Talk:Gerard Rennick

Conflict of interest editing

Single purpose editor Irving1110 is asked to assess the rules of WP:COI before editing further. Thanks. Ratel (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and disputed content

Howdy hello Playlet, Chhota naatak, DustySnip and a few IP's. I have full protected this page since y'all are edit warring over its contents. You need to discuss your dispute now. Please talk here about the edits you've made, and why, and try to come to an agreement. If you can't, please seek dispute resoloution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been willing to accept edits by the various editors, and I have tried to edit in good faith. There seems to be a number of editors who all seem to be single page editors with potential WP:COI. There are significant quotes that are being removed, and information that is being added that is not backed up by the sources, as well as large chunks of speeches that I have attempted to edit down to manageable size.Playlet (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are twitter postings being used as references - doesn’t this violate Wikipedia’s own posting rules that says social media should not be taken as a source. This includes blogs that reference twitter posts. It’s pure speculation as to what Andrew Johnston was thinking - Wikipedia should not be putting words in his mouth. The link showing Rennick questioning the CSIRO in estimates is being used as a source for Rennick questioning the Bom. This is a violation of the parliamentary privileges act as it is deliberately misleading. The climate denialist tag is not a defining characteristic as referred by previous user. Rennick has never denied the climate is changing. Rennick said Australia’s cities are being overstocked, in regards to congestion and overdevelopment on city fringes, not Australia as a country. Rennick did not beat two sitting senators since he only ran in the Liberal positions. There was only one sitting Liberal Senator whose position was contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:C03:C416:90FF:2CDA:5EC6:D474 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to raise each issue separately. I can tell you that on the first one, Twitter is not being used as a source, the ABC is (and ABC is not a blog). That report references a tweet by Rennick, which is fair enough. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference 15 has a link to Rennick questioning the CSIRO. He has not accused them of destroying records so why is that estimates footage being included when there is no discussion about this. This is in direct violation of the parliamentary privileges act as the statement is misleading.

Reference 17 does use a twitter source. Andrew Johnson says no such thing and it is purely speculative to put words in his mouth.

Reference 6 quotes an unnamed source that says Rennick knocked off Barry O’Sullivan. This is incorrect since Rennick did not contest the Nationals position. Given the source is unnamed and incorrect it is hardly reliable. As the article states Rennick did not respond before the deadline but yet the ABC ran the article anyway for some arbitrary deadline despite the fact it is unethical to run a story without giving the subject of the article time to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:E02:F973:D0D5:4462:E271:AE53 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@ItWasPredestined you are attempting to change information that has been broadly accepted by the editors on this page. The only exception is a variety of sockpuppets who have all been editing this section in a very similar way to your recent edits. Please discuss your issues here before changing the article. Playlet (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@playlet. I was just going to edit the page although it appears any edits you do not agree with get reverted so I thought I’d take it to the talk page. However the above IP aDdress seems to cover most of important issues. Although you have not responded to any of them. So I ask how are users supposed to discuss issues when u won’t respond to glaring issues already presented?Thompson894 (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson894 This is not only me there are other editors reverting the work of the several accounts that were editing the same sort of things that were being edited by @ItWasPredestined Those accounts have now been suspended for being sockpuppets. To go through the list that was provided above

1. Regarding footnote 17, social media is not being taken as a source, It is The Guardian that has used the tweet of a prominent journalist in their reporting, in the way that the news would ask for a quote from any significant individual in a news story

2. It is not Wikipedia speculating on Jonston's thoughts, rather it is recording the way The Guardian chose to report it

3. Regarding footnote 6, fixed the article to better reflect your issues with it

4. Footnote 15 deals with Rennick's misunderstanding of scientific theory, which is where it is in the article. Footnote 11 deals with the destroying dataPlaylet (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @playlet upon conducting some research on various Wikipedia policy in particular BLP policy and have outlined below instances where the current version (almost entirely included by yourself) breaches such policy. Considering this is a biography of living persons this must be addressed immediately. I have taken the time to explain all issues within the current version of the article in detail to avoid confusion. I expect nothing less in return to achieve a constructive dialogue rather than the issues that have previously occurred on this page. Reference 11 1. Repeated use of the word claim, particularly in the climate and childcare section of the article. This is an expression of doubt and implies lack of credibility in some instances where used. See WP:CLAIM and adjust your edits accordingly. Please use phrases such as stated, said etc.

