Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 899:

*'''Option 1'''. Obvious and established. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

*'''Option 2''' - as I noted for the two broadsheets listed below, the OP appears to have presented these filings devoid of context or Talk notifications in order to achieve quick SNOW endorsements that they can use as a cudgel in Talk discussions. Editors familiar with the coverage of trans topics by these three outlets are aware of the ways all three have placed their news coverage in the service of political campaigns to limit or reverse trans rights. This is most certainly a case where {{tq|additional considerations apply}}. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

*:Various editors in this discussion have apparently !voted on the RfC question without examining any evidence beyond their own perceptions of ''The Economist'' as a reliable source in general [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1121334349&oldid=1121334335] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1121340637&oldid=1121340442] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1121349866&oldid=1121349555&title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]

*: This in spite of documentation that The Economist as having published "anti-trans screeds",[https://www.advocate.com/media/2021/7/29/respected-news-magazine-economist-publishes-anti-trans-screed] and has mischaracterised their own articles to discuss the "sterilisation" of trans people[https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/the-economist-faces-backlash-for-tweet-asking-if-trans-people-should-be-sterilised/] on social media.

*:A "gender critical" editorial line was pursued under the leadership of [[Helen Joyce]], as has been documented in (RSN-green source) [https://www.dailydot.com/irl/helen-joyce-economist-transphobia/ the Daily Dot] in 2019. Outside of her work at ''The Economist'', Joyce continued to pursue this approach in her controversial[https://cambridge105.co.uk/bookmark-05-12-2021/] book ''Trans'', written while working for The Economist,[https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2021/12/11/in-2021-our-writers-considered-technology-meritocracy-and-the-trans-debate], and that she now follows (while on leave from The Economist) as director of advocacy for [https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/helen-joyce-joins/ sex matters], a group campaigning to protect the expression of "gender-critical" views.[https://sex-matters.org/take-action/gender-critical-at-work-survey/]

*:Some editors have argued that bias is not an issue in source reliability.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1121297537&oldid=1121295721] However, the main point made in the policy section on [[WP:BIASEDSOURCES]] is that {{tq|Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.}} I am not in any way disputing that ''The Economist'' is a reliable source for its own "gender critical" opinions on contemporary issues, but the concerns I am raising have nothing to do with the reliability of the magazine's coverage arise when it is elaborating its own "viewpoint" - they are all about claims made in avowedly factual news coverage. The assertion that because ''The Economist'' is generally respected for its factual coverage in other areas, that therefore this also applies to its coverage of transgender topics, seems to assume the conclusion that this filing is intended to assess.

*:Some editors have argued that the issues identified by RS about coverage of transgender issues are confined to editorials, headlines, or statements attributed to sources. I have therefore come up with four examples to discuss, of claims that could be made (or have actually been proposed in WP article text; two of each). These claims refer only to statements made recently (2021-22) in the editorial voice of ''The Economist'' in news articles (only).

*:The purpose of these examples is to evaluate whether or not ''The Economist'' is reliable for the statements in question and also whether or not it may be expressing the view of a [[WP:FRINGE]] minority that is not typically [[WP:DUE]] for inclusion in WP articles. If one or both of these problems exist in these instances, I think it should be clear that a policy-based close of this filing '''cannot''' conclude that the magazine is {{tq|generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics}} (as the filer, who has advocate its use in one of the cases I am using as an example, had presumably hoped[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People&diff=1119646272&oldid=1119646057]), but rather that {{tq|additional considerations apply}}.

