFlounder fillet (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess. Lynch44 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Per many examples presented here, The Telegraph stubbornly refuses to accept new information, perspectives, and research. Alone that would be a 2. When a source elevates active misinfomration and harmful hate speech, as The Telegraph now does, we should stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. Too much of the defense of this paper here seems to be based on inertia instead of Wikipedia policy. Coasting on past accomplishments and stodgy British Connservatism - name a more iconic duo. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess and Barnards.tar.gz. I also think there should be a moratorum on "WP:RELIABLE source on trans issues" RFCs. IIRC, they've all failed and for good reason. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - per the numerous examples shown by many users above; Maddy summarized well that the Telegraph using terms that are commonly used as anti-LGBT rhetoric in their own voice implies an issue on the topic and we have many other more reputable news sources on the topic, so removing coverage from the Telegraph isn't a big loss to Wikipedia as we can lean on other RS that manages not to disparage people while reporting on them. Raladic (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess and others. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC).
 * Option 3 - per all the sources above of the issues . User:Sawerchessread (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, per Loki and other sources above —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per the sourcing and Loki's's terrific input here but also per what's got to be an exhausting amount of good work by User:Chess at playing devil's advocate. Arguably, it's worked too well because this thread has gotten input from editors who, despite being known for their intelligence and who certainly do not have reputations for transphobia, sadly seem to have been swayed away. But no matter: a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people and it's thanks (mostly) to Chess, who I believe would not stand for any sort of mistreatment of those different from them. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What leads you to believe that Chess is arguing against his true position for some demagogy reason? Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same reason that I appreciate City of Silver for acknowledging that their central point is a) The Telegraph is transphobic, b) people that are against declaring it unreliable are (possibly unintentionally) supporting transphobia and c) we should WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by declaring The Telegraph as unreliable because d) a !vote declaring it unreliable is advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people.
 * The role of a devil's advocate is to strengthen an argument by pointing out factual errors, despite my agreement with your underlying value system. Since you're acknowledging that I have an exhausting amount of good work, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - it’s generally reliable, although biased. Are there other sources that are better for reporting on trans issues? Yes. Blueboar (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you support an Option 2 that recommends using alternate sources? Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No need… Instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RSP isn't a page that's intended to be read in its entirety, so I don't see how CREEP applies here. If we have consensus to prefer sources other than the Telegraph, I think it's best to reflect it in a place accessible to newcomers.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We can always replace one reliable source with another we think is even better. You don’t need to specify that this applies to the Telegraph.  It applies to every source. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there is no existing documentation on whether editors consider Telegraph less reliable. This RfC aims for much more than a per-page consensus. There's also precedent of putting such words at RSP to no negative effect, and this would probably benefit newcomers. For example: Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARDA links to wikiproject Middle-Earth. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weird. It's supposed to be WP:THEARDA. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * option 3 - per springee. ltb d l (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Editor was for this !vote and subsequent comments. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said option 1. Springee (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i know. ltb d l (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on that? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. ltb d l (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This sounds borderline WP:ad hominem. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether it is or it isn't an ad hominem, it clearly isn't a nuanced position arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ltbdl seems generally rude, flippant and uncommunicative in their edits and ignores advice and warnings. I’d recommend either ignoring or reporting them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A formal warning was given 2 hours after my reply, and he expressed guilt. I think if one were to discuss it, it should be somewhere else instead of this section. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I’m just going to throw in my 2 pence (cos it’s British, get it) and say that, no, a conservative-leaning non-expert publication from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals is not reliable on transgender topics. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The UK is one of the least transphobic countries in the world, see here. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use media from ~180 countries in which the situation is worse? Alaexis¿question? 16:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is about the legal rights and opportunities, not necessarily how the public treats the subject. See the last paragraph of Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And trustworthy as that travel blog filled with caveats is, I present the ILGA 2024 report which says (among many other criticisms of the UK):
 * Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination) p 161
 * Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're citing UN Independent Experts, note that Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, takes an opposing view on these issues. Also note that the UN investigation against the EHRC resulted in a finding that they should retain their status and had not violated any UN rules. At any rate, if you're arguing strenuously for a source being unreliable because it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals", then perhaps you are the one whose views are "fringe"? &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you quote where Reem Alsalem as said anything about the growing transphobic climate in the UK and where this climate is coming from. Also one country can have a widespread view and that view be fringe, that should be non negotiable. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * She certainly disagrees with what should be labeled as "anti-trans": 'She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.' &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so she has nothing to comment on the fact that is rising transphobia in the UK and therefore does not take an opposing view on those issues. Otherwise you would have said something about that instead of quoting from an opinion piece LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it". This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women.
 * The standard that proposes and YFNS seemingly endorses is interesting. Would DB support declaring Al Jazeera as unreliable on transgender topics because it is illegal to "impersonate a woman" in Qatar? What other sources can we ban from the Global South?
 * The substance of your !vote is that we should ban this source because it is from a transphobic country. This is a position that would be called culturally imperialist if it was taken on any country other than the United Kingdom. And ILGA's reports on LGBTQ rights that YFNS cites have been criticized for that exact reason by academics. Either you think the United Kingdom is uniquely transphobic in a way that countries with legally mandated conversion therapy are not, or your rule would ban uncivilized (read: non-Western) countries from opining on transgender issues on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there evidence that Al Jazeera is unreliable on trans topics? The UK Media has been criticized as transphobic and biased, that could be true regardless of the laws there. Do not conflate "the media has a recognized bias in this country" with "I just don't like this country's laws"
 * 2) This article raises good points, but you're missing a key one. It doesn't say ILGA is wrong, just that it left out the context of how Western imperialism shaped global homophobia/transphobia and didn't criticize the Western powers enough. If you're arguing the UK is the victim of western imperialism, and issues with transphobia in the media there should be discounted on that basis, then I really don't know what to say.
 * 3) The UN expert on LGBT topics still criticized the UK media. Attacking ILGA's reliability is silly, as that's not the source of the claim.
 * 4) That BBC article you linked for Alsalem notes This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards. and Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of [the expert] who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue.
 * 5) Also, the irony of saying the UK is a victim of trans cultural imperialism even as it overrode Scotland's gender recognition reform is palpable.
 * Every day, I tell my friends the funniest arguments I've seen on Wikipedia - the UK is the victim of trans cultural imperialism is hands down the winner. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm addressing the point that The Telegraph is unreliable because it's from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think "it doesn't violate any UN rules" should be used to evidence that the UK media has low transphobia. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, J. K. Rowling and pals? Anyone? Even the Guardian, the bastion of British progressive journalism, occasionally platforms transphobic viewpoints. Even some British Wikipedians have expressed the belief that obviously transphobic opinions are well within the overton window both on and off wiki. So yes the UK has an endemic transphobia problem. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of these people disagree with your opinion on what is "transphobia"? As does the tribunal in R D Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Center, which found the labeling of the claimant as "transphobic" to create a hostile environment for people with gender critical beliefs: [Paragraph 214] 'MW then goes on to say “Transphobia exists in our organisation as do other prejudices”. The clear implication of this is that the claimant is transphobic. She then goes on to invite AB to file a formal complaint. In the view of the Tribunal this was clearly unwarranted behaviour which was linked to the claimant’s philosophical belief. It clearly had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant. She was being called transphobic and a promise made to a colleague that they would no longer have to work with her.' &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a crumb of context, the defendant had asked how to misgender a transmasculine worker named AB (who Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO, told could file a complaint), and campaigned for the right of service users to make discriminatory requests of the service (IE, that people should be able to specify they don't want to be seen by transgender women) at a clinic that's been trans-inclusive for over a decade. Frankly, my reaction about hearing about this case weeks ago was to wonder what's next: "I only want to be seen by white women" gets ruled a protected belief that clinics have to respect? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a gross misrepresentation of what the tribunal determined happened in this case. For anyone who is interested in the facts, the full judgment is here . Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.
 * The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex
 * Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place (a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place (a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals" in a certain country. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally WP:FRINGE.
 * Reem Alsalems article notes how UN officials responsible for overseeing LGBT rights and human rights think she's anti-trans, and hundreds of feminist groups worldwide agreed. The UN's definitions of human rights for LGBT people (which include self-id) directly contradict her positions. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this continuing back and forth is adding anything to the RFC, I suggest moving any further comments to the discussion section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, since we're going with bolded !votes, but I'd broadly repeat what I said last time this was discussed. It's generally reliable in a newspapery sense. Newspapers select what stories they want to print, and how they want to write them, based on their audience, and the Telegraph has a... particular type of audience. I don't believe they are any less reliable than newspapers are in general, which is to say it's not great a source for all sorts of assertions; maybe I'm really saying 'Option 1.5', because other considerations always apply when dealing with newspapers. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, I've kept an eye on this conversation for a while, and I've seen nothing compelling to suggest that the Telegraph should be deprecated in any way. This has mostly turned into a discussion of whether or not editors like the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues, but you don't have to like what an RS says for it to be an RS. Pecopteris (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Boynamedsue etc. - I'm not comfortable mandating RS to hold certain political positions either, and that's basically what this discussion is.  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I don't think it has been shown that the Telegraph is a (edit: generally) unreliable source, but it has been shown to be transphobic and biased on LGBT issues. Additionally, my understanding is that it should never be used as WP:MEDRS, an area in which many of its issues with reporting on trans issues arise. It should be treated as a right leaning, generally Anti-LGBT, source same as you would treat sources that center pro-LGBT activist voices. Gnisacc (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am updating my original vote to just solidly option 2 after some consideration. I think that articles like here which only quote anti-trans orginizations and the government official in question are obviously biased. It includes inaccuracies such as saying that the council "have also been criticised by gay rights activists", when who they mean is the LGB alliance who are considered an anti-trans organization and are not respected by 99% of other gay rights organizations. I still believe these articles could be used in balance with opposing view points and with other more neutral sources, but this source on this topic should be considered quite biased and used carefully. Gnisacc (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - you missed that the Telegraph did quote a Westminster City Council spokesman The council supports festivals and celebrations… other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive.  starship .paint  (RUN) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 per summary by Chess. Biased, but not unreliable. Jevansen (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2 per Chess and Queen of Hearts and others. I think that, if nothing else, this is yet another for the pile of case studies that RSP is silly and reductive; clearly it is biased, so it is dumb to make an official entry on the official list of official officialness saying it is "green" or "yellow" or "red". It is neither of those things: it is a newspaper. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess' and Billed Mammal's rebuttals and per Void if removed's and Sweet6970's comments, weak evidence of general factual unreliability, the "cat case" is not enough even for option 2. Cavarrone 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option it is biased but not unreliable. I guess you can call that option 2 if you want. I think (among others) Dr. Swag Lord and Jmchutchinson were right to point out that this is a fairly standard newspaper (of record); the editorial staff don't all leave the room when they find out the article is about this one specific topic. I also think that the claims that they publish incorrect statements of fact on this topic seem to be substantively untrue. They didn't "promote the litterboxes in school hoax", and don't appear to have even have made any incorrect statements of fact here (thanks BilledMammal/Chess), so it is unfortunate to have led with this example. The other evidence is generally about which opinions they present or which people/organisations they quote. That goes to bias, which they have, not unreliability. If this question was just "are there better sources we can use to write about the Cass Review?" The answer is yes, but unfortunately that wasn't the question, so here we are. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am !voting for Option 2. I think Colin (in the archived discussion) and Tamzin (in this RfC) were correct in their argument that The Telegraph is not a good source for assessing WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE. We do not need to reflect the hysteria and overall significant bias they have on this topic when when we write our articles, though that doesn't mean the things they say are made up. Endwise (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess and others. There has been zero evidence of actual unreliability. Some people do not like the fact that they report on factual stories with evidence (the child was disciplined for that reason, even if the reason itself was untrue), simply because those stories don’t support their personal narrative. Luckily, Wikipedia transcends (or is supposed to) personal narratives, and does not consider editors’ personal agreement with sources when determining if they are reliable or not - and there has been zero actual evidence of factual errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per the reasoning provided above by Chess and others. I do not dispute that the Telegraph is biased on this topic, to the point that it all but takes a stance against transgender issues. However, I do not think the cited examples against the Telegraph amount to the paper being unreliable in that topic area. There's a difference between being unreliable and being biased—and you'd be hard-pressed to find any newspaper that is not biased in any way. One needs to keep WP:BALANCE in mind when writing about controversial topics, and I don't think restricting a source solely based on its bias is a particularly good way to accomplish this. (That said, with regards to trans issues, if less-biased sources exist for a certain statement, I would use those rather than the Telegraph or any other biased source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - per the claims of dishonest reporting and fabrication mentioned at the beginning of this discussion being themselves mistaken, as noted by a multitude of others. No problem mentioning they are biased, as that seems clear from reading the links provided, but that hasn't impacted the accuracy of reporting. XeCyranium (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 We're already well-suited to deal with issues of bias, which do seem to be present here. I certainly disagree with the Telegraph on some key things, but no evidence has been presented questioning reliability (as opposed to bias) and getting quotes from opponents or people charged in an article is standard, ethical journalistic practice, not something to be avoided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, one of my objections is that they get quotes from supporters and not opponents, and often disguise that the supporters are activists instead of neutral experts. Loki (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can read just fine, thank you, but I reject that as significantly backed as a claim on a systematic basis. You've had your say already. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source. BBC, for instance, was also accused of being transphobic, but its reliability on the issue still stands, AFAIK. Brandmeistertalk  10:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think BBC is a bit apples-to-oranges. I mean, one, it’s just a single article; two, as I mentioned even the Guardian sometimes runs a transphobic piece; and three, the BBC isn’t really supposed to have an explicit editorial stance, but in any case it’s certainly not “synonymous with right-wing” like the Telegraph. Tl;dr I think British mainstream media has a problem with transphobia in general, but the British right is especially bad. Dronebogus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reason I made this RFC about the Telegraph and not about the BBC or the Guardian or even the Times is that the Telegraph is orders of magnitude worse than any of them.
 * The BBC is guilty of a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE on trans issues, and occasionally does make factual mistakes, but is still obviously generally reliable. Notably they corrected the worst parts of their worst article on the issue, which is more than I can say for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I dunno, the Times seems far worse to me. From editing reporting on Ghey just to remove references to her being a girl to CNN claiming it only published negative articles in their sample. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only question for this discussion is whether the Telegraph is unreliable. Whether the Telegraph is or isn't the worst, or whether other sources are or are not (also) unreliable for trans issues are not relevant here. If you (or anyone else) believes that other sources are unreliable you are free to start a new discussion about them (although it might be wisest to wait for this to conclude first, and a discussion of more than one such source is unlikely to achieve consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I say this from compiling evidence on both, though admittedly the Times has a paywall so I didn't read nearly as many of their articles. The Telegraph's bias on this issue is really palpable just from reading them, while the Times is notably more subtle about it. The secondary sourcing is actually more conclusive on the Times, but I figured that the "just go read it" factor weighed in favor of starting with the Telegraph.