2. The sentence that states “Rennick has been called a right-wing climate denialist” is misleading. It fails to include who called him that, in this is instance the opposition members (Labor). The inclusion of the opposition using name calling renders this quote relatively unimportant see below for explanation. See WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICKING. It should also be noted such contentious labels should not be included see: WP:LABEL. However, if Labor is instead quoted rather than “some” this is null point. The quote will also require the inclusion of the author as per WP:CITEYPE. Please note in-text attribution. This is not a general reference and the author of the quote (Labor) must be included.

2.1 I would suggest the complete removal of the opinion of the opposition government. If we are going to take every opposition government statement and place them into all Wikipedia sources, we may find that libellous material is allowed to be included in BLP frequently simply because the opposition stated it. For example, do we include name calling that occurs from members of all side of politics in every politician’s wiki page?

If you have another source where individuals who are not the oppositions members label him as such please provide these instead. At the very least it should read as “the opposition government has called Mr Rennick a right-wing climate denialist”.

3. Second part of the same sentence linking the opinion of opposition members “stated above” to the questioning of scientific method is also not allowed by Wikipedia policy. Please provide a source that links the two or separate the two sentences. Particularly because the source provided does not. It states Mr Rennick said that climate change was “a complex issue worthy of debate and scrutiny” See WP:SYNTH.

3.2 Alternatively include Mr Rennick quote rather than quotes of the opposition ie. Read as “Mr Rennick has stated that “Climate change is worthy of scrutiny and debate” and has subsequently questioned the BOM on….”

Reference 15/11 4. The use of the word basic is a label. I hardly consider the Heisenberg uncertainty principal a basic scientific theory. However regardless of what was being discussed in the questioning the use of the word basic is an opinion and shouldn’t be included. It should read “misunderstanding of some scientific principals” instead. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LABEL 5. Following from the above point with regard to the comment “Corrected on basic misunderstanding of some scientific theory”. This quote comes from a blog. blogs can never be used as a source about living people even if the author is an expert. See WP:BLOGS. 5.1 Until a more reliable source be found supporting the quote (although the use of the words such as basic must be removed as per reasoning above regardless of sourcing) this should not be included.

Footnote 17 6. “BOM CEO Andrew Johnson indicate[d], politely and not in so many words, [he has] no idea what [he is] talking about" is a twitter quote inserted into a news article.” This quote should be removed. If you wish to make reference to the response find Andrew Johnsons actual words reference that. However, until that is done this should not be included See: WP:SPS. Just because it is inserted into an article does not exempt it from this status. Its an interpretation from a journalist. See WP:SPS. For definition of self-published source note inclusion of twitter, Facebook and other social media. Also see WP:LINKSTOAVOID.

The Guardian opinions have been contested on Wikipedia see For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

•    Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
•    Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
• Auto-reverted: The source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
• Edit-filtered: An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
• Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.
• Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.
• Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.
• 📌 Shortcut: Abbreviated wikilink to the list entry for the source.