*:{{Cot|Is ''The Economist'' a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?}}

*:Is ''The Economist'' a reliable source for the factual claim that trans ideology is distorting US medical education? The magazine has most recently made this assertion

*: [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/01/08/trans-ideology-is-distorting-the-training-of-americas-doctors here] ({{tq|trans ideology is distorting the education of America's doctors}}, unattributed in article text). By contrast, the consensus of experts is that "trans ideology/gender ideology" does not really exist, and is a conspiracy theory or trope of anti-trans rhetoric.[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-70060-1_86-1] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/10/breaking-buzzword-fighting-gender-ideology-myth]

*: [https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/gender-ideology-fiction-could-do-real-harm] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2021/oct/23/judith-butler-gender-ideology-backlash] [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2017/12/11/gender-ideology-tracking-its-origins-and-meanings-in-current-gender-politics/] Meanwhile, quality sources about medical education in the US do not document any controversy about transgender topics, much less any incursion of "trans ideology" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085635/] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085635/] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967378/]

*: While I was unable to locate other potentially reliable sources supporting ''The Economist'''s claims about encroachment by "trans ideology", the statement is supported by other voices such as

*: [https://www.commonsense.news/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological Barri Weiss's substack] [[WP:FRINGE]] anti-trans lobbyists [[GENSPECT]] [https://genspect.org/north-american-medical-schools-prioritize-ideology-over-science/], evangelical group [https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/woke-medical-students-and-schools-biological-sex-is-a-social-construct/ focus on the family] and Catholic publication ''America Magazine''.[https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/08/04/hhs-transgender-mandate-243487]]

*:So is The Economist a reliable source for the assertion that "gender ideology"/"trans ideology" actually exists in the US? I would say, no. Is The Economist a reliable source doe the assertion that "trans ideology" is distorting US medical education? I would also say, no. And I don't see the merit in a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] presentation that would say, e.g., "[[The Economist]], [[Genspect]] and ''America Magazine'' state that gender ideology is distorting US medical education, but other experts disagree". This seems pretty clearly to represent a [[WP:FRINGE]] claim. It seems clear also that coverage in ''The Economist'' is unlikely to make this issue [[WP:DUE]] for inclusion in article text.

*:{{Cob}}

*:{{Cot|Is ''The Economist'' a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?}}

*:Is ''The Economist'' a reliable source for the factual claim that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology? The magazine made this assertion [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/04/22/trans-medicine-gets-entangled-in-americas-culture-wars in 2021] ({{tq|Lawmakers in these mostly conservative states are pushing back against the Biden administration’s embrace of gender ideology}}, again unattributed in article text). This full-throated endorsement that the Biden administration has embraced "gender ideology" flies against the face of the established view - documented in my first example - that "gender ideology" is a conspiracy theory or rhetorical tropes. Other sources described the Biden administration initiatives as [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/17/politics/biden-administration-transgender-protections-lawsuit-tennessee/index.html guidance seeking to protect transgender students] or [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/biden-transgender-students-discrimination.amp.html rules to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity].

*: Again, while I was unable to identify potentially reliable sources to corroborate the Binden administration's embrace of "gender ideology", related claims were supported by [https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/how-the-equality-acts-gender-ideology-would-harm-children The Heritage Foundation] [https://www.christian.org.uk/news/biden-denounces-laws-protecting-children-from-sex-swap-surgery/ The Christian Institute], [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/03/22/the-tyranny-of-sex-denialism/ Catholic World Report] and the (RSN-yellow labelled) [https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/2/protecting-kids-from-the-lefts-transgender-ideolog/ Washington Times].

*:Do is ''The Economist'' a reliable source that the Biden administration has "embraced gender ideology"? I would say, no. Would it be appropriate to say that "The Biden administration has been described as endorsing gender ideology, according to ''The Economist'', the ''Washington Times'', ''Catholic World Report'' and ''The Heritage Foundation'', but other sources do not agree"? I don't think so - again, this seems like a [[WP:FRINGE]] characterization, not supported by reliable sources and not [[WP:DUE]] for WP article space.

*:{{Cob}}

*:{{Cot|Is ''The Economist'' reliable for its coverage of the launch of the 8th edition WPATH guidelines?}}

*:This is the actual proposed use of ''The Economist''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People&diff=1119639031&oldid=1119452415] that resulted in this filing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1121282223&oldid=1121281670] The [https://archive.ph/7xmTn Economist arricle in question] states that {{tq|the public launch of the latest standards of care by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (wpath) on September 15th was a mess}} and that WPATH {{tq| refers to a website which hosts stories about castrating boys against their will}}. Now I have no idea whether the latter statement is true or not, but it is not backed up by any of the other sources (e.g., ''The Times, The Telegraph'') discussing the site in question. The former statement that "the public launch ... was a mess" may also be supportable, but given that - apart from a brief comment from the publisher - ''The Economist'' only included reactions by gender-crtitical figures associated with [[WP:FRINGE]] groups [[Genspect]] and the [[Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine]], the reliability of this assessment seems questionable at best.