 * Not sure how much that helped: on the one hand, there definitely is a consensus for bias here, at least. On the other hand, a lot of the negative votes are asking for secondary sourcing, which assuming good faith is more clear for the Times than for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A consensus for bias doesn't even make a source WP:MREL. The big edit notice when you try to add comments to RSN says Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sources with a note at WP:RSP saying they're biased on certain issues. And of course, sufficiently strong bias can impact a source's ability to report the facts. Loki (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while bias and reliability are not the same thing, they are not completely independent of one another. Three extracts from RSP:
 * Cato institute:
 * Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR):
 * CNN: This shows a consensus that bias can negatively affect reliability.
 * Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bias can affect reliability, but you haven't shown that The Telegraph's bias does affect its reliability. Biased sources can be WP:GREL (CNN), WP:MREL (Cato Institute, CEPR), WP:GUNREL (Electronic Intifada), or fully deprecated. So, if all you can show is that there definitely is a consensus for bias here, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative, and therefore designating The Telegraph as WP:MREL or below will stop lies from getting onto Wikipedia.
 * Nobody here has shown that. It has been shown that The Telegraph has a narrative and regularly quotes people that criticize transgender rights for their opinions, describing anti-transgender rights groups with terms favourable to their POV (gender-critical) and pro-transgender rights group with terms unfavourable to their POV (transgender ideology). The Telegraph also heavily emphasizes facts that fit their belief system, such as transgender women's milk potentially being unsafe and scientific issues surrounding trans women in sports. They also frequently say the definition of a "trans women" is too broad. None of these can be cited for untruths.
 * The primary example of a bad fact-check alleged this entire RfC is the story about a student at Rye College who was reprimanded for not respecting another hypothetical student's identity as a cat. The only dispute is whether or not a real student actually identified as a cat, because nobody is disputing that the student was reprimanded.
 * I've already discussed whether or not that really was a bad fact-check, but even if it was, one week of coverage on a singular story for a paper with an over 168-year history is not enough to demonstrate unreliability.
 * Brandmeister said I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide your summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice. But it does say things all the time that are technically not false per se but are very misleading: see for instance this article, where the claim that this study is wrong would be quite dubious, but the claim that it's been criticized (by anyone anywhere) is technically true. (And this is a thing the Telegraph does all the time, like I wouldn't be surprised if they put out an article like this every single day).
 * And some of the time, much more frequently than other news orgs, it goes further and actually does say dubious or even clearly false things in its own voice. When it does so, it almost never issues corrections of any kind. Some examples, in addition to the Rye College one we're all aware of:
 * This article says in article voice that "women’s rights across the world have come under threat by the growth of gender ideology". That's very dubious: it's at minimum pretty clearly not a fact, and is probably just false. It's not really true that women's rights have come under threat by gender ideology. It's dubious that gender ideology is even a real thing; we redirect it to a section of anti-gender movement, where we cite several academic sources that call it a conspiracy theory.
 * This article says Belgium and the Netherlands have called for puberty blocker restrictions. The Dutch parliament called for more research into puberty blockers, which is only dubiously calling for restrictions. Belgium, as far as I'm aware, has done nothing yet: the article doesn't say they did anything about Belgium calling for restrictions, only that a few doctors have and that a party that might win elections in the future might also.
 * Nearly every claim in this article has been extensively disputed by its subject. Most notably:
 * The Telegraph is definitely wrong that the Cass Report is a "report on the dangers of gender ideology": it's a series of systematic reviews about treatment of trans children. Also, as shown above, "gender ideology" is regarded by academic sources as a conspiracy theory, so it's concerning that the Telegraph is endorsing it.
 * The Telegraph is also definitely wrong that UKCP is a regulatory body. It's a professional organization. Membership is optional. It has no regulatory authority at all, not even the way a bar association might.
 * Loki (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice grants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since WP:Verifiability prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per WP:MEDRS.
 * The first article on whether transgender people are a threat to women is opinion leaking into an article (i.e. bias); it says a book new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine.
 * You're saying that the second article makes claims about medical guidelines, so per WP:MEDRS there's no scenario in which we're only citing The Telegraph for that. Even then, the second article says Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate.
 * On the third article (with the rebuttal by Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia, not Hilary Cass), claims about the Cass Review would have to be substantiated by the review per WP:MEDRS so The Telegraph's opinions can't be cited on their own. Even then, whether or not gender ideology caused medical practitioners to disregard a lack of evidence for healthcare in children is open to interpretation, the rebuttal by your advocacy group only asserts that this is false with no evidence.
 * I won't rehash the discussion above of the term "gender ideology", so I'll only note that I don't believe you established they were endorsing an untrue conspiracy theory by using the term.
 * Anyways, the only fact The Telegraph could be cited for is that UKCP is a regulatory organization. While UKCP has a voluntary membership, it's still a self-regulatory organization per their website. They register psychotherapists, enforce a standard of ethics on its members, and can conduct disciplinary hearings to remove those that don't comply with ethical guidelines. It's like how the Independent Press Standards Organisation can take complaints and regulate newspapers despite being voluntary to join. Can you provide a neutral source (not one currently trying to remove the board of trustees of UKCP) saying the UKCP isn't a regulatory body?
 * The other 3 disputed points by TACTT is it being unhappy with language such as "coup attempt", the accusation of "bullying", and that it "turned a blind eye to the safety of children". Only the term "coup attempt" was used by The Telegraph in article voice. The other two points are in a quote from the Chairman of the UKCP who said I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not apples to oranges when your vote contemplates declaring all of the British media something other than reliable on transgender topics. Asking whether the BBC is reliable under the standards of this RfC is a reduction to absurdity Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1/2 The Daily Telegraph is certainly overly biased on this topic to the point of being irrational at times, but so is PinkNews. I have noticed that the Daily Telegraph has declined in quality in recent years, but I have noticed that for a lot of reliable sources since the start of the pandemic. For topics like the Cass Review, I would prefer other sources, but I wouldn't fully rule out the Telegraph. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, too much instruction creep. We don't need carveouts for every single topic where a source may be subpar compared to their usual work. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Astaire, Chess, and others have thoroughly rebutted the claims on unreliablity here. Moreover, I rebutted some of these claims myself in the earlier pre-discussion to this RfC.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Per BilledMammal. --Andreas  JN 466 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2, per my usual view of it depends on what test the cite is intended for, what the WP:RSCONTEXT is. It certainly is a major venue and seems a reasonable source from prominence and availability.  I don't see any reason to believe that it is always wrong to mandate exclusion always and forever, nor that it is perfectly right and comprehensive, nor that something appropriate for every line is always there, so ... it just depends on what the article text in question is.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's my assessment of the evidence. Maybe you can settle on "Zanahary just doesn't understand what he's seeing" (in which case, please explain it or keep it to yourself), but I've read it. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 21:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Per WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Telegraph is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against The Telegraph's general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just curious: have you actually seen a copy of the Telegraph in the last four years? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have in a library, but they don't circulate many copies where I am. Which may be a shame, as The Press Awards 2023 and 2024 awarded them Front Page of the Year for broadsheets, so the print editions might have more value add over the digital form than expected. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's a case on my talk page of someone voting for general reliability in the last RFC, then getting gifted a subscription to the Telegraph and apologizing because the problems with this source are so obvious upon reading it daily. Loki (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This RfC isn't about The Telegraph's "broader reputation and editorial integrity". It is about a specific topic. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct! But as I just don't find the evidence provided against reliability in this topic area specifically to be convincing (Chess's reply is quite thorough in listing why), and the general reputation of the newspaper is quite good, I think it's reliable in this area. "Coverage of X topic area is WP:GREL" is sort of the default case when we have a WP:GREL newspaper, biomedical information aside. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Per BilledMammal and WP:NEWSORG. The Telegraph is a strong RS and highly regarded. I do hope this isn't another go after a conservative-leaning source. I just see a simple case of WP:AINT here.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. News reporting in the Telegraph may theoretically be considered reliable, if you can find it. But little, if any, of their coverage of culture insurgency issues is actually news: it's editorial, or at the very least heavily editorialised. It's not possible to read a single story without being acutely aware of the official editorial line. I concur with others above as to the extent of the evidence. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per WP:NEWSORG. A source having a bias doesn't make it unreliable, and there is a lack of evidence showing this source to be unreliable. Let&#39;srun (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2. It is a biased source, and that bias disqualifies its usage to establish due weight in an article. It should be avoided for potentially controversial BLP claims relating to transgender topics, and likewise for any science-related claims. (Much of that already falls under WP:MEDRS, but that's often ignored when it comes to the intersection of science and politics, mostly because people interested in following core content policies generally find themselves unwelcome in the topic area of contemporary politics.) If there are certain straightforward claims that do not fall into either of those two buckets and do not create DUE issues—maybe, that a notable trans person was born in a certain year, or that a trans advocacy group is incorporated in a certain country—then sure, although usually some less biased source can probably be cited for the same claim. But its overall hysteria as part of the UK's great moral panic about trans issues makes it unsuitable for anything more complex than that. And if that seems unfair to conservatives, I would say the same about The New York Times coverage of guns, to pick a hysteria on the other side of the aisle. Part of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability is using sources that have a basic grasp of what's being discussed. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV says the opposite; A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about conforming to my point of view, BilledMammal. It's about conforming to reality. We do not need to be relying on sources that think they are in some holy war against gender ideology. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 19:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 for trans issues because of its propagation of the "litter boxes" hoax.Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per the numerous rationales already provided. Biased reliable sources are perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia does not exist to push the point of view that being transgender is an inalienable human right (FYI, a POV which I myself hold but what I think doesn't really matter here). We are supposed to provide a balanced view of a subject based on reliable sources, not cherry pick the sources we agree with. Eliminating every source we disagree with will only further make Wikipedia unreliable, untrusted and inaccurate. If two sources, one left-leaning and one right-leaning, mentioned a controversy regarding a right-wing politician with the left-leaning publication being heavily critical and the right-leaning one being heavily supportive, should I merely include the left-leaning source's arguments in an article, completely ignore the other POV, and revert any attempt to introduce the right-leaning source? Of course not, WP:NPOV requires both sides to be covered. I see absolutely no reason why trans issues should be any different to any other topic covered on Wikipedia. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess, BilledMammal and others. OK, they are WP:BIASED, but I'm not persuaded that they are also unreliable. WP:NPOV requires coverage of all the significant views - I think this is a significant POV and our articles about trans issues would be less balanced if it were excluded. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per BilledMammal and Gitz6666. If having a prominent, common POV on this issue (and I’m not convinced the even Telegraph does have a bias) is disqualifying, then… well it doesn’t matter, because it’s not. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can't see that the Telegraph has a bias then I'm not certain you have actually looked at the evidence. It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable, however even those most vociferously arguing for option 1 are not denying the existence of bias. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the Telegraph was biased, that is not true - WP:NPOV is clear that we achieve NPOV by balancing the bias in sources, not by excluding sources that have a POV we disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is possible for a source to be reliable despite having a strong bias because it doesn't let it's bias get in the way of factual reporting. It is also possible for a source to be unreliable due to having a strong bias because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias. RSP includes multiple examples of both. Those !voting for option 1 believe the first possibility above applies to the Telegraph, those supporting option 3 believe the second is a more accurate description of the Telegraph. Those supporting option 2 believe it's not clear cut. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In which case the issue isn’t bias, but factual unreliability - which has not been demonstrated here, as implicitly conceded by the editors arguing it is unreliable solely because of what they see as bias. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Factual unreliability due to bias is an issue of both factual unreliability and of bias - and bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable. Whether it has been demonstrated here is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you link the policy that says this? As far as I know, the only statements policy makes on this say the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not "unreliable" as a Wikipedia term of art, factually unreliable. Bias alone can be the reason a source cannot be relied on for facts. That's not a statement about Wikipedia policy, that's just a fact. Loki (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We’re going in circles, so I’ll finish my participation in this chain by saying:
 * If a source can’t be relied on for facts, you can prove it by showing where it gets facts wrong. You can’t prove it by showing (or claiming) that it is biased.