|- class="s-d" id="Al_Mayadeen" | Al Mayadeen
WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2023  2023  2023 | data-sort-value=2023| 2023 | Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. |1   |- class="s-d" id="ANNA_News" | ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | data-sort-value=3| |  2022  2022  2022 1 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. |1   |- class="s-d" id="Baidu_Baike" | Baidu Baike
WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2021  2024  2020  2024 1 2 3 4 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  

|- class="s-b" id="bestgore.com" | bestgore.com | data-sort-value=13|  |  2021  2021 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. bestgore.com was shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1   |- class="s-b" id="Breitbart_News" | Breitbart News
WP:BREITBART 📌 | data-sort-value=13|  |  2018 +16  2018 | data-sort-value=2023| 2023 | Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. Breitbart News has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="China_Global_Television_Network" | China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International)
WP:CGTN 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 1 2 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of forced confessions. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="The Cradle" | data-sort-value="Cradle" | The Cradle
WP:THECRADLE 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2024  2024  2024 1 | data-sort-value=2024| 2024 | The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Crunchbase" | Crunchbase
WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2021 1 2 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="The_Daily_Caller" | data-sort-value="Daily Caller" | The Daily Caller
WP:DAILYCALLER 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1  
2  
3   |- class="s-d" id="Daily_Mail" | Daily Mail (MailOnline)
WP:DAILYMAIL 📌
WP:RSPDM 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2017  2019  2020 52  2018 6 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
13  

|- class="s-d" id="Daily_Star" | Daily Star (UK)
WP:DAILYSTAR 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020 1 2 3 4 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="The_Epoch_Times" | data-sort-value="Epoch Times" | The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times)
WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020  2023  2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  

|- class="s-d" id="FrontPage_Magazine" | FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com)
WP:FPM 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no weight. The publication is considered biased or opinionated. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="The_Gateway_Pundit" | data-sort-value="Gateway Pundit" | The Gateway Pundit (TGP) | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Global_Times" | Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 4 5 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories.

As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content. | 1  
2   |- class="s-b" id="Healthline" | Healthline
WP:HEALTHLINE 📌 | data-sort-value=13|  |  2023  2023 1 2 | data-sort-value=2023| 2023 | Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RFC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="HispanTV" | HispanTV
WP:HISPANTV 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda. | 1  
2   |- class="s-b" id="InfoWars" | InfoWars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File)
WP:INFOWARS 📌 | data-sort-value=13|  |  2018  2018  2018  2024 1 | data-sort-value=2018| 2018 | Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and conspiracy theories. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  

|- class="s-d" id="Jihad_Watch" | Jihad Watch | data-sort-value=3| |  2021  2021  2021 1 2 3 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Last.fm" | Last.fm
WP:LASTFM 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | 1   |- class="s-b" id="Lenta.ru" | Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present) | data-sort-value=13|  |  2019 2020 1 2 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use of Lenta.ru articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Lenta.ru should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="LifeSiteNews" | LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)
WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2019  2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="The_Mail_on_Sunday" | data-sort-value="Mail on Sunday" | The Mail on Sunday
WP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020 1 2 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  

|- class="s-d" id="MintPress_News" | MintPress News | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2022  2020  2022 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  

|- class="s-d" id="National_Enquirer" | National Enquirer | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="New_Eastern_Outlook" | data-sort-value="New Eastern Outlook" | New Eastern Outlook | data-sort-value=3| |  2022  2022  2022 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="News_Break" | NewsBreak (News Break) | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | News Break is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="NewsBlaze" | NewsBlaze | data-sort-value=3| |  2021  2021  2022 1 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RFC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="News_of_the_World" | News of the World
WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2020 1 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with The Sun, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="Newsmax" | Newsmax
WP:NEWSMAX 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="NNDB" | NNDB (Notable Names Database)
WP:NNDB 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 2 3 4 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Occupy_Democrats" | Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) | data-sort-value=3| |  2018  2018  2023  2020  2023 | data-sort-value=2018| 2018 | In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="Office_of_Cuba_Broadcasting" | Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio y Television Martí, martinoticias.com) | data-sort-value=3| |  2024  2024  2024  2024 1 | data-sort-value=2024| 2024 | Any platforms operated by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including but not limited to Radio y Television Martí (RyTM) and its website, martinoticias.com, are deprecated. There is consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="One America News Network" | One America News Network (OANN)
WP:OANN 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the Daily Mail. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article. | 1   |-class="s-d" id="Peerage_websites" | Peerage websites (self-published) | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020 12  2020  2020  2020 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See § Self-published peerage websites for the full list. | List |- class="s-d" id="Press_TV" | Press TV
WP:PRESSTV 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2021  2021  2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including Holocaust denial, and a host of other problematic content.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  