*:The proposed use of ''The Economist'' here was, along with ''The Telegraph'' and ''The Times'', to insist that space within the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People WPATH's standards over time] include this 2022 controversy in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People&diff=1119617912&oldid=1119491545 somewhat lurid terms]. (Note that the proposed arricle text is not supported in detail by ''The Economist'''s article text, but I digress.)

*:{{Cob}}

*:{{Cot|Is ''The Economist'' reliable for its characterisation of a third party interview of Marci Bowers by Abigail Shrier?}}

*: This is the proposed use of ''The Economist'' that I linked in the "Context" section, above. The interview in question was carried out by minor "gender critical" celebrity [[Abigail Shrier]] and was initially published on Barry Weiss's substack [https://www.commonsense.news/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle] before the article in ''The Economist'' [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/10/16/opinion-on-the-use-of-puberty-blockers-in-america-is-turning here. Although the characterization of her remarks was subsequently disputed by the interview subject [https://marcibowers.com/transfem/dear-colleagues-clients-and-friends/ here], editors have nevertheless argued that ''The Economist'''s characterisation reliable for its characterisation of the interview should be considered reliable[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=1120785922&oldid=1120785516] and that it is [[WP:DUE]] for inclusion based on ''The Economist'' and a Medscape news bulletin? And does The Economist 's publication of the article make it [[WP:DUE]] for inclusion in the WP article for which it is proposed - given that no other [[WP:RS]] have picked up the story? (The dubious exceptions being the news feeds of WebMD and Medscape, and RSN Yellow-labelled [[National Review]]). While ignored by high-quality sources, the interview was picked up by [[WP:FRINGE]] contributor [https://genspect.org/sloppy-healthcare-two-top-gender-affirming-doctors-finally-speak-out/ Genspect] and an [https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/gender-dysphoria-in-children-risking-harm-from-well-intentioned-parents-and-doctors/ RSOPINION piece from Canada.

*:{{Cob}}

*:Given these four examples, it seems clear to me that the policy-compliant conckusion is that {{tq|additional considerations apply}}, given the repeated statements ''The Economist'' makes in its news coverage, in its own voice, that align with a tiny minority of FRINGE sources rather than the overwhelming [[WP:WEIGHT]] of mainstream and high-quality sources. A decision that ''The Economist'' is "generally reliable on transgender topics" would only be a red flag to POV editors to introduce poorly-sourced and UNDUE content to articles in the GENSEX [[WP:ACDS]] topic area, and to encourage [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] article text in which the talking points ''The Economist'' shares only with FRINGE publications would be presented as an alternative reality alongside the consensus reality documented in the bulk of reliable sources. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

*'''Option 1'''. [[The Economist]] is a well-established magazine that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Per {{u|Colin}}'s excellent analysis, I acknowledge [[WP:DUE]] concerns on that editors would perceive it as a [[WP:BIASED]] source (though I personally disagree). Further, [[WP:MEDRS]] should be preferred in medical areas. However, insufficient evidence has been provided to downgrade to additional considerations apply. '''[[User:VickKiang|VickKiang]] '''[[User talk:VickKiang|(talk)]] 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

*'''Option 1'''. This is a standard liberal [[WP:NEWSORG]] based in the United Kingdom. ''The Economist'' seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no [[WP:NEWSORG]] is [[WP:MEDRS]], so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human [[WP:BMI|biomedical information]], much in the same way that we should not use the ''Washington Post'' and ''The Guardian'' for claims relating to human biomedical information. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|Red-tailed hawk]] [[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|(nest)]] 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)