 * We determine whether a source is unreliable for use on Wikipedia by assessing it in the context of our policies. !votes that assess it in a different context should be given no weight by the closer, per WP:DETCON
 * BilledMammal (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit-notice you get when you edit this page (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though you might not see it using the reply tool) says very prominently that Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, directly contradicts global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's balance the sources on Litter boxes in schools hoax by adding a Telegraph source. It'll go wonderfully.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been refuted to death that the Telegraph did not claim schools made such accommodations. It at most claimed that a rhetorical scenario of a student identifying as a cat to be true, and nothing else. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours. I don't think evidence that an outlet platforms a particular point of view, or platforms authors with a bias, suggests that the outlet itself must share in that point of view or bias. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 20:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that is what you believe is the reason for people believing the Telegraph is biased then you either haven't read or haven't understood most of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
 * You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours. I don't think evidence that an outlet platforms a particular point of view, or platforms authors with a bias, suggests that the outlet itself must share in that point of view or bias. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 20:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that is what you believe is the reason for people believing the Telegraph is biased then you either haven't read or haven't understood most of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
 * Option 1 maybe 2. Per the comments by Chess, BilledMammal, Void, and others. I'm convinced the Telegraph has a considerable bias against pro-trans stances, and also that this bias is seemingly shared with most other British newspapers. I'm not convinced that the reliability of the Telegraph is affected such that its continued use--in the capacity that we can use any newspaper--on this topic would cause harm to the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If they’re all biased we say they’re all biased, not say one isn’t biased because it’s no different in comparison. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that this bias is shared by all British newspapers. I think all British newspapers have written an article or 2 that have been criticised for transphobia. I think the telegraph goes further than the BBC or the guardian and consistently publishes articles seeping with bias. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same. Many British papers have a bias around trans issues in the sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE or publishing a dubious article every now and then. But the Telegraph goes way beyond that into trying everything it can to get the reader to believe something false about trans people without actually saying it every day, and then also more often than other papers going beyond that and just saying something false anyway. Loki (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 because The Daily Telegraph is a widely respected newspaper of record which we shouldn't dismiss because we do not agree with its political slant. It is well known to have a conservative bias. It would be inappropriate to shut down a highly respected and significant news source merely because its political slant was different to our own. That is not what we do here at Wikipedia. Our best articles incorporate views from a variety of opinions. In the articles and opinion pieces linked above, I do not see faults in the factual reporting. Nothing has been made up, and sources are given. Yes, there is an editorial decision on which news items to cover, and how to cover it. You can generally expect that reporting in the Telegraph will focus on matters that are of interest to middle England conservative readers, and will present the facts accurately, but with a slant that favours the views of their readers. And you can certainly expect any opinion columns, such as editorials, to sum up news events with a conservative bias, and to rage against liberal views. This is what happens in newspapers. This survey is not the place to have a debate about trans rights, this is a place to look into if this particular newspaper is misreporting trans news items. I see no misreporting. I see the normal selection of items and opinions which are factual and accurate, but which present a case more likeable by the paper's audience. I would say exactly the same thing about The Guardian. It is our role as Wikipedia editors to include reports from both the Telegraph and the Guardian, and - difficult though that may be if we have an opinion on the matter - let the reader make up their own mind, even if that means coming to a conclusion we don't like. SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1, with no hesitation, based on the allegations makes in this nomination. 's badly misrepresents the Rye College cat story in the nomination and in their discussion throughout this page, and will prejudice me against accepting their claims in the future. Thanks to  for providing an accurate summary of this matter. I struggle to understand Loki's claim that "trans women are men" is a factual claim, given that the definition of "men" is precisely what is disputed in this social issue; I don't see how a choice of definition can be factually proven. On the way they chose to attribute sources, I find their descriptions generally accurate. Thoughtful Therapists does seem to have a membership composed of counselors and psychotherapists. Sex Matters does seem to advocate for women's rights. While I haven't reviewed all of it, a brief skim of the content of User:LokiTheLiar/Times and Telegraph RFC prep seem to indicate that the editors don't promote a pro-trans position, but doesn't indicate problems with accurate, reliable reporting. If someone wants to direct my attention to an actual false statement by the Telegraph, I would be open to reconsidering. Daask (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "defecation" would be appropriate since it involves shitting all over it. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting nickname for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Nothing says sources cannot disagree. In such a situation we just say what all the sources are saying, we don't cherry-pick bits and pieces to include and exclude. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to presume you mean all the reliable sources are saying, otherwise there would be no rsp or rsn. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that went without saying. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The UK press is generally quite open in its biases. In Britain, one can usually tell a person's politics by what papers they read. But that does not equate to making things up. The DT (right leaning) is no more biased or unreliable than the Guardian (left leaning). The question is whether there is a significant body of credible evidence reported in reliable sources that the DT has a pattern of making false or deliberately misleading statements, as distinct from occasional errors that will occur with pretty much any source. And the answer to that is no. Or at least, such has not been presented thus far. On a side note, I am concerned about what appears to be a pattern of targeting sources that do not conform to the ideological prejudices of some editors. This seems to be happening more often with sources that lean right in their editorial slant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with that last point. There's been a long and subtle ramp-up of this proclivity generally over the last decade or so, but it's really in the last two years or so that the true acceleration of efforts in some corners of the community to purge sources on such political grounds became especially pronounced.  Mind you, these efforts do not typically take the form of express attempts to expunge sources based on their right/left (or let's be honest, usually right-leaning) tilt.  Rather, much like this discussion, the efforts are usually aimed at deprecating certain sources with regard to certain culture war topics. Now, don't get me wrong: you wouldn't catch me consuming most of the sources which have been thus targetted--the Telegraph most assuredly included.  But that's really neither here not there.  The concern is that deprecation (and RSN generally) have become too easily leveraged to accomodate POV pushin g through the back door.  Don't like the recurring influence that a perenial source has on the WP:WEIGHT analysis regarding how we should present some subject matter that intersects with a controversial contemporary sociopolitical topic?  Well, just take it out of the equation entirely for all future analysis! And look, I'm being a little facetious and exagerative there, but not by much.  This has been (for myself at least) one of the most striking cultural changes of the project in my time here.  There is now a steady erosion of the firewall that once had the average editor frequently facing (and generally accepting/embracing) the scenario where they had to support inclusion of content that they found objectionable or dubious, because said editor recognized the general value and necesity of the principle of NPOV to the overall endeavour of the project.  There is going to need to be a firmer recognition of this increasing tendency in the other direction, and a broad and express reaffirmation of the primacy of some of the project's core priorities in order to arrest this trend.  And when I speak of the need to make such efforts, let me be clear that I think this feeds into some issues that present actual existential threats to the continuation and the validity of en.Wikipedia generally. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-truth politics aren't a Wikipedia-specific trend. The problem is that different mainstream segments of the political spectrum can no longer agree on what is a fact.
 * As an example, let's take the statement that trans woman are women. Our article on trans women says a trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Commenters supporting this wording at that RfC viewed that as being a fact that is true. Other commenters wanted to avoid treating it as a fact. WP:NPOV says that If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, but treating that claim that "trans women are women" as an opinion would endorse the meta-POV that this is something you can have a point-of-view on.
 * This RfC crystallizes this point, because we are discussing whether or not directly acknowledging that "trans women are women" makes a source reliable and whether or not that is a fact or an opinion, since stating untrue facts would make The Telegraph unreliable while an untrue opinion just makes it biased.
 * Our policies are not equipped to deal with this problem, because they assume we can make a clean distinction between opinion and fact, when today's omnipresent culture war hinges on what side of that distinction you endorse.
 * I think here, we've endorsed the "opinion" side of things, but a better solution would be updating WP:NPOV for the meta-POV era and figure out how we can compromise in article-space on disputes of facts versus opinions. We also need to reconceptualize WP:RS because declaring The Telegraph "biased on opinion but reliable on facts" is meaningless when editors are unable to agree on whether a statement is a fact or an opinion. I've been told I'm leaving too many comments so I'll stop here now that it's not directly relevant to the RfC and invite you to continue further on my talk page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fantastic comments from @Chess, @Snow Rise, and @Ad Orientem. I'm especially intrigued by Chess's point that NPOV needs to be updated to take into account the "meta-POV" era, which includes the rise of activist journalism and POV-pushing editorialization disguised as "just the facts". This really took off around 2016 and continues to get worse, and, since our policies don't directly address it, many editors don't even know that such a trend in media exists, or they pretend not to know.
 * I started a thread here and expressed my concerns about our general failure to distinguish precisely between facts and opinions. Some editors simply do not know the difference, and others act in bad faith, pretending that their preferred opinions are "facts" per "verifiability is truth" and other such nonsense. I was, frankly, disappointed in the quality of the conversation that ensued on that thread, although a few editors made some very thought-provoking points. A similar conversation should take place again.
 * One solution is to update NPOV. Another idea I've toyed with is, maybe we need specific sourcing standards for politics, like we have for medicine. POLRS, or something like that. Since the conversation about The Telegraph is coming to an end (I hope), I think it would be great for us to start a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard or at the village pump about this topic. @Chess, do you agree? I know you said you're going to refrain from further comment here, so if you think that this avenue of discourse would be worthwhile, drop me a line at my talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * POLRS for trans-related subjects imply the mere existence of trans people is political.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. He didn't say "for trans people", and as he compared it to MEDRS I assume he didn't mean that (MEDRS isn't just for trand people).
 * 2. No it doesnt. There are trans issues that are political just like there are women's issues, gay/lesbian issues, POC issues, indigenous, immigrants', and on and on that are political. Such an acknowledgement does not imply that anyone's "mere existence is political". Such melodramatic hyperbole is hard to take seriously. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact-opinion distinction is just completely broken in general. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1. As has been already discussed by numerous others at length above, the presumptive ideological alignment of the editorial staff of a news source (no matter how obvious or odious that presumed bias may feel to the majority of us on this project) does not automatically disqualify said source from providing reliable conveyance of facts that happen to interesect with such political, ideological, and cultural currents.  Nor do I think that the advocates for deprecation of the historically major media entity that is the Telegraph have made an adequate case for the kind of habitual pattern of gross distortion of the facts/misinformation that would be recquired in order to proscribe it from being used to wp:verify details in news stories relating to the subject matter in question.  Even as I would hope thatthe editorials of this particular publication would never be any citizen's ideological touchstone for ethical questions relating to trans rights, I see no compelling reason to believe that it is incapable of faithfully relaying facts relating to events which touch upon trans rights.  That's a very important distinction. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4, deprecate. The Telegraph has a long and well demonstrated history of being heavily biased at best and hard misinformation at its worst on the topic, comparable to The Daily Mail. Snokalok (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that your option makes no sense, as deprecation means we'd implement a link filter to prevent all links from that source, which has no way of exclusively targetting the trans topic? Have you seen rebuttals other !voters have relied on, such as Void If Removed's? Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if an argument has already been made we don't have to rehash it for every !vote especially given that we all know this RfC isn't going to result in deprecation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reason why deprecation would make no sense has been directly acknowledged yet. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Deprecation is not the same as blacklisted, Aaron Liu. Compare WP:DEPREC and the section immediately below it. I'm also still at 3/2 at this point myself of course, as I've noted previously. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I meant the edit filter. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Bias does not equal unreliable. Unfortunately, our guidelines do not do a good enough job of insisting that reliable but biased sources not be used to make claims in Wikivoice.  But that cuts both ways, and does not make a source unreliable.  The proper solution is to address guidelines around reliable but biased sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Loki and Black Kite, and many examples raised in this discussion. Just want to toss in another example: . This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the original interview. If you only read the headline it would appear as if that was a direct quote from the party itself. If you read the entire article you could be given an impression that Harvie is simply denying the science when it omits the original quote of I've seen far too many criticisms of it to be able to say that. And besides, the article suggests that Harvie "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" when it does not even make clear who made the accusation. There's no way this could be from a "generally reliable" source, and given the countless other examples given above (plus many articles I have read on the Telegraph on trans topics) I have to agree that this is generally unreliable. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:HEADLINE makes this an irrelevant complaint, the quote is accurate, and the extra context doesn't change any of it. I fail to see how this example adds anything. Void if removed (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant as the sentence "has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children" is repeated again in the article. The presentation of this accusation is performative in that it masks the opinions of the author behind a sentence attributed to no one. The main justification is I don't see how any of the claims from this article could be cited on Wikipedia. If someone wants to cite Harvie's opinions on the Cass review, they'd go straight to the original interview. But supposedly The Telegraph can be considered generally reliable by those arguing for option 1, I'm curious how a generally reliable source would have articles that cannot be cited at all (without attribution to the Telegraph itself). I'd really like an example of how The Telegraph can be used as a generally reliable source with factual reporting in regards to trans issues in an article. If we can't achieve that, then option 3 it is.
 * I'm also unimpressed by people citing WP:NEWSORG - News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, but we're in a discussion about whether that applies to The Telegraph. You can also say Fox News is a well-established news outlet and therefore it should be considered generally reliable, but we've also decided that it is generally unreliable for politics and science. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several examples at Isla Bryson case. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * has been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children
 * This is a fairly obvious summation of the quote from Tory MSP Brian Whittle:
 * I don't see how it is relevant because none of this pertains to a fact we would source here or anywhere, or a factual inaccuracy that would tend to unreliability.
 * I also don't see how Harvie's opinions on Cass are WP:DUE anywhere, but you could absolutely cite this article for facts like:
 * So again, not seeing anything to complain about with this article. Void if removed (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. The Telegraph has unfortunately become a publication that heavily leans toward anti-transgender ideology, which is heavily reflected in its phrasing, presentation of stories, platforming of transphobic people, and at times directly inaccurate claims.  In regards to topics of gender, the Telegraph infuses so much bias that it is generally unreliable.  Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - As discussed at length above, the Telegraph is not a reliable source on this topic. Its editors have actively made it the mouthpiece for a biased and highly partial set of views on the subject, generally ignoring the evidence, and sometimes directly in the face of it. It's a reliable source for the opinions of its own opinion writers on the topic, but it's not a neutral or reliable source for news and factual reporting here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. It's simply not treated as a WP:RS on this subject in the highest-quality secondary sources. See eg. ; when you combine this with the inaccuracies noted above, it's hard to understand why we would cite a source like this directly on a topic that has so many higher-quality sources available. It's clearly a WP:BIASED source which has engaged in aggressive advocacy on the topic and which would require that that bias be noted whenever it is cited; but beyond that, its biases are clearly sufficently severe that they've interfered with their reliability. I'm particularly alarmed by the people above who try to argue that it isn't even biased or that it can be used without making its biases clear - its stark bias, at least, is unequivocal and well-established in secondary coverage, to the point where it's really the only thing the Telegraph is known for in this topic area, and must be unambiguously stated in-text in the rare case where it might be citable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How was it determined that the sources cited are "the highest-quality secondary sources"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at them:
 * “It’s like we are not human”: discourses of humanisation and otherness in the representation of trans identity in British broadsheet newspapers and Support group or transgender lobby? Representing Mermaids in the British press and A tale of two feminisms: gender critical feminism, trans inclusive feminism and the case of Kathleen Stock all make excellent cases for bias, reporting various ways in which The Telegraph presented information that suited its political position, but none of them identify any factual errors or issues of reliability.
 * Empire and Eugenics: Trans Studies in the United Kingdom is published in Transgender Studies Quarterly, a journal which publishes articles from the opposite POV to that of The Telegraph. The article mentions The Telegraph once:
 * This is not an error of fact. It's an omission which may be indicative of bias, but it may also be a nothingburger, because the interviewee said "any kind of drugs", which includes puberty blockers, which were prescribed to young children in the UK at the time. (Note how the journal article's pointing-out fails to point this out, and makes an error of its own in stating that hormones were not provided to children (they were at the time - just not young children), and fails to point out that gender-affirming surgeries for minors is something that has been available in other countries and some people advocate for it, and therefore it is not an unreasonable thing for the interviewee to be worried about coming to the UK). This is POV vs POV and has nothing to do with reliability.
 * Again we see that perceptions of unreliability are actually based in perceptions (accurate ones!) of bias, and I hope that an outcome of this RfC will be to reaffirm the guidance found in WP:BIASED. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point was not that the sources provided examples of unreliability but that these sources just don't treat the telegraph as a rs and if we are to follow the highest quality sources Wikipedia shouldn't either. I'm not certain what the policy states on this kind of argument but the point wasn't to provide evidence of unreliability. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have our own criteria for determining Reliable sources. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And one of those criteria is WP:USEBYOTHERS. If other reliable sources don't treat a source as reliable, that's a reason for us to not do so either. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Observer cites Telegraph:  Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) (link – ‘whistleblowers at GIDS’) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is clearly marked as an editorial. Loki (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Guardian opinion writer is relying on the Telegraph for facts. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) correction – it was the Observer writer (not the Guardian) relying on the Telegraph for facts.Sweet6970 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And how is that person a high-quality reliable source? Flounder fillet (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Observer is a high-quality source. The article is an Observer editorial. Therefore, the Observer has demonstrated that it trusts the Telegraph on issues to do with gender. This is particularly significant bearing in mind that the political positions of the two publications are opposite. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion peice, about an interim medical study. This does not qualify as a high quality reliable source as needed for UBO LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is a good example of a citation without comment for facts which is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability . Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tell me how this peice is a high quality source necessary to qualify for an 'other' in use by others LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See my previous posts. I don’t see any no point continuing this discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're saying editorials should be reliable for facts then I have much more evidence against the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On one hand, we have a handful of articles from academic lecturers and doctoral students who are unhappy with the Telegraph's spin on a particular set of stories, writing in non-notable journals like "Critical Discourse Studies".
 * On the other hand, we have reliable sources such as the Guardian, the BBC, and Sky News reporting on the Telegraph's investigation of Mermaids and treating the paper's claims as reliable.
 * Even PinkNews, which I think we can all agree is biased in the other direction on this issue, has repeatedly cited the Telegraph's reporting on transgender issues. Articles such as the following are particularly noteworthy, where PinkNews is quoting the Telegraph's reporting on news that is not yet general knowledge:    . And you just have to search the PinkNews website for phrases like "according to the Telegraph" or "the Telegraph reported" to find literally dozens of other examples:           etc. etc.