|- class="s-b" id="Project_Veritas" | Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group)
WP:VERITAS 📌 | data-sort-value=13|  |  26 July 2023  2023  2023  2021 1 2 3 | data-sort-value=2023| 2023 | Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In the 2023 RfC, there was overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There were also strong minorities for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring even WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="Rate_Your_Music" | Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)
WP:RATEYOURMUSIC 📌
WP:RYM 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 2 A | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  

|- class="s-d" id="Republic TV" | Republic TV (Republic World)
WP:REPUBLICTV 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2021  2021  2021 1 2 | data-sort-value=2021| 2021 | In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="Royal Central" | Royal Central | data-sort-value=3| |  2022 4 1 2 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="RT" | RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick)
WP:RT.COM 📌
WP:RUSSIATODAY 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  2020  2022  2024 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  

|- class="s-d" id="Sputnik" | Sputnik
WP:SPUTNIK 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2022  2023 8 1 2 3 4 5 | data-sort-value=2022| 2022 | There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
28  
29  
30  

|- class="s-d" id="The_Sun" | data-sort-value="Sun" | The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun)
WP:THESUN 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2024 15  2019  2020  2020  2021 | data-sort-value=12024| 2024 | The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.

|

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  

|- class="s-d" id="Taki's_Magazine" | Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Tasnim_News_Agency" | Tasnim News Agency
WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2024 1 2 3 4 5 | data-sort-value=2024| 2024 | Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Telesur" | Telesur
WP:TELESUR 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2019  2019  2020 1 2 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="The_Unz_Review" | data-sort-value="Unz Review" | The Unz Review
WP:UNZ 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2021  2021  2021 1 2 | data-sort-value=2024| 2024 | The Unz Review was deprecated by snowball clause in the 2021 discussion. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent copyright violations. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="VDARE" | VDARE | data-sort-value=3| |  2018  2019  2019 1 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. | 1   |- class="s-b" id="Veterans_Today" | Veterans Today | data-sort-value=13|  |  2019  2019 1 2 | data-sort-value=2019| 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories. The use of Veterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Veterans Today should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="Voltaire_Network" | Voltaire Network | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and its republication of articles from Global Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC. | 1   |- class="s-d" id="WorldNetDaily" | WorldNetDaily (WND)
WP:WND 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2018 16  2018  2019 | data-sort-value=2018| 2018 | WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Most editors consider WorldNetDaily a partisan source. WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1  
2   |- class="s-d" id="Zero_Hedge" | Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH)
WP:ZEROHEDGE 📌 | data-sort-value=3| |  2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 | data-sort-value=2020| 2020 | Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated. | 1   . The twitter quote is not the story but an opinion.

footnote 6 7. Allegation of election tampering. Please provide another source, any allegations such as this require more than one third party source see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Therefore it should not be included unless another reliable reference is found supporting these allegations.

I would argue it is not “broadly accepted information” when by the looks of things only two users in yourself and @ratel seem to be agreeing. The undoing of information by @crazybot and @materialscientist does not show consensus seeing as how both commonly revert changes where they believe was not thoroughly explained, similar with a few other users who have done the same. Considering there is at least 3 who have expressed problems, myself, the sock puppet as well as numerous IP addresses. I think the opinion expressed needs to be discussed properly and addressed to reach consensus before refusing to acknowledge an argument. Footnotes 29/30/31 (other positions) 8. State government should be changed to Labor state government. The quote reference who Mr Rennick accused. He clearly is not accusing the LNP and should therefore be explicitly expressed who is referring to. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2006/30-2006.pdf. Regardless this link shows that the Labor state government were the ones responsible.

