Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

::::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. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|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.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

::That [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/28/scottish-secondary-schools-allow-children-self-identify/ last one] misrepresents the findings of the [[Cass review]], on top of whatever else is going on there. [[User:Flounder fillet|Flounder fillet]] ([[User talk: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 {{tq|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.}}