 * If the Telegraph is WP:GUNREL on transgender issues, then why is PinkNews behaving otherwise? Astaire (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the first lot treat the telegraphs claims as reliable. The guardian uses tentative language like alleges, and even says some of their article on the topic are disputed (particular comparing using binders to breast ironing/flattening) . The BBC article pretty much just says that complaints to the charity commission followed the reports in the telegraph. A lot of the mentions in pinknews seem to be directly about possible government policy and in a few of them they deliberately question the narrative built up by the telegraphs article. It seems like they more go towards the telegraph so they can see what (they would call) anti trans actors are saying, and adding information pinknews thinks is relevant. It seems like pinknews doesn't trust the telegraph to tell the truth, just to repeat what the Tory government or 'anti trans actors' say. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using language like "the Telegraph alleged" and "the Telegraph said" is just other outlets doing their journalistic due diligence. As for PinkNews, they have made use of the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues dozens of times, both for quotations and matters of fact. This is a strong indication that even PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable" on this matter.
 * Beyond PinkNews, it is not at all difficult to find other reliable sources citing the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues. Just from a cursory search:          Astaire (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article doesn't seem to rely on the Telegraph's reporting, they just report on it. They even put a headline in scare quotes and quote someone from Mermaids to rebut the reporting.
 * The BBC is similarly reporting the Telegraph's reporting, not relying on it. They're not saying anything one way or the other regarding the truth of the allegations made by the Telegraph.
 * The Sky News article does indeed rely on the Telegraph, but it also quotes someone from Transgender Trend as if they're an expert, which frankly just makes me suspicious of Sky News.
 * All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for facts, or relying on them for a direct quote (which I also agree that they're reliable for). Loki (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All the Pink News articles I checked are either not relying on the Telegraph for facts That is simply not true and I would urge anyone to verify for themselves. A substantial number of the links I posted involve PinkNews heavily dependent on the Telegraph's reporting. Beyond the first list of six, there are articles such as this and this. In fact, that second one so closely hews to the Telegraph that the paragraph beginning "Separately, culture secretary Oliver Dowden..." is directly copied (plagiarised?) from the Telegraph article. Clearly PinkNews does not view the Telegraph as "generally unreliable". Astaire (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the bold claim no UK trans health-care providers administer hormones or surgery to children is simply false even discounting blockers, seeing as GenderGP gave testosterone to at least one 12-year-old and multiple others under the age of 16. Void if removed (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 This is the same paper that pretended to be a 13 year-old to contact a charity in an attempt to make them look bad for supporting trans youth, and then ran an article that implied it was a bad thing to support a kid with transphobic parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sock-the-guy (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All of which makes them scuzzy and morally bankrupt fearmongers (without rational perspective on the purpose of gender affirming care and the needs of the children it is meant to serve), and puts them on the wrong side of history and common decency. But all of which also says absolutely nothing about their editorial controls and reputation for fact checking. I'm not going to mince words: from my perspective, their editorial views on this subject run the gamut between histrionics and outright bigotry.  But our policies are clear: not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source as an WP:RS. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 11:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Going undercover to expose things is a time-honored journalistic technique. As for what is the right or wrong side of history, it's not our place as Wikipedians to try to steer history the right way... only to produce an encyclopedia that reflects things as they actually are, not as you want them to be. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For context: this investigation prompted the charity regulator to investigate child safeguarding concerns, which weren't dismissed as "an attempt to make them look bad" but actually escalated to a statutory inquiry into the charity's governance, which is still ongoing to this day. None of this is actually about unreliability, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Void if removed (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the escalation into an inquiry was explicitly stated to not be a finding of wrongdoing LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But neither was it a finding of no wrongdoing - the purpose of the ongoing inquiry is to determine whether there was or was not wrongdoing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like "not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source" is being used as a thought-terminating cliche here. Yes, it's true that not even extreme bias automatically invalidates a source. However, if you've identified extreme bias in a source, WP:BIASED explicitly instructs editors to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources.
 * So, what are the normal requirements for reliable sources? Well, WP:RS says that Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does a paper that endorses conspiracy theories like gender ideology, that refuses to correct a major error that it published five sensationalist articles about, that publishes articles every day intended to mislead the reader about trans people, really have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Loki (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, there is a disappointingly large amount of "bias doesn't automatically mean unreliable" being understood as/claimed to mean "bias cannot mean unreliable", which WP:RSP and any discussion regarding state-controlled media demonstrate is simply incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our policies are very clear; bias alone cannot mean unreliable. See Neutral point of view and Reliable sources. If you see it as a thought terminating cliche that is because our policies have made it so, and before you can declare sources like the Telegraph unreliable on grounds of their bias you need to change our policy. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bias does not always mean unreliable, but that does not mean that bias can never mean unreliable per the very pages you cite and the ones I cited in the comment you replied to. Whether or not the Telegraph's bias is sufficiently strong that it makes it unreliable is a completely separate question, but it is a question that can be and needs to be asked and answered. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does, though. Bias does not, on its own, mean a source is unreliable, no matter how severe the bias is. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. So the statement that bias alone can mean a source is unreliable is flat out untrue per our policies. Bias can mean it deserves a closer look to confirm it complies with other parts of the reliable source policy. And it may even be more likely that biased sources do not comply with the RS policy. But if there are no violations of the actual policy, then no matter how strong the bias is, it is not an unreliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that as a matter of Wikipedia policy a theoretical source that is perfect other than being biased is therefore unreliable. However, we do not have a theoretical source that is perfect other than being biased. In the real world, sufficiently extreme bias causes bending of the facts. And we know this has happened in this case because I've already linked to several cases of the Telegraph bending the facts to suit its bias. Loki (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And the "several cases" you did present have been thoroughly refuted - as evidenced by both a turn of the tide in !votes for options 3/4 versus 1/2 after they were refuted, and also the fact that very few !votes after they were refuted have actuallly bothered to address the refutation of your claims, instead choosing to just claim "because they're biased" or similar. And those !votes will be properly weighted during the close, I trust. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is the use of the term "gender ideology" itself endorsing a conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theory would be the existence of a cabal, which I haven't seen the Telegraph endorse. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the "cat litter box hoax"? First, it is indisputable that it never claimed the school provided cat litter boxes. Second, it also never claimed that a student identified as a cat - claiming that it did requires a misunderstanding of presuppositions, as shown above. Finally, it hasn't actually been disproven that a student didn't identify as a cat; otherkin are a real thing, and the Ofcom report didn't comment on that - all we have is the claim of the school, a claim the telegraph did report on once it was made. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And the "several cases" you did present have been thoroughly refuted - as evidenced by both a turn of the tide in !votes for options 3/4 versus 1/2 after they were refuted, and also the fact that very few !votes after they were refuted have actuallly bothered to address the refutation of your claims, instead choosing to just claim "because they're biased" or similar. And those !votes will be properly weighted during the close, I trust. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is the use of the term "gender ideology" itself endorsing a conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theory would be the existence of a cabal, which I haven't seen the Telegraph endorse. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the "cat litter box hoax"? First, it is indisputable that it never claimed the school provided cat litter boxes. Second, it also never claimed that a student identified as a cat - claiming that it did requires a misunderstanding of presuppositions, as shown above. Finally, it hasn't actually been disproven that a student didn't identify as a cat; otherkin are a real thing, and the Ofcom report didn't comment on that - all we have is the claim of the school, a claim the telegraph did report on once it was made. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the "cat litter box hoax"? First, it is indisputable that it never claimed the school provided cat litter boxes. Second, it also never claimed that a student identified as a cat - claiming that it did requires a misunderstanding of presuppositions, as shown above. Finally, it hasn't actually been disproven that a student didn't identify as a cat; otherkin are a real thing, and the Ofcom report didn't comment on that - all we have is the claim of the school, a claim the telegraph did report on once it was made. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1. It is not necessary that a newspaper have a [pretense of a] totally objective and neutral position, otherwise we'd have to just ban all newspapers (and most other publications of any kind) as sources. E.g. The Washington Post is not only widely considered left-progressive (within a US, not global, definition), it wears this position on its sleeve. Yet that does not make it an unreliable source even on American politics. It is not required to use "neutral sources" and there generally aren't any. The Telegraph 's editorial slant on this particular issue is held in common with most of the rest of the British press, and is widely reflected also in the general British populace (to what exact extent is a moving target). And European in general, from what I can tell. What's happened here is that a predominantly American and urban and left-progressive view, which is also increasingly common in academic material, is being held up as if an objective and incontrovertible Truth rather than an ongoing socio-political divide, and one that is an even bigger (yet much less a party-politics-polarization) split in the UK than it is in the US. A British newspaper's reliability (whether it can be relied upon to do fact checking, using human sources that are subject-matter experts, and to not make up false claims, fake quotes, and other bullshit) is not in any way dependent on how well it reflects a particular socio-political viewpoint that is somewhat ascendant in another country. (And part of the reason for that difference is divergent legal–constitutional systems, raising distinct legal questions that differ between the two jurisdictions.) No such "it can't be an RS if it takes a socio-political position I don't like" principle emerges even if most of us as editors agree on the same particular socio-political viewpoint.  There is no such thing as a source that is reliable 100% of the time even on a single matter. (Even the world's most reputable journals publish retractions and other corrections as the need arises.) And a newspaper is a totally generalist source type, so sometimes being either factually wrong or societally tone-deaf on particular matters is guaranteed to happen with any and all newspapers. It doesn't make a particular newspaper categorically unreliable on something. What does is publishing paid pseudo-news as various Indian newspapers do, publishing blatantly fabricated nonsense as far-right American ones do, and similar programmatic falsification.  PS: If anyone has approached any subject from the viewpoint that what some newspaper says will be taken uncritically by our readers as Truth, or in other words a belief that any newspaper that says something some editors think is untrue must be RSN-banned, then they have misunderstood what newspapers are, what sources in general are, what WP is for, and how WP approaches sourcing. (Hint: start at WP:DUE.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Loki and others. Commitment to a neutral viewpoint does not mean platforming dishonest extremist viewpoints. From a pragmatic standpoint I struggle immensely to see any reason to use The Telegraph as a source for transgender topics for any other reason than to support transphobic viewpoints that go against academic consensus on the topic.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 00:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says that you shouldn't base your !vote on trying to explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As usual for people who quote it, you've missed the point of WP:RGW: you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Loki (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This pretty much explains why the fighting is so furious on this issue of what constitutes a reliable source; activists on both sides of a heated issue are eager to ensure that publications taking their side be deemed reliable, and publications taking the other side be deemed unreliable. If one side attains complete victory in this battle, they are likely to win the war, since their side is thereby unanimously supported by reliable sources (because all differing sources have been deemed unreliable). &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not true. Most of the British press has a documented anti-trans bias, so if this was true I would have made this about the British press in general and linked the many articles about this issue.
 * The reason I didn't was that upon reading the sources to gather evidence, the Telegraph was so much worse than the rest of the British press that there was simply no comparison. It's worse than even other conservative-leaning press. It makes some effort to check facts but that effort is often secondary to their anti-trans bias, which is not the case for the Times or the BBC. Loki (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of Tendentious editing is that one cannot ignore reliable sources because of a dislike of what they say.WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH says The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. The above !vote appears to do exactly that, because the rationale is that they don't want to support transphobic viewpoints that go against academic consensus on the topic or platform transphobic viewpoints.
 * Loki, your !vote is based on sound logic, that The Telegraph is unreliable because it promotes false claims in articles. This allowed me to constructively engage with your points because it's possible for me to dispute whether there really were factual inaccuracies or just differences of opinions.