9. When referencing the opposition to the Adoption of poker machines it should include reference to his opposition to the adoption considering services such as maternity wards have been removed and denied. This is important and should be included.

10. The fact that Mr Rennick should was a candidate in 2016 but failed should be included also. This is involved in his political career and should be included in that selection. It should be noted with regard to the donations that it doesn’t take into account donatinos prior to 2016. Mr Rennick may have donated to the party before then however party donations were not recorded prior to 2016. This should be noted in the article if the paragraph about donations is included.

Reference. (https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateCandidates-20499.htm)

@playlet despite policy stating to remove all contentious material before discussion in particular with BLP articles rather than undoing your work and fixing the policy issues myself and likely causing edit warring as seen on this page in the past, I will give some time for you to address the above policy concerns and fix the information included in the article to be in line with Wikipedia policy. I would also ask the opinions stated in the second part be discussed as this is what the talk page is for. After about a week however, if nothing has been addressed or changed with regard to all point 1-10, I will address each point individually with regard to the policy breach within the article. Based on how frequently you edit this page I do not see a week as unreasonable. If I change according to above explanation, I expect user such as yourself or @ratel hope to not revert changes and simply write “unexplained changes” as has been done in the past with the sock puppets. Right or wrong of the users some of the changes made were explained and simply reverted without a proper rebuttal or explanation of why the information should be included or how it follows Wikipedia policy. I have numbered each point to make it easy to address each point individually. Each individual point is made very clearly above any edits I make with regard to the above point are explained here. apologies for not linking the policies correctly. the links do not seem to work Thompson894 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson894:@ItWasPredestined: Before we go any further you should declare any WP:COI since you seem driven to edit almost exclusively on this page. Your edits also mirror almost exactly a series of usernames that were blocked for WP:SOCK (see here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irving1110. Despite other editors reverting many of the edits that you and the other sockpuppets have made you keep coming back to try and edit things in the same fashion.Playlet (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Fail to see why Rennick’s response to Albanese accusation was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompson894 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I will endevour to deal with your issues point by point.
1. Removed claimed, but with regards to the BoM It is important that it is conveyed that Rennick is a lone voice even within the Coalition.
2. He is a denier of basic climate science and it is widespread in the community. I have fixed it to represent the broad view that he is a climate denier. Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the section of him challenging Albo to a debate as not so relevant, since that para is mostly about the view of his climate change denial in the community.
3. No idea what you are talking about
4. Put back in without 'basic' It is significant since Rennick has used this principle to back up his opinions
5. It is based on the video which appears there and I have added Crikey as a source.
6. Fixed the quote which is an important POV by an editor at a major Australian newspaper, which is that Rennick doesn't seem to understand the science that he is using as the basis for this opinions. Fixed the language to avoid the issues you raised
7. The allegation is not election tampering, but the source was good enough to be reported in the ABC.
9. They are both there. I have no issue with them being there. But they are two different areas of policy and I fail to understand why they should be in the same para? Also Labor should not be mentioned unless you have a source to show that he targets Labor for these problems. At the moment all we have is the state government.
10. You want to include that please do.
You have not addressed if there is WP:COI and if you have a relationship to the other sockpuppets since your edits run along very similar themes.Playlet (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

if the quote about the response is not relevant albanesse comment is just as unecessary. as per wikipedia policy if an individual is accused of something the individuals response MUST be included. to state that if you cannot reference twitter then i cannot reference facebook is null, the facebook reference is gerarsd actual words whereas the adam morton posts an opinion which when i had an issue was not named. The twitter reference not however is not relevant given Andrew johnson actual words are properly referenced within their now, which you unjustifiably removed. i appreciate the addition of a source for the misunderstandings and have thus kept in latest update although hope that stating the exact scientific theory is a valid compromise. i ahve also moved the point as the Heisenberg principle was in relation to csiro questioning not BOM questioning as is implied by the previous version. Thompson894 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

the source for labor explicitly states corrupt labor government which needs to be included. with respesct to the closing of the maternity wards as per the link given that the nationals held the government for about 2 years in that entire period and was responsible for only 5 of the 34 closed i think it should still be included. however untill further discussion will leave out.