 * When a !votes logic is that we should designate The Telegraph as unreliable as a tactical maneuver to exclude transphobic viewpoints from articles, that crosses the line IMHO. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think that go against academic consensus means. Loki (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given how nutty academics can be with all their postmodernist queer theory, and how lacking in ideological diversity they are, I don't trust "academic consensus" very much. William F. Buckley once said that he'd rather be governed by random people chosen from the phone book than the Harvard faculty. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't trust "academic consensus" very much: You and William Buckley might not personally, but the the consensus on Wikipedia does (academic and peer-reviewed publications [...] are usually the most reliable sources). Buckley may, as you say, prefer someone randomly chosen from the phone book, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability favor academic training.To Loki's point, our guidelines about reliability mean that !votes which consider the Telegraph unreliable because it goes against the academic consensus aren't tactical maneuvers that 'cross the line'; they are editors' good faith attempt to help our community produce content based on and in line with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 15:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The key word being usually. This guidance works best in the physical sciences where research is believed to converge on an objective truth about the universe, refereed impartially by empirical results from nature. This is not to say that the hard sciences never err, but their empiricism puts their truth claims categorically higher than those from disciplines like gender studies, where academics share their beliefs about social constructs, and there is no privileged access to truth. That's before we get into the fact that we have reliable sources indicating that some strands of academia have become closed shops, forcing out dissenting viewpoints: . This is why we need sources that are biased in the opposite direction. "Going against academic consensus" is a worthy attribute where academic consensus itself is an encoding of systemic bias. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Laura Favro has a new paper out, on the subject of "academentia": &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Hydra here. You seem to be also going against WP:RGW.That said, I currently lack the demonstration of academic consensus being that the Telegraph lies a lot in facts instead of having a strong bias. I hope that somebody can provide such consensus. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It means they disagree with some WP:FRINGE academics in very uncommonly cited non-scientific journals. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to prove that these academics are in fact fringe I think you have to (at the least) provide the mainstream academics providing the significant mainstream these 'fringe' academics are against. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A non-notable journal called "Critical Discourse Studies" is not in the mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. But that's not my main issue here. Reading the paper says that:
 * The paper's allegations are that The Telegraph is spending too much time covering factually true information about Mermaids that end up making it look bad. Even if we treat this paper as the academic consensus, it still doesn't make any allegations that would make The Telegraph unreliable under our policies. The only claim is that The Telegraph makes the transgender movement look bad. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH says the danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint, so you need to provide a reason that isn't "The Telegraph doesn't support my desired viewpoint". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly a journal being niche does not mean it automatically promotes WP:FRINGE theories. Secondly, you have mistaken the papers summary of events of what actually happened (i.e mermaids helps young people and helps with access to binders or name change forms), with how the telegraph covers these events. Everything the telegraph is quoted for in the paper is not factually true, there are extreme exaggerations about the pains of binders and the claim that mermaids actually gives binders to 14 year olds against parents wishes. The later there is no evidence for because a binder was never sent and the 14 year old (and therefore parent) the telegraph used as evidence never existed). The main point of the paper is in how coverage of mermaids changed over the years, I agree though that the paper does not cover unreliability but does show how the telegraph (among others) twist and push a narrative (in this case that parents wishes are being ignored in a classic think of the children narrative) and we should be careful on Wikipedia not to repeat this narrative unattributable (if at all). LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article in question actually goes further than that, claiming that Mermaids offered binders to 13 year olds: They don't share that evidence, but other sources reporting on this story treat the claim as reliable:  (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Is it true? Perhaps the charity commission investigation will clear things up, but for now we don't know. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They repeat that the claim was made, not that there's any truth to it. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's enough that they treated the claim as credible and didn't seek challenge or minimise it. As far as I can tell, Mermaids haven't even denied it, stating that they take a "harm-reduction position", a reasonable reading of which would be that the allegations are true, but they still think they are doing the right thing because of the greater harms that they believe would prevail if they didn't. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we agree that the paper doesn't show unreliability, I think we can agree that the paper doesn't contribute anything to this discussion other than being more proof of the Telegraph's bias. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think further discussion on this should occur in Discussion since we're straying from the !vote. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable. says it succinctly . Plus the detailed arguments by several editors, including Chess. Telegraph is a conservative (politically and socially) publication with a predominantly elderly readership, its bias(es) "stick out like sore thumbs", but no evidence is presented of any tendency to make factual errors.Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - There is enough evidence listed above to demonstrate that The Telegraph has allowed its bias to trump its editorial reliability. Promoting fringe viewpoints and conspiracy theories demonstrates they are not applying journalistic judgement, but pushing an agenda, and cannot be relied upon for use in Wikivoice here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What conspiracy theory are they promoting? BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Gender Ideology" as mentioned above. The concept that there is a push to take otherwise gender-conforming gay & lesbian individuals and "make" them transition instead to support traditional binary gender roles. That is a complete conspiracy theory. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * “Gender ideology” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Luckily there is a recent Telegraph article where they state plainly in their own voice what they mean by it: So, pretty much just shorthand for “the things my political enemies believe about gender and trans people”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideology means a "Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group." There certainly is a set of beliefs, principles, doctrines, and philosophies being promoted by trans activists, so the whole concept that "there's no such thing as trans ideology" is ludicrous. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So is there a homosexual agenda/ideology being pushed by gay activists? According to you, it'd be "ludicrous" to suggest otherwise... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't forget gender critical or terf ideology LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So what they mean by "gender ideology" is "the idea that transgender and non-binary people exist", which they endorse the Tories preventing from being taught in schools? For the record, that quote has a link you left out: The Tory guidance proposed a ban on schools teaching gender ideology - that link clarifies that they are explicitly talking the existence of trans people (because it will confuse the children and poses a "safeguarding risk") and took inspiration from Florida's Don't Say Gay Bill
 * The Telegraph referring to acknowledging the existence of a demographic as an "ideology" is, to mince words, a big problem. But hey, is it really shocking the rag that endorsed section 28 and fearmongered in favor of it is doing the same exact thing to trans people? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that demonstrates that they have a strong anti-trans bias. But does that affect reliability? Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it does affect reliability. Think of it this way: would the Telegraph's claim that transness is merely an 'ideology'—that people can't really transition—pass the CHOPSY test, i. e., is it something that would currently be taught at academic institutions like Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. While the idea of a "trans ideology" indeed has connotations with the irrational, referring to teaching gender issues as teaching "gender ideology" does not mean that gender/transness is fake or that the existence of trans people is debatable. 2. I don't think we should apply the CHOPSY test to journalism. Like we wouldn't be teaching how Timberlake got arrested for a traffic violation at CHOPSY either. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like we wouldn't be teaching how Timberlake got arrested for a traffic violation at CHOPSY either: Fair that I didn't put that as clearly as I should've; what I meant was more that if for some reason Timberlake came up in a university setting, a professor saying that Timberlake exists, or that something happened to Timberlake, would not be weird (I would be very surprised to learn is university professors don't think that Timberlake exists and that talking about him as if he does exist, since he does, is normal); the way it would be if a university professor taught 'the gender ideology movement is spreading this idea that people can undergo gender transition'—university professors wouldn't agree on this being the way to teach Gender Studies 101. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Though on that point, the right-wing idea of teaching "transgender ideology" is like teaching that people can suicide, not teaching that people who suicide exist. Same for the inverse: not teaching that people can suicide is not teaching that people who suicide don't exist. You wouldn't teach Unabomber ideology that much either, and the Unabobmer exists/existed. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason for comparing gender transition to suicide? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am pretty bad at tone, apologies if that evokes any negative connotations. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's kinda like Dan T's horribly articulated point: we do not entertain teaching reincarnation ideology as much as how much we probably all do entertain the idea that people can transition, but that's not saying that we don't think people who think they are reincarnations exist. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels like saying "What's wrong with a newspaper endorsing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? After all, universities teach about the Frankfurt School all the time."
 * "Gender ideology" isn't a phrase that can be split up. Nobody would say "reincarnation ideology" or "Unabomber ideology" for obvious reasons. Loki (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see how your analogy is comparable.What does that mean?Well, you should see what I mean. I display an anti−big words userbox on my user page. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither the direct quote nor the linked article mentions anything about people not existing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I've pointed out other examples of how such bias effects reliability, like claiming the Cass Review attempted to slow down transition for those under 25, claiming most trans kids just grow out of it, their platforming of conversion therapists presented as experts, and etc.
 * 2) That linked article notes the proponent of the "gender ideology ban" saying says Let’s be absolutely clear. There are two sexes, and there are two genders. They’re not 72 genders. There’s not 100 genders, there are two… and teaching gender questioning to children is confusing to them. It causes them anxiety. I think it’s damaging to them... It is a safeguarding breach. and the one you linked says Asked on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether she would keep the guidance on banning the teaching of gender identity, Ms Phillipson repeatedly refused to do so.
 * What they are explicitly talking about is banning teaching kids that people can be transgender or non-binary or that it is ok to question if they are cisgender.
 * Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but this is them expressing their ideas about the nature of sex and gender, not a conspiracy theory, as was the allegation upthread. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * People who believe that they are Napoleon exist. A position that such people, upon self-declaration, should be granted rulership of Europe would be an ideology. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And what does that offensive straw-man have to do with the well documented phenomenon that a portion of the population suffer from being forced to identify as one gender against their will, benefit from transitioning to another, and that's a natural part of human diversity?
 * If you're going to compare "I'm transgender" to "I'm napoleon", compare homosexuality to bestiality next. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's academic literature, decades old by now, on the fluidity and social construction of gender and the veracity of trans experience, established enough that there are academically-published readers as well as chapters in scholarly companions to gender studies. As for Napoleons, that's, as Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist points out, an offensive strawman. I'd be very surprised to learn of the existence of an established academic literature on the fluidity of mortality and the veracity of reincarnation. And anyway, even if Napoleon was back, and multiple times, who would grant him ruelrship of Europe? Europe warred against him because they didn't want him conquering the continent (smalltext aside included for humor) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is promoting conspiracy theories. The notion that a "gender ideology" exists is widely held - even, for example, by the leader of the Labour opposition. Further, clearly reliable sources, such as the BBC, reports on "gender ideology" without disputing it exists. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keir Starmer, or any politician, is also not a reliable source. Next you'll tell me that Trump really did win the 2020 election.
 * The BBC there is pretty clearly quoting the platform that they're reporting on. Reporting that a faction of Conservative MPs intend to ban gender ideology does not imply that gender ideology exists or is well defined. Especially since we have several academic sources saying explicitly that it's a conspiracy theory. Loki (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When the leaders of both major political parties in a major democratic nation believe something, then the claim it is a conspiracy theory becomes suspect. It isn't equivilent to Donald Trump claiming the election was stolen, where one major party believes the claim and the other correctly rejects it.
 * Looking through the discussion, I can't see any sources that say the way it is used by the Telegraph - or Kier Starmer - is a conspiracy theory. If I have overlooked them, can you link them? BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Politicians are not even a little bit reliable sources. It wasn't too long ago that there was a bipartisan consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
 * Also, we link plenty of relevant sources in the lead of anti-gender movement. Loki (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Broad bipartisan support often implies thorough scrutiny and evidence, which stands in contrast to the secretive and unsubstantiated nature of conspiracy theories. Regarding the Iraqi WMDs, it was a widely accepted but ultimately incorrect belief - but a belief can be later proven incorrect without being a conspiracy theory.
 * That article doesn't support your claim; the closest it comes is by saying The idea of gender ideology has been described by some as ... a conspiracy theory - and even there it is describing the term being used in a different manner than the use by the Telegraph and Kier Starmer. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 (although leaning to option 2). The newspaper has a strong opinion on one side of the debate, but is reliable. Sources should not be banned just because they hold a one-sided opinion of matters, just that the source needs to be treated carefully and used appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, or maybe even option 4. There's a big difference between regular bias and the sensationalist bigotry that the Telegraph is promoting. No reason to ever use this source if there are alternatives. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 22:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A note that the above !voter used the edit comment "unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia" in violation of WP:NPA. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So just a personal attack on a broad group of editors? How is that better? BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear whether your label of "shit heads" (should that be one word or two?) applies to the editors who !voted in this survey, or to the journalists at the Telegraph, but that sort of namecalling is a personal attack on whoever it's aimed at. Also, WP:NPA mentions as a type of personal attack the labeling of people by political position for the purpose of dismissing or discrediting their views, and in your case you mentioned alleged beliefs in the irrelevant area of the Gaza conflict as being somehow relevant to anybody's views on the unrelated issue here. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions. It's just so hard to be friendly to people who don't even support my right to exist. Apparently editors can get away with the most horrible forms of racism, queerphobia etc. as long as they're "civil" about it, but if someone calls them out, they get sanctioned for "aspersions" or "personal attacks"??? If people wonder why Wikipedia has such a massive demographic imbalance, this is part of the answer. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 23:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which editors are getting away with the most horrible forms of racism, queerphobia etc? Typically, editors are sanctioned for such behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Further discussion on the edit summary can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I've no personal stake in this matter, but this is a topic I believe to hold significant importance today, so I have to support option 3. I do not believe The Telegraph is a reliable reporter of issues regarding trans people at large, for many reasons that have already been discussed. They are often in defiance of the consensus of published medical journals, and where they are not in open or direct defiance, they editorialize facts to purport them as being less credible. Many of their pieces inside of the "Transgender" section read like op-ed, and do not feel like reliable reportings of the journals which many claim they use. I won't speak on the veracity of The Telegraph outside of this (as it is outside of the scope of this RfC), but for this specific issue, they are not a generally reliable source. SmittenGalaxy  &#124;  talk!  03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't figure that out, any piece with a large “ at the bottom-left of the thumbnail or a header that says “COMMENT on top is indeed an opinion. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess. -- Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  22:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Chess. People complaining that the Option 1 !votes all seem to come back to the fact that bias does not equal unreliablity seem to have missed that there seems to be no case to answer here other than bias. That's after reading huge amounts of this massive section, as well as Loki's linked page. The claims of factual inaccuracy have basically been boiled down to biased presentation, taken to a point that is egregious in the eyes of some editors. That's a very reasonable response, but not evidence of unreliability. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that I'm opposing option 2 because of instruction creep. The Telegraph is a national newspaper that is biased, regularly and prominently, on hundreds of issues. Adding notes or considerations because of bias in this one area would imply that we have judged it to be more biased on trans issues than others, and I don't think that's a case that has been made at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason no case has been made about bias or reliability on other issues (relative to trans issues or otherwise) is because that's off-topic for this discussion and irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that if there is a note about bias on a specific topic at Telegraph, it will be inferred that the Telegraph is particularly biased on that topic, as compared to its bias in the rest of its coverage. Therefore I think a note is a bad idea. (I do not say that this inference would be justified, but I think it would be made nonetheless). Samuelshraga (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair inference to be honest - the evidence shows that the Telegraph is very biased on trans issues to the extent that it's reliability for the topic has been questioned, based on extensive evidence. A significant proportion of those examining that evidence agree that this bias is so significant that it impacts their reliability to at least some extent (even some of those !voting 1 agree with this, they just don't think the impact is significant enough to merit a higher option).
 * If this level of bias was common across the majority of the Telegraph's output then the discussion would be about either a group of topics, a whole segment of its reporting (c.f. Fox News with politics and science) or about the source as a whole. That we are explicitly not discussing that (and nobody has suggested we should) allows us to reasonably conclude that the sources is particularly biased regarding this one topic. If you believe this is incorrect, then please start a new discussion presenting evidence of roughly equal bias and/or unreliability in a different topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the fact that we are having this more focused discussion is evidence towards the conclusion that the Telegraph is more biased on trans issues then on others. I don't really think that we can measure bias anyway, as we'd be measuring it with reference to some benchmark "neutral POV" which would be arbitrary.
 * I won't be starting a new discussion on Telegraph bias in other areas, in part because I am not a regular reader of the Telegraph and wouldn't really know, but also because bias is not evidence of unreliability. But I thank you for your thoughtful comments, perhaps we can agree to disagree. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, the "biased presentation" includes several directly false claims, including many about what the Cass Report is and what it did. Plus obviously the Rye College articles, plus several other cases where the Telegraph solicited false information in the form of a quote so they weren't technically putting it in their voice. Loki (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to assume that per Chess indicates they support Chess's rebuttal of all of the above. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did read what you wrote Loki, and many of the articles you linked to. The claims you reference are all dealt with by Chess - to my satisfaction, hence my response. As for the Telegraph solicited false information in the form of a quote so they weren't technically putting it in their voice, it has been pointed out ad nauseam that this means that we wouldn't be able to cite this information to the Telegraph but to the source of the quote, an entirely separate discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. As per arguments given above Dimensional Fusion   (talk)  15:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per many arguments above. This newspaper, like several other British newspapers, now has a long track recording of promoting anti-trans disinformation. Recently, the Council of Europe criticized "the extensive and often virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTI people that have been occurring for several years in, among other countries, Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation, Turkey and the United Kingdom." British media, especially tabloid media, play a significant role in those attacks, as also noted by others. Anti-gender and "gender-critical" movements were recently described by UN Women as extremist movements that employ "hateful propaganda and disinformation to target and attempt to delegitimize people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics." This newspaper regularly promotes anti-gender and "gender-critical" organizations, people and narratives regarding transgender people, i.e. narratives that are widely considered extremist disinformation and hate propaganda. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you give examples of the Telegraph pushing narratives that are outright disinformation? Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Option 3. Per first comment, pushing the litter boxes hoax 5 times (despite, obviously, any actual documentary evidence beyond hearsay) and not retracting is clear evidence of fabrication and complete disregard for truth on this issue. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind after reading other comments and reviewing other sources on WP:RSP. There's no "single topic deprecation" for anything on there, however I don't think its 'technically' impossible, reading through WP:DEPS, but deprecation is obviously designed for an entire source, not a topic. The entirety of The Telegraph should obviously not be deprecated. If Fox News, on the subject of politics and science, is only going to be "generally unreliable" and not deprecated, then that's almost an impossible bar to clear and certainly not cleared here. Changing to option 3 for procedural reasons only, I still think the source should not be used at all with regards to trans issues and removed if it is. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of deprecation is to automate the process of warning users a source is unreliable. Any !vote for Option 4 needs to explain how the edit filter + autoreversion bot will determine what articles fall under "trans issues".
 * The best way I can see of doing that for a topic area is to look at the categories an article is in (anything in Category:Transgender perhaps?), but nobody !voting Option 4 has offered to code that or offered a proof of concept to show it's possible.
 * If Option 4 gains consensus, the specific way to implement Option 4 will also need to gain consensus. This is something the closer should note. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 per above. Bias and reliabilty are seperate issues. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per above. Might be useful for other topics, but their factual reporting on trans topics is lacking. --Cixous (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3: I'd barely trust the Telegraph with the weather, let alone any politics, and least of all any kind of gender politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Positioning 'the acknowledgement that transgender people exist' as not just a matter of opinion, but as the wrong opinion, repeatedly, is not just bias – it is disregarding fairly simple facts. That the Telegraph then editorialises information or promotes one side unfairly (at best - at worst it could be described as outright lying), is further deliberate distortion of facts aboout transgender people and experiences. I would reject any !vote that dismisses the Telegraph's handling of transgender topics as mere bias - the existence of transgender people isn't something you can take a side on, it's a simple truth, and denying that truth makes you unreliable on the subject matter. Further, giving more weight to anti-trans 'opinions', even if acknowledging the bias, is purposefully publishing unreliable information about transgender people. Because - and I put it simply because it really is this simple - anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about. I'm sure the Telegraph could be used as PRIMARY for documenting how it (and other British media) have treated transgender people, or for the self-described views of the non-experts it platforms, but for reliable coverage of transgender issues? Well, since it wants to deny they even exist, how could it be reliable. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about. Could you elaborate on whether this applies to other editors or just sources? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking; I obviously can't know the lives/knowledge/experience of every editor, and wouldn't pretend to. I am talking specifically about news sources (and in this case, the Telegraph) that make claims about transgender issues (e.g. in news, the content, principles, and effects of policies on transgender people; or in opinion, the social presence of transgender individuals) under what appears to be an editorial stance of denialism, which makes their claims necessarily factually incorrect.
 * Of course, while I would separate "anti-trans" in terms of denying, and in terms of opposing, I would also consider both to be fundamentally flawed and thus unreliable stances. The existence (vs denialism), or the right to exist (vs opposition), of transgender people, are not things that one can reasonably have a differing opinion on, and so a source giving any credibility to people either denying transgender existence, or arguing for restrictive transgender policies, is unreliable on transgender topics.
 * It'd be like a newspaper covering climate change denial and flat earth theories as if they were legitimate opinions on the state of the Earth: we would not consider them reliable on the topic of geography. Kingsif (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disambiguating. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the source for the Telegraph denying that trans people exist? Didn't see that in the opening of the RfC or associated page. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues)

 * I don't vote here because I don't have time to study the sources about the reliability issue. But I have 2 comments to make: (a) It was said in other discussions that option 4 is technically not possible for specific issues because of the filter. So it seems to be irrelevant. b) the question of whether trans men and women are men or women is not a factual question, but rather a question of definition. Factual questions are if certain people feel they are a man or a woman, if they have a penis or a vagina, XX or XY chromosomes, etc. But the question of which of these criteria should be used to decide who should be called man or woman is not a factual question, but rather a semantic/legal/linguistic question of definitions. The meaning of the words "man" and "woman" is a social construct. And in fact many progressives think that the binary division to "man" and "woman" is wrong, and we should look at sex and gender as a spectrum. Vegan416 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is likely going to be a continuous RFC with many editors voicing their opinions. For the sake of ever getting a close can I suggest keeping the replies to a minimum in the survey section. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 09:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Having watched the last full RFC, and the RFC on this specific issue that happened shortly afterwards, their were several participants who felt the RFCs were rushed into. This meant they couldn't present their arguments properly, I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the extensive discussion at before this RFC was started. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested is correct. The last RFC was a rush job with no RFCBEFORE, which of course meant that the status quo had a strong advantage. Loki (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can anyone point to a good article on trans subjects in the Telegraph? Because WP:RSOPINION can always be called to allow use of a generally unreliable source, but what are they bringing to the table that makes them a reliable source? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's one I grabbed today. It covers a transgender judge and her resignation. Here's another one also published today.  I'm going to assert that these are good because they cover the story in a balanced way and the assertions they've made are true. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first one is definitely better than average for the Telegraph but it still contains minor factual inaccuracies. The one I noticed immediately is that it says that the Cass Review warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support puberty blockers, not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study.
 * The second one is bad mostly because it's not news. It's a news article about a tweet, and not a tweet by a significant figure but JK Rowling arguing with people on Twitter again. It makes few factual claims and they're hard to fact check because they're almost all quotes or policy positions of various parties. But even reporting on this indicates significant bias. Loki (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "I don't think this is news" is not an argument against something being RS. As for the Cass report, it recommends The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT). This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after more back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. &#45;sche (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some editors love to hear the sound of their own voice. There's no cure for conceit and self-importance.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 07:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: how do we feel about specific BLP coverage? Is there any past discussion about cases were the source was a) allowed to be used for BLP and b) shouldn’t be? FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy. Most non-option-3 !voters believe that it's the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone here can answer how common it is that Wikipedia treats a source as reliable except for a particular topic. What are other examples? I ask because it seems implausible to me that the newspaper editor says to their reporters that they consistently expect the highest standards of journalism, etc., except when it comes to trans matters when you can make up any old lies and we won't complain. I don't think that there will be journalists at the Telegraph who are specialising in trans matters; they will be covering a broad range of other topics also, so it would be strange if their behaviour was inconsistent between topics. OK, I could imagine that the editor of a propaganda channel like Russia Today might say to keep things honest except as regards Russia, but the Telegraph does not have any special focus on trans matters, so why should they treat it differently? Of course it seems more likely to me that the attention on trans coverage at the Telegraph arises not from a difference in how the Telegraph deals with this topic but from the focus and viewpoints of some of Wikipedia's editors. It would help to show that up if it turns out that these kind of topic-restrictions are unusual for mainstream media. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources listed at WP:RSP that have different reliability ratings for different topics, e.g. Fox News, Huff Post, Insider and several other entries that note more caution is needed in certain areas. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's valuable to know. I didn't spot any topic quite as specific as trans in that list, but it makes sense that some of those titles are considered unreliable about politics, for instance. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have any precedent for designating a source with different reliability for something as narrow as "trans issues" though? I am wondering if this is a precedent we want to set. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends in part whether you regard "trans issues" as narrow, but to my mind it is a precedent worth setting. If a sources is reliable or unreliable only in a narrow area we should (not) be using in that specific area as this will bring the greatest benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thryduulf. It's not even that narrow even though it's the narrowest topic so far. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it is the narrowest. Cato Institute's listing at RFP says (in part) and that's from 2015. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More than once in Option 1 !votes there has been a claim that Option 3/4 !votes amount to requiring RSes to hold a certain 'political position' or 'political opinion'. However, this misrepresents many Option 3/4 !votes, which express not concern about support/opposition for X or Y law, or A or B party (which would be political positions) but instead about inaccuracies, misinformation, and deviation from academic consensus about trans existence and experiences (i.&nbsple., matters pertaining to reliability, accuracy, etc.). The claim by various Option 1 !votes that the Telegraph merely has a POV or bias is troubling because it reduces information to opinion, as if academic interpretations in science, sociology, and more have only as much weight as an opinion about, say, whether Kirk or Spock is the better character.In any case, I encourage the closer to remember that consensus is determined not by a simple counted majority but by the quality of arguments (and not necessarily their length either). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many support Chess and Void's rebuttals of claimed informational inaccuracies, which don't appear to have been addressed.
 * which don't appear to have been addressed: They have been; see Loki's post beginning I think that this response, [that is, Chess's response] despite being long etc. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's debatable; much of that reply lacks substance. Of the five points they make in that comment only the first addresses reliability rather than bias, and that point is contradictory and makes little sense.
 * In that point they argue that the "student identifies as a cat" story is akin to the litter box hoax because the litter box hoax doesn't solely relate to litter boxes but accommodations for otherkin generally. Even if we set aside the debate about whether reprimanding students for refusing to accept an individual identifying as a cat is an accommodation, that aspect isn't actually in dispute - it's an accepted fact that that the students were reprimanded by the teacher for this.
 * What is disputed is whether:
 * A student identified as a cat
 * The Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat
 * It appears, although isn't conclusive, that no student identified as a cat (Rye College has denied it, but the Ofsted report was silent on that question). However, the belief that the Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat is based on a misunderstanding of presuppositions; see my response beginning with "You're assuming that a sentence". BilledMammal (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And either way, even if they did get that wrong, I don't think that's enough. Plus Chess replied to it anyway. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have found Chess—who continues to bloat the survey section rather than use the discussion section—unconvincing, so we seem to disagree and that may have to be that for now. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.
 * Since it has been raised by a few editors I wanted to quickly address this point. Individuals have both gender and sex and on a purely factual basis it is equally correct to refer to an individual by either. This means that misgendering a transgender individual isn't a factual inaccuracy, but a choice to use sex rather than gender. Of course on a moral basis gender should be used - but that isn't relevant to source reliability.
 * Further, it appears that the Telegraph generally doesn't misgender individuals, even in controversial cases such as that of Isla Bryson. When they do it typically seems to be under exceptional circumstances, such as in this provided example where clinical advice was to not affirm a teenager's gender. Usually, we would consider a source deciding that it knows better than an individuals treating medical professional to be evidence of unreliability; it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable for us to decide that the opposite is true in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, this is pretty clearly sophistry. Pronouns are not a reference to biology and this is obvious every time you don't look in someone's pants before you refer to them.
 * Second, if you insist on continuing to make this argument: even the sex of a trans woman is not unambiguously male, assuming you're talking about an actual biological state and not essentialist ideology masquerading as biology. A trans woman could have a female-typical hormonal system (and therefore female secondary sex characteristics like breasts, softer skin, and lower upper body strength), a vagina, and no ability to grow facial hair or produce sperm. Not all trans women do, of course, and no trans woman has female-typical chromosomes, but surely you see why this makes arguments that the Telegraph is just going by biology pretty silly.
 * (I agree the Telegraph doesn't always misgender individuals, but it does much more often than other similar sources.) Loki (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @LokiTheLiar, you say "...and no trans woman has male-typical chromosomes". Can you clarify or elaborate on that? Pecopteris (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Typo. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you're saying that trans women aren't biologically male, then your argument seems based on our POV rather than on factual inaccuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in fact saying that. Trans women are neither unambiguously biologically male nor unambiguously biologically female. If you were a doctor evaluating a patient for a condition where sex was medically relevant, and your patient was a trans woman, you would have to ask them about their specific history of hormones and procedures, and then make a decision based on what specific condition you're thinking of. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While some academics do hold the position that human sex is mutable, looking at recent scholarly articles they are still in the minority. We can't consider a source unreliable on the basis that they hold a mainstream view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. If pronouns aren’t attached to sex, then there is no reason we should not, as a society, move to “they” exclusively, rather than “he” and “she. In fact, many languages do that - they do not have different pronouns and simply have one “third person pronoun”. But English does not - we have two. By saying that they’re not based on sex, that’s simply absurd - the concept of “gender” was equivalent to sex for the vast majority of history, including in the pre-english languages that formed these dual pronouns.
 * Let me be clear - I support transgender rights more than a lot of people in my country. But it is absolutely not beneficial to that cause to try and make claims like “pronouns aren’t sex, they’re gender”, especially when a significant minority (if not majority) do recognize that historically, they were because of sex. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to make these kind of arguments - whether about trans issues or any other issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pronouns aren't sex, they're gender. Drag queens usually use "she" pronouns, for one, and for two if you think they're about sex then you should be looking in the pants or testing the chromosomes of random people on the bus. Loki (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't ask to see someone's birth certificate before calling them their name, either... Nor do we refrain from using pronouns for babies who have no gender identity yet and may not even have any social indicators of sex (unisex clothes, unisex name) at all--we just go by what their parents use. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the "clinical advice" your saying the telegraph followed by misgendering a child is in fact conversion therapy as discussed above. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reason to believe that beyond by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, who claimed that the source was referring to conversion therapy because it used the term "watchful waiting", which they said was invented by an American-Canadian fringe advocate of conversion therapy?
 * If not, you should know they were mistaken. It was developed at one of the largest transgender clinics and research institutes in the world, the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria in the Netherlands, and is a highly respected model of care worldwide.
 * The terminology is also widely used in mainstream academic sources, with most being highly supportive of it. There is no reason to believe that the child was being put through conversion therapy, or that the Telegraph was doing anything other than following medical guidance aligned with mainstream practices when they referred to them as a "she".
 * This is emblematic of the issue with this RfC; the issues raised about the source are not ones of reliability but of disagreement with their POV. This is also leading me to start questioning the notion that the source is notably biased; if examples like this are representative of the other arguments presented for bias then they are in fact solidly mainstream. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As the child in question is a teenager (near the start of the process) he has almost certainly started through puberty. The watchful waiting model says that if these issues persist into the onset of puberty to intervene. Whereas conversion therapists use watchful waiting as a kind filibuster tactic, the ignoring of the actual model and doing anything to delay any kind of transition points towards conversion therapy rather than actual good care. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry when I say "near the start of the process" above I mean near the start of the article (around 2019). Sorry for any ambiguity LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Question If this RfC results in a consensus of GREL, do we support adding a note to prefer other sources, per e.g. egregiously misleading presentation of a breast binding study? I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not an expert on MEDRS, but shouldn’t this be excluded anyway, regardless which mainstream newspaper published it? FortunateSons (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a violation of MEDRS to attempt to use a newspaper/other non-medical source to represent the results of a study. That said, I haven’t looked at this specific link (it doesn’t work well on mobile) to see if the link Aaron has provided is truly an “egregiously misleading presentation”. If it is, it could be considered in determining their overall reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s from @LunaHasArrived at 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) FortunateSons (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So basically, in a news article, they have a mother raise concerns about breast binders to a school citing a certain study. They follow up the sentence with "97% who use experience health problems" to imply that her concern is valid, while the 97% figure cited includes all problems, such as "itchiness", regardless of severity. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source, I'm not convinced the Telegraph article is a problem. While sources like The Telegraph aren't reliable on medical topics anyway per WP:MEDRS, what we would expect from a reliable source in that topic area is they accurately reflect the source without distorting it with their own contributions, even when they think those contributions are self-evident. In this case, the source says that 97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to binding and doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that.
 * But even if they had, the impact would have been minimal, as excluding itchiness would likely have only changed the headline number from >97% to >95%. The difference is insignificant, and in my opinion couldn't amount to egregiously misleading presentation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would not call that “egregiously misleading presentation”. Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention. Is it slightly misleading in that it doesn’t specify that it’s any health problem including minor ones? I disagree it’s misleading at all, but I’ll concede it’s a small amount of misleading based on that. But it’s not egregious. Non-severe medical problems are still medical problems. And acting like they aren’t is simply a representation of POV pushing - patients have the right to informed consent and WP should not sugar coat information regarding the sequelae of treatments. If 97% of people experience at least some form of small problem (or big problem) from it, that’s a valid statistic to present in WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's misleading because when I think of health problem, I'd think of consistent pain (especially after now wearing it) or nausea etc, not "has some pain whilst wearing" or whatever. From a medical study it is important to consider these it's just when used in general speak it can be misleading. If I said I was too warm because I wore a fleece, would people say that's a health problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think binding is a purely medical intervention - but some people do use it as a means to change their outward appearance to lessen their feelings of gender dysphoria. This makes it no different than, say, using KT tape for post-workout "healing" (even though that's still scientifically up in the air if it's actually beneficial for the vast majority of people using it). It's not a drug or a procedure, but it is something someone's doing for purported medical benefit - and so if they have experienced other problems related to binding, that's perfectly valid to consider a problem. In fact, I'd argue that by claiming that their claims are irrelevant (that they experienced itchiness severe enough to report it in a survey), you're diminishing the potential health concerns of it and trying to push the POV that it's safe without providing all the information. WP is an encyclopedia - we do not push a POV, we simply report on the facts, and the study identified some problems you may not consider problematic for you, sure. But that doesn't mean it's an invalid statistic, and to claim a source is unreliable for trying to ensure its readers understand that 97% of people had some problem they themselves found was related to binding... that's simply trying to censor a source because it presented information you don't like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is only relevant to medical claims, but not everything related to medicine is a medical claim. While the specific comment linked does reference a medical claim, not everything from the cited article would be.