• Thompson894 (talk · contribs), you should not use 1-day old undated Facebook statements by the subject as a source. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ratel (talk · contribs) the letter is a response and will not be changing. i will remove the lack of response however as that is a valid point. Thompson894 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Will not be changing" — So you now admit that you are Rennick, by making ownership pronouncements about his statements? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes will not be changing? You cannot change a hard copy of a letter. Just as Albanese comment about conspiracy theory will not be changing??? I fail to see how u draw your conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompson894 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Playlet (talk · contribs) please read above comments regarding adam morton and his OPINION. as said above andrew johnsons exact words are included and referenced. the opinion and interpretation is not longer relevant. Thompson894 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If it will shut you up I am happy to leave Morton's comments out, but the fact that he is basing his arguments on science that he clearly does not understand has to be included.
Also please keep to the accepted Wikipedia format for these discussions. It is not hard to learn, and it makes understanding your long posts almost bearable.
You have also failed to respond to WP:COI and WP:SOCK please do so to facilitate open and honest discussionPlaylet (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No to both accusations. And the science misunderstanding I am willing to include however the specific theory he was corrected on must be included. If u watch the clip it does not show a he doesn’t understand the theory I might add but rather shows that the theory isn’t used practicality. Although willing to forgo this so long as the specific theory is included rather then just scientific theory. It should also be seperate as rennick a critisms of the BOM are based on practice not theory. The statement you reference is with reference to the Csiro so needs to be seperate. I included the specific theory in the very next paragraph if you wish to change that to misunderstanding of the heisenberg principle plz do. Rennick response must also be included for. You cannot simply add an accusation and not include the individuals responseThompson894 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To the IPs editing, your edits have introduced problems such as WP:POV issues potential WP:COI the editing has removed sourced materials and have added ad hominem unsourced attacks and have removed the links to the sources and a heading for no apparent reason. Please read the above discussion before editing again Playlet (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

edit warring 2

I semi protected cause the most disruption seemed to be from unregistered users. @Playlet and Ratel:, I can't tell if y'all are edit warring. If you are, please stop. If not, thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring 3

I have attempted to make the article more compact. I have removed many elements because it is based on one item in Hansard. Not every thought bubble of Rennick's in parliament is deserving of its own section in his article. Please explain your edits if you want to make significant edits. I am willing to discuss the edits, but shutting down all discussion is not that way to do it.Playlet (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the Climate Change section is that the tone somewhat legitimates Rennick's views.

For example, this sentence:

> He has questioned the Australian government's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) about its falsifying of climate data, and has promoted the conspiracy theory that the bureau is tampering with climate data to "perpetuate global warming hysteria", as part of a "global warming agenda".

The phrasing of this sentence implies that BoM has falsified data. There has been no evidence to date to suggest BoM has falsified data. Adding the response from BoM would provide needed context. Gday Anon (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gerard Rennick.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

A note about this article was posted at WP:FTN. I tried to improve the section but am unsure if the second paragraph is still due, after the now-concise (and WP:YESPOV-compliant) first paragraph. After initially tagging the part about thermometers, I removed it, since it wasn't supported by secondary sources and seemed undue: accusations were made, an apparently non-consequential technical issue has improved (not validating his conspiracy theories), basically nothing happened but noise (reminescent of teach the controversy). Then remains the pseudoscientific claim about terrestrial plant death, that the extant source already puts in context, so I tried to make the text reflect that, but I admit not being familiar with that source. —PaleoNeonate – 10:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)