 * Regarding any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's odd for this. Would one consider the statement "most people who were high heels find them painful" a medical statement, would talking about changing pronouns in secondary schools count (after all social transition can be a thing). These 'soft' medical claims are an interesting area and I'm not sure where I would put them personally and these kind of things the telegraph do seem to be unreliable for. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By my reading of WP:Biomedical information, technically speaking "most people who wear high heels find them painful" would definitely be a statement covered by WP:MEDRS, and arguably almost anything about trans people might be covered due to the presence of gender dysphoria in the DSM.
 * However, needless to say this is not how most editors interpret this in actual practice, and I think if you tried to push it you'd get a lot of pushback. Loki (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasn't certain where to put this but more evidence on only platforming one side comes from their recent coverage of the general election. Both the conservatives and Labour have released their manifestos and the telegraph covered their positions on conversion therapy here and here respectively. Notable is the only groups asked for comment are Sex matters, Christian Concern and LGB alliance. All these groups advocate for no further conversion therapy ban. The only description on any of these groups is that Sex Matters has a chief of advocacy and one of sex matters or Christian concern is a charity. The argument being made here isn't that a rs shouldn't platform these people, it's that the telegraph is Onlyplatforming this side. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But are they platforming this one side with fact checking and accuracy? If so, then reliability isn’t the issue.  Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean they uncritically platform the view that a supposed ban would be harmful (brave coming from Helen Joyce who said that happily transitioned people are a huge problem for a sane world). She also says that most children convinced of an opposite sex identity grow out of it during puberty, this is just flatly untrue and based off of research considering any gender nonconformity as gender dysphoria. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also even if you think they are fact checking and accurate, WP:due becomes a huge issue because suddenly on the matter of conversion therapy: sex matters, Christian concern and LGB alliance are more important than anyone with actual qualifications. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE is not a standard we hold sources to, it's a standard we hold ourselves to when summarizing reliable sources. That's because we are not supposed to decide what is due, we are supposed to defer to what the sources see as important opinions. You're interpreting WP:DUE in reverse, which is that you get to decide what opinions are important, and then judge what sources are reliable based on who they platform. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right in terms of including stuff in an article. I should have probably formulated this better. When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions. This is the consequence of the telegraph being an rs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the Telegraph does represent the opinion of a sizable group of people. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing to exclude that opinion - there are plenty of other sources that represent it in a manner that is not misleading to the point that multiple independent sources question its reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Luna said When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions., implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's quite the opposite, according to the telegraph all other opinions need not being mentioned (except maybe a token mention that they exist). So only these opinions would be due (otherwise the others would have been included) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A POV can never be excluded by the INCLUSION of a source. A POV can only be excluded by the EXclusion of a source. This is because wp:due is never determined from using only one source, but by using ALL rs collectively. The argument you're making would mean we'd have to declare Pink News unrel too, since they also exclude views, but in the other direction. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what IP is saying is a summary of WP:DUE: We only decide whether to include a viewpoint based on how many reliable source do mention it. The Telegraph excluding viewpoints that other reliable sources already cover enough won't cause these excluded viewpoints to lose their DUE. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is an argument to be made that because due is decided based on a balance of sources, one source being too far out of balance (and consistently being so) could affect reliability. However I know that I have not shown that above and to show it one would require a lot more research  LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You need a ton of reliable sources not including it to have it excluded due to DUE. Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What sources are you referring to?
 * If you're referring to the sources provided by Loki, excluding the three from Pink News, none appear to question reliability. In fact, the IPSO report rejects some of the claims of unreliability that editors have repeated here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, judging by the placement of their comment, I think they're adding to the argument to add a note to prefer other sources due to bias. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources don't actually support your claim. In the first article, The Telegraph quotes Labour (a political party and a group advocating for a conversion therapy ban) at the end:
 * In the second article, the newspaper provides the entire manifesto of the Labour Party and quote them throughout. I suppose you'll say The Telegraph should've quoted a third-party group that isn't a political party, so I'll ask, why isn't quoting Labour enough to satisfy the need to provide both sides? The Telegraph certainly biased in how much space they allocate to gender-critical activists but their articles do not entirely exclude views contrary to such. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you hear the opposing view, just that there is an opposing view. I'd also disagree with throughout for the labour article (it's in one place but it is a short article). LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so your claim isn't that The Telegraph doesn't include any mention of opposing views, it's that they don't provide as much emphasis on them as they should? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They treat it the same way we would treat a fringe view, mention it exists and nothing more. They've gotten 3 non experts and treated them like experts (no mention of all 3 groups being advocacy groups, just that sex matters has a chief of advocacy). I think treating clearly non fringe views as fringe and clear members of advocacy groups as potential experts is worrying. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliability is about whether statements are true or false. Wall Street Journal readers want to know how the upcoming strike will effect investors and how management deals with it. Nation readers want to know how it will affect workers. ABC News readers want to know how it will affect them, the consumers.It doesn't mean that some of them must be unreliable, it's that they apply different weight. Editors then determine the overall weight in reliable sources and reflect what they say. They should not then purge every outlier. TFD (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a partial narratives issue. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a partial narratives issue. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This Telegraph article on the upcoming play about Rowling seems pretty balanced. It seeks out the creators of the play to find out what their motives were in creating it, rather than just talking to the gender-critical people who dislike it without even having seen it. It also labels Breitbart "the far right US website" when it's referenced, going against some of the commentary here that implies that they're frequently referencing extremist views without labeling them as such. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Generally unreliable" doesn't mean that every article they publish is bad. It's "unreliable for facts" not "they are liars". Literally, cannot be relied on. Loki (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As well as this it seems to much more be about theatre than transgender people, and the auther seems to mostly do theatre reviews for the telegraph. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Without a very clear and universally-agreed-upon definition of what qualifies as a trans issue, every issue is a trans issue. On that basis I oppose the very fact of asking this question. I also think that once a clear definition of "trans issue" has been fully agreed upon by everyone, this question will probably have become unnecessary. I don't read the Telegraph and I don't know what kind of paper it is, but this question seems like just an attempt to discredit them, and not a good-faith discussion. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good point, but hard to resolve; quite a lot of motivated reasoning goes into people's claims of what does or doesn't fit in a given category; to somebody obsessed with something, everything ends up related to their pet issue, while to somebody trying to rules lawyer a topic ban, nothing is. (On the subject of being obsessed with a topic, Microsoft recently reprogrammed a version of their AI chatbot to be obsessed with the Golden Gate Bridge and the results were amusing... no matter what you asked it, the answer ended up centering on that bridge.) &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly what I said is hard to resolve, because I was showing how the OP's question is illegitimate and unanswerable. For the OP's question to be legitimate, we would need an unequivocal answer to my question first. I can't like or dislike the Telegraph because I literally haven't seen it, but OP has asked a leading and tendentious question pretty much the same as the classic example "When did you stop beating your wife". There can never be an appropriate answer when the question is wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels like a very silly objection to me. What's the clear and universally-agreed-on definition of a "gender-related dispute or controversy" for the purposes of WP:GENSEX? Does every article fall under WP:GENSEX? Because by my reading "gender-related dispute" is significantly broader than "trans issue". Loki (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have an example of something that has clear and universally-agreed-on definition, if we're requiring that for some reason. Can someone please tell me if there is a clear and universally-agreed-on definition of "politics and science" in WP:FOXNEWS? How about "controversial" in WP:ANADOLU? If anyone really tried to give me a definition for any of those phrases, I will have to respectfully disagree with their definition. So it looks like we really gotta delete RSP as a whole. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want an answer you can ask at the humanities reference desk. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m seeing two major threads in the category 1 votes: “it’s biased against trans people and that’s perfectly fine” (never mind how that also makes it biased against science and human rights according to actual experts) and “it’s just too respectable to consider unreliable” (or “it’s a newspaper of record” etc). I’d appreciate some additional insight from those who voted 1 as to why either argument is supposed to be valid or convincing. Dronebogus (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Read Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which you are supposed to read every time you open this page.
 * If all categories 2 and 3 can show is that The Telegraph is biased, that side hasn't met the bare minimum of evidence that global consensus has determined is necessary to treat a source as unreliable.
 * Meanwhile, saying The Daily Telegraph is a newspaper of record isn't an appeal to the stone. The term "newspaper of record" implies that it is widely read, authoritative, and respected. This term is used by many other secondary sources to describe The Telegraph.   That is a strong indicator of reliability on its own.
 * Day 1, I asked please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective and here we are, 3 weeks later, with specific examples refuted, editors are now saying bias alone can be the reason for a source being unreliable.
 * I guess I'll ask for some insight from your end. Explain why my interpretation of Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is not an accurate summary of policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * to Dronebogus's comment. The reasoning of a lot of GREL contributions has seemed circular: either
 * the coverage on trans topics is just bias, and bias doesn't necessarily produce inaccuracy, therefore there isn't any inaccuracy in this coverage (I remember this approach being dismissed the last time Electronic Intifada was discussed, since bias not necessarily leading to inaccuracy doesn't mean there can't be cases where a biased source does have inaccurate coverage); or
 * the Telegraph can't be unreliable on any topics because it's a newspaper of record, and newspapers of record are always considered generally reliable on all topics, so it's reliable. (amounting, effectively, to 'it's reliable because it's reliable')
 * Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 23:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not saying that there isn't enough inaccuracy just because bias doesn't necessarily produce inaccuracy, we're saying that there isn't enough inaccuracy because there isn't enough evidence of inaccuracy; most evidence produced points to bias, which we already know. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A newspaper of record is reliable unless proven otherwise and you haven't proven otherwise. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What claims are currently being sourced to The Telegraph on trans-related articles? Specifically, I'd be interested in knowing if there are any claims cited to The Telegraph that we could not find an alternate source for. That would help me understand the potential impact of this RFC.  Pinguinn     🐧   09:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Notifications (Telegraph on trans issues)
Shortcut to survey:
 * Pinging everyone who participated in the above discussion. In order to avoid the ping limit, this will be broken up among multiple posts. I also intend to notify the following Wikiprojects: WP:LGBT, WP:UK, WP:JOURN, WP:NEWS. If I missed anyone or anywhere, please feel free to notify them yourself. (Also if you did not get pinged and your name is down there, please tell me, because that probably means I exceeded the ping limit.) Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , . Loki (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , . Loki (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , . Loki (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * - per Template:Reply to, for a successful ping, you need to add new lines of text, plus signed by adding ~ at the end of the message.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Grr. Okay, I will redo the pings soon. Loki (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixing pings:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Loki (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Loki (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Notify editors who participated in the previous RFC, excluding editors who have already participated here or have been blocked/topic banned. Apologies if I missed anyone or accidentally pinged anyone who should have been excluded. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notifying @JzG, who was not notified despite seeming to meet BilledMammal's criteria. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notifying @Slatersteven and @Rosguill for the same reason. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And @Genericusername57, who opened the previous RfC. That should be all. Flounder fillet (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Korny O'Neal is topic-banned from GENSEX. Also, several people in that list I've already pinged above. Loki (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium (Telegraph on trans issues)
As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support three years - but apply the moratorium to all discussions about whether British sources are reliable for transgender topics. The nominator has made it clear they wish to hold similar RFC’s on other British sources, but RFCs last year held that those sources were reliable and given this result it’s clear that another RFC on those sources will only waste the communities time. BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No pre-close summaries, please. As consensus in RFCs entails more than a straight vote, this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines. Numerous participants (full disclosure: myself included) aver that evidence of distortions and unreliability is there, WP:IDHT-esque replies and bludgeoning from Option 1 !votes notwithstanding. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that. I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that all option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable" is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source is reliable.I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around 7,000 words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) and Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) sections. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised Chess is the first example to come to mind, considering that Loki (on the "Option 3" side of the debate) contributed a similar number of words across 47 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that WP:BLUDGEON is too often misused. BLUDGEON is about repeating the same arguments in replies across many commenters like spamming, not responding to others without repeating the same arguments already brought up at length. I don't see how anyone here is bludgeoning. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Loki made approximately approximately as many comments (I counted 35 from Chess and 37 from Loki) but contributed ~4,000 words (counting the Survey and Discussion sections). Chess wrote nearly twice as much. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even when limited to the "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, though I don't know why we would limit, you're missing some from Loki; they contributed ~5,000 words (calculated by copying and pasted all of their comments from those sections into a word document).
 * I think you're missing my point - if there was bludgeoning from some Option 1 editors, then there was also bludgeoning from some Option 3 editors, and it is inappropriate to focus just on the former. However, I agree with Aaron Liu that no one appears to have been bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we would limit: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could someone link to the Taylor & Francis thing? I can't seem to find it. The Bloomsbury book linked to by Loki is limited to a preview, and the search results from the bottom button don't contain anything other than reports of bias. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here. It doesn't say what they think it says, though - it makes no comment about reliability, and even on bias only says that it is aligned with the rest of the British press. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen that, but I mistook the giant Routlege logo (which apparently also says it's part of T&F) to be the sole publisher. 🤦 Thanks. I'd agree that these sources do not talk about reliability. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply on Critical Discourse Studies centralized to . Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that people think I'm commenting too much, so I try to only refute new points. I don't think you can take word count in isolation; you have to consider what is written. Part of why my comments are long is because I try to directly link source content to applicable policy. That involves quotes and analysis of such. I believe that is more valuable than posting a bunch of links, saying they violate policy, and not explaining precisely how or why.
 * And while there are some people that disliked my !vote as a wall-of-text, it has also been continuously cited throughout the RfC even by Option 3 !voters as an exhausting amount of good work that improved the quality of the discussion.
 * I strongly disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES and maybe I'll write a counteressay. This is a lengthy discussion and brief highlights of actively debated topics could be useful. e.g. I devoted much to the subject of chestmilk or the IOC study that virtually nobody cared about after day 1 of the RfC. How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section, given that says this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines? This would also reduce the need for people to reiterate their existing points in the survey section. This would achieve the goal of reducing bludgeoning. As a side note, if people here agree I will be moving this !vote down to the "summaries" section. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How would everyone feel about a new "weighing" section (or "summaries" as you call it in your last sentence): I suppose you can probably guess I would object to such a section, since I don't disagree with WP:NOSUMMARIES. Making a new section like that seems to amount to asking everyone to once again explain their positions and restate their comments. We expect a good close to read the entire discussion; why have the discussion, and then also a recapitulated discussion? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hydra here. Closers should be expected to do their due diligence normally. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue, I would like to register my objection at your characterisation that my statement on this topic is the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing no clear consensus for any option, and no "inevitable and obvious conclusion". Involved parties should refrain from trying to influence the closer towards their point of view. Oppose any moratorium on discussions that present new evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The current vote count puts option 1 about 20 votes ahead of option 3+, and most of the option 2 votes are essentially "it is biased, but largely factual", which is what everybody who has voted option 1 says. The quality of arguments for 3 that are actually based in policy are exceptionally low, as last time. As for "attempting to influence the closer" to stop constant repeating of this nonsense... well, I don't think that is against any of our policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you need a reminder, this is not a vote. When you actually read the comments many (but not all) in support of both 1 and 2 are saying it's biased to the point that you need to be aware of it and explicitly consider how it affects issues like balance and reliability - if you read only the Telegraph's presentation you could very easily end up being mislead as to what actually happened or what opinions about a thing are from nutjobs and which are from impartial experts. That's textbook "additional considerations apply". Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, but 20 more people thinking one thing than another is a reflection of a fairly strong consensus.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you treat bolded words as the sole evidence of what people think that might be true. If you read what they actually say (i.e. treat it as something other than a vote) then that's not necessarily so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, "the people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closer's summary. People who choose option 1 are saying it can be used in our articles for factual information and attributed opinions where due.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously "people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closers summary because (most) people haven't cast votes, they have expressed nuanced opinions that may or may not include some words in bold. The job of the closer is to read the entirety of all the opinions expressed (not just the bolded words) and, based on those words and the relative strength of the arguments made, come to a conclusion about what consensus the discussion arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is anyone suggesting that one ought to read only the Telegraph's accounts of the issue and never anything else? Getting a well-rounded view is best achieved by reading multiple sources with different biases and points of view. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, I'd rather have it per-editor instead of per the entire area. According to RSP (and links among some of the rationales), the last RfC was in 2022, two years ago. That RfC also had a lot less BEFORE, research, and arguments presented. This RfC unfolded quite differently. Until a ton of people decide that starting new RfCs that parrot the exact same arguments here is a good idea for them, I'd oppose a moratorium. Unless there is quite active harm done, I'd rather the rules to allow for the most scenarios, like if The Telegraph got bought out by the Daily Mail. I strongly oppose BilledMammal proposal for a hold on all British sources, especially not for 3 years. We do not know what the future holds, and I'd rather we block Loki from this page if it comes to that. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, this moratorium wouldn’t stop an RFC being held on the Telegraph’s overall reliability, such as if it was bought but the Daily Mail. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks. Still, there are events much more plausible that could cause the Telegraph's factual reporting's reliability in just the transgender area to take a nosedive. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oy, why me? I voted in the last RFC but didn't start it. Loki (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of BilledMammal's argument for the moratorium is your intention to hold more RfCs, trickster. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't on other sources if the Telegraph can't get through (because the Telegraph is way more blatant about this than any other paper), and I wouldn't hold another one on the Telegraph without new information sufficient to convince people who weren't convinced by the evidence above.
 * Or in other words, I'm not stupid. The definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, after all. Loki (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. If Loki wants to start a new RfC on The Times that's fine; assuming the evidence for that RfC would be based mostly on academic sources criticizing it rather than analysis of its content to divine bias.
 * Blocking would only be in order after a third RfC or so after there's been a consensus that there's too many discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...if it comes to that. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose. Clearly there has been additional evidence of unreliability, as many more people have been voting options 2 or 3, and vastly more people have been acknowledging some degree of bias. Loki (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to also point out that the conclusion last time was not "biased but reliable", it was just "reliable", so there has already been a change in outcome here. Loki (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Every source is biased. Period. Biased but reliable is thus ultimately no different from reliable (without acknowledging the bias). You are on a crusade to have "biased" recognized as "unreliable", and that's your right - but you cannot claim that editors acknowledging biased makes it anything other than "reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many sources on WP:RSP that have a note about their bias. It's also a fairly frequent outcome here that a discussion is closed with a "reliable but editors think it's biased" or "no consensus but editors think it's biased", which is what leads to those notes on RSP. Loki (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And you're assuming there needs to be a note. From my reading, the consensus seems to be that while it does have a bias in what it covers, that there isn't a significant bias in how it covers it. You are on a crusade to get sources that aren't uber-friendly towards transgender persons removed from Wikipedia. And you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to do so. That's not permissible, and shouldn't be. This RfC has had so many people opine on it and virtually all possible relevant things that the Telegraph has reported be discussed - and nobody - not even you, should be permitted to continue opening discussions until you get the result you want - unless significant further evidence comes to light in the future - but not the past. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A bias in what it covers is a bias in how it covers it a la WP:UNDUE. Nearly all !votes above operate under the assumption that the Telegraph is biased in its coverage of trans topics. And as I said above, I don't think anyone is bludgeoning here. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * UNDUE applies to the content of WP articles, not to our sources. In fact, UNDUE was referenced by multiple people supporting Option 1/2 - we cannot simply ignore a source because it is biased in the things it chooses to cover. And again, bias in what a source covers does not mean it covers the things it chooses to cover in a biased manner. Many of the supporters of option 1/2 have also clarified that they do not believe the bias in choice of what stories to cover should impact the discussion. You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that. I simply said that it's clear that some editors are on a crusade to continue RfCs until the outcome they desire happens. That's not bludgeoning by definition, but new discussions should not be created over and over again to get the outcome one desires. If new evidence comes out in the future, fine. But the past has already been presented and discussed multiple times now (including the above), and at some point you, Loki, and others need to simply move on and accept that your viewpoint that WP should ignore sources that don't fit your worldview is not one shared by WP editors as a whole. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying with a la UNDUE is that covering the partial truth is biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP. You directly claimed to Loki that you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to [remove sources biased against trans-topics], unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again. Also, I !voted for NREL with a reminder to prefer more unbiased sources if possible, not "ignoring" it.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant the fact that this is happening over and over in general, not to refer to Loki themselves unless they open another RfC without significant new information. Apologies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Twice is not "over and over again". Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think accusing people of righting great wrongs is liable to escalate a situation (something I discovered at the last RfC) and is mostly unnecessary here. There's only one person who I felt necessary to call out and that's because their !vote was "Option 3 advances trans rights", so I don't think they'd dispute that characterization. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There were two rushed RFCs on the Telegraph that left some editors unsatisfied. I hope that this one gets a clear close that, barring the seemingly inevitable closure review, brings at least some clarity to the issue. I would be against a moratorium, but I would hope anyone starting a new discussion would understand that editors could have little patience for it unless new and clear problems have arisen. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but unnecessary - there's already procedures for removing or speedily closing discussions that don't produce any new evidence. There is no need for a moratorium, but the noticeboard (as well as other places) should be watched by editors, and quickly closed if they are not presenting any actual evidence of misconduct/falsehoods that hasn't already been discussed to death here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this whole thread is not based on evidence of falsehood either, but of bias. So we risk having another complete waste of time in 6 months based on, I don't know, a comment piece by Christopher Biggins and a news article collecting mean things said on twitter about JK Rowling.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some editors thought the evidence presented was evidence of unreliability rather than bias. That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now. So the links presented and thoroughly discussed here shouldn’t be permitted to be rehashed in a future discussion. If new evidence comes out however, that should be allowed to be presented and discussed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly debated, yes. Refuted, that's not clear-cut - some people think so, others disagree. Please stop prejudging the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for the discussion of reliable sources, not other editors. So far apart from one off the wall comment this obviously contentious discussion has been quite civil. Yet somehow this particular thread has quickly turned to editors sniping at each other. To be blunt knock it off. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't be a party pooper. There are editors who need a ruckus so that they can squabble, point fingers, and thrive in victimhood fire.       Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my party potty, and I'll poop if I want to. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pyxis Solitary  (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, I support a moratorium. There needs to be a shut-off valve for the predictable and expected RfCs against reliable sources that become the target of ideological GENSEX watchdogs. Any time a source is deemed to have run afoul of the gender identity Nirvana, an RfC pops up. Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 01:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of moratorium, if the close does not go "unreliable" I'd suggest that a future attempt should as much as possible focus on Telegraph stories from this point forward. If it is generally unreliable (or moving to greater unreliability), then that should be demonstrable in the balance across its ongoing output, not cherry picked from its entire history of output. Bluntly, I do not want to relitigate the catgender story again in six months, or indeed ever again. Void if removed (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless that story is directly relevant to something that happens between now and the next discussion (and for many reasons unrelated to Wikipedia I sincerely hope it isn't) then this is something I can get behind. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Support for a two year moratorium with an obvious exception if the evidence on the topic changes dramatically such as a detailed academic study showing a long history of fabricating or knowingly publishing misleading stories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike the last RfC, we got into the most salient point of WP:BIASED which is how it affects a source's ability to tell the truth. Loki presented evidence on why they believe The Telegraph distorted the truth to fit an anti-trans narrative. Obviously, I disagreed that the provided evidence demonstrated that, but there wasn't an opportunity to present it at the last RfC. In my opinion this is the point for which we should start a new RfC; one where we can bring significant new arguments that weren't heard at the previous. Even if ultimately, Loki fails in changing consensus, they weren't disruptive in trying to do so.
 * The question I'll ask to supporters is, how would this moratorium prevent disruption? The opener understands that more RfCs right now would be a bad idea, and I don't see much evidence of other people planning to start discussions. What I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then. I believe this is a more likely scenario than someone starting another RfC on The Telegraph in the next year or so. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fear, is that setting this 2 year moratorium will just create an focal point for editors to put an event on their calendar in 2026 to have another RfC regardless of the situation then. That seems a very valid point. Perhaps it is better that the closer should say something along the lines that evidence of bias should not be used to make the case against reliability in future?Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree, since even I agree that bias can affect reliability, just not inherently. The arguments presented here were that The Telegraph has such a strong bias that it lies, and designating as WP:GUNREL would mean editors can't spread those lies in the transgender topic area.
 * So, for a new RfC, I'd like to see much stronger evidence for how bias caused The Telegraph to lie in a way that we might inadvertently cite. Examples could be conclusive endorsement of the actual litter boxes in schools hoax; which is that students are receiving litterboxes in washrooms. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much of the info Loki has collected shows them publishing flat misinformation Snokalok (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there’s a difference between “obvious time sink” and “I disagree with everyone who voted against reliability and want to invalidate their votes through bureaucratic interference” Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a ridiculously deep time sink. There is really no nice way to say this - no non-POV-based argument has been offered in favor of deprecation, and a collective total of hundreds of hours of editor time has been sunk into this debate, which has gone nowhere and shows no signs of going anywhere in the future. On the bright side, the fact that this conversation has gone on so long is proof that Wikipedia is one of the most trans-friendly places on the internet. If it were not an extremely pro-trans environment, this conversation would have been shut down long ago, and its creators trouted for tendentious behavior. If conservative editors were trying to deprecate, say, MSNBC on politics, with a similar level of evidence to what has been presented in this current discussion, those editors would probably be threatened with a t-ban for disruptive, WP:NOTHERE conduct. I support the general idea of a moratorium on this topic, although I'm keeping this as a neutral "comment" because it's theoretically possible that The Telegraph's reporting on trans issues could take such a dramatic turn in the next 2 years that another conversation is necessary - although that is highly, highly unlikely. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No argument has been offered in favor of deprecation. Deprecation is a specific thing that doesn't really work in a specific topic area, like I pointed out in the ADL RFC that just got closed recently. What I'm arguing for is marking the Telegraph WP:GUNREL. I realize that's harder to type but it's a pretty big distinction.
 * Also, I can say from experience that Wikipedia is about average trans-friendliness for a space on the internet. It's no /pol/, certainly, but it's also no r/traa or Tumblr. I would expect a similar assertion that the Telegraph is unusably biased on trans issues to get a mixed reaction in most corners of the internet, and if people were banned or shut down for saying stuff like that I would actually consider that space quite hostile towards trans people. Loki (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Loki— I’m not seeing any votes for deprecation, Wikipedia is not unusually friendly towards trans people (certainly it’s not biased towards trans people as a community), and there is absolutely nothing disruptive or tendentious going on here. Your argument that disputing the reliability of a widely respected newspaper-of-record is equivalent to NOTHERE right-wing POV pushing and should be silenced or even sanctioned is both disturbingly undemocratic and hypocritical given the contents of your userpage. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think they's saying that Option 3ers should be sanctioned. In fact they themself said that this is hard to argue due to the "distinction" between fact and opinion above. They was just saying that to evidence their argument about how WP is trans-friendly, which they brought up for whatever reason. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is obviously an attempt to undermine the validity of the process.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose As far as I can see, the only people fighting a culture war here are those who are for some reason pushing for a publication with such an obvious slant on this topic, including printing dozens of anti-trans lead columns and opinion columns, to be a reliable source for it (though I appreciate that some commenters may have fond memories of the reliable source that the Telegraph used to be in better times, and have not looked deeply into its current rash of unpleasant bigotry). And of course, as regards a moratorium, then more pragmatically if the Telegraph can shift this much in a couple of years, how much further could it shift in another two? Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As far as I can tell the main premise of this proposal, "no evidence of factual inaccuracy", is false. Whether one finds that evidence to be systematic and convincing enough to deprecate the source is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural Oppose because a moratorium would only make sense if this RfC was closed the same way the last RfC did, and we'd only know that after the RfC is closed, not before. Besides the procedural concern, this is quite clearly trying to silence valid arguments. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Heavy agree. The proposal relies on a result that is not yet know. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds (RfC still running, as noted just above) and because we shouldn't tie our hands. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: The moratorium proposal specifically states: "can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues." It doesn't say that this RfC should be closed before the outcome is determined. Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nay, but it assumes a specific outcome. Aaron Liu  (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds, RfC is still running. Once RfC is done any further proposals can be addressed.MarkiPoli (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If new evidence for/against the reliability of this source becomes available, we should be allowed to discuss it. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 15:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Gender-related issues are very much the sort of matter where sources may indulge in efforts that place viewpoint promotion ahead of factual accuracy, and the concept that we should not be able to question that specific reliability (and a limitation that some would apply to British sources?) is strongly at odds with goal here of relying on reliable sources. If some individual editor is repeatedly making frivolous RfCs, that can be dealt with on the user level. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, oppose: it's not needed (AFAICT this is the second-ever RFC about this? and the last one was more than a year ago?), it's not appropriate (as David Eppstein said, the premise of the proposal is false, it assumes one contigent of !voters' conclusion as a premise), and AFAICT everyone who's said anything about the idea of another RFC has said it won't be started without persuasive new evidence, so the only thing a moratorium could do is prevent us from considering new evidence. As Black Kite put it, pragmatically if the Telegraph can shift this much in a couple of years, how much further could it shift in another two? Regardless of whether you view it as reliable or unreliable at present, I think we can all hope it gets better, hews closer to the facts, gets more reliable as time goes on... but if it doesn't, if it continues on the trajectory it's on and which we've seen other sources go down, and it gets worse, we shouldn't pre-emptively bind our hands against doing anything about that. &#45;sche (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)