Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Xinhua

Discussed perenially here, there is currently contention on using a Xinhua piece on the article for Id Kah Mosque to describe a claim about a plaque in the mosque. The article itself reports on a twitter video from the US Chinese Embassy on the statements of the imam of the mosque and specifically on the point of contention of the removal of a plaque in the mosque. While some are stating that Xinhua cannot be used due to potential bias (this is a situation where the Chinese government is a stakeholder), considering that it's being used to report on the opinions of the Chinese embassy and a blatantly real video of the mosque and imam, I don't see how the usage of the source ought to be contentious, especially with in-line attribution. As it currently stands, the plaque section is heavily biased towards a western narrative by only including testimony given by radio free asia that directly contradicts the chinese embassy video and the Xinhua reporting. I feel as if both statements should be included with in-line attribution or none of them ought to be, but I'd like to know what others have to say about the reliability of Xinhua in this situation (directly reporting on a video posted by the Chinese Embassy). Deku link (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue. Per WP:RSP, For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. Simply put, this is one of those situations; the Chinese government is clearly a stakeholder in this dispute in its relation to the suppression of Muslims in Xinjiang. There is a source listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP that report differently from Xinhua, namely Radio Free Asia (RSP entry). None of the sources contest that the plaque was moved (and it's more than just RFA that frame this in the context of the suppression of Uyghurs). The question on if a video produced by and for the Chinese government's use in public relations is unreliable for facts doesn't seem to be a question, but this is exactly the sort of video that Xinhua is reporting on. CGTN's (RSP entry) forced confessions are also "blatantly real" videos (inasmuch as they are verifiably videos that were taken), but that doesn't make them reliable for facts or due for inclusion in articles. We have a real and present motivation here for Xinhua to be used as a form of propaganda and, owing to the RSP entry, I don't see any reason for this to be considered reliable in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have a real and present motivation here for Radio Free Asia to be used as a form of propaganda. There is no reason in my mind that Xinhua cannot be used to report on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy considering that this is a self-reflective usage of the source, and the video clearly shows the plaque is still intact, so given that no western source has reported on the video in any capacity, I don't see how Xinhua's reporting in this specific situation is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t reporting on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy, its reporting on a statement from a BLP who is not a part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it not a statement of fact that the Chinese Embassy has claimed that the plaque was relocated during renovation with a video of testimony from the Imam of the Mosque? That should be absolutely self-evident, and the overemphasis placed on sources such as Radio Free Asia over the clear existence of this video shows a heavy bias towards Western sources. Continual biblethumping over the general reliability does not change the individual reliability of this article's reporting on what has been put forth by the embassy. Deku link (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The game of telephone you’re talking about ends with a living person. All of the statements that have been added to the page so far fall under BLP, if you think that you can craft a statement which does not fall under those restrictions you are more than welcome to try. I’ve always been saying that this specific article's reporting is unreliable in this specific context, if you’re just realizing that now I don’t know how to help you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read the Radio Free Asia statement at WP:RSP, you will find that it says that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. I do not see a reason why it is different in this case. Community consensus exists on this; Xinhua is fundamentally controlled by the Chinese government, while Radio Free Asia does not experience government co-option that interferes with its reliability. Arguing that they should be treated as equals in terms of credibility does not align with community consensus established through recent RfCs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside my personal opinions that the RS discussion on RFA came to a woefully inaccurate conclusion (ignoring, among other things, RFA's tendency to grossly inflate covid statistics and fake testimonies for geopolitical reasons), this is a case by case analysis of the sourcing. RFA's claim is clearly inaccurate and inflammatory in nature, and yet we include it with in-line attribution based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Meanwhile, Xinhua's reporting on the Chinese Embassy and the Imam is evidently accurate (the plaque itself is shown on video), yet is rejected based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Deku link (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC on Radio Free Asia acknowledged that for geopolitically sensitive subjects, in-text attribution of RFA's claims is appropriate. There is an acknowledgment that in some sensitive subject areas, RFA is a biased source with a somewhat checkered record. As I pointed out in the RfC, RFA has pushed disinformation over the last year about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting completely wild figures that are orders of magnitude higher than scientific estimates. RFA recently suggested that 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province. That's over 30 times the scientific estimates, which are typically around 4500. An excess mortality study finds about 4600 excess pneumonia deaths in Hubei province during the outbreak. A study in Nature estimates a CoVID-19 death rate of 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in Wuhan, which translates to approximately 4000 deaths in total in the city. These studies (and a host of others on seroprevalence: [1] [2] [3]) all paint a consistent picture of the overall level of mortality in Wuhan and Hubei province, in the range of 4500 deaths. The figures that RFA has been pushing, as high as 150,000, are just wild conspiracy theorizing. This is the sort of reporting that led to the RfC result that in-text attribution is appropriate for RFA in geopolitically sensitive subject areas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS which also calls it "wild conspiracy theorizing" or is that your personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need an RS that directly calls a source unreliable to come to that conclusion in consensus. Cross referencing data from reliable sources clearly shows RFA inflating COVID deaths. Deku link (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's kind of ridiculous to ask for a source that confirms that 150,000 is way higher than 4,500. RFA's "reporting" on the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China is so out of whack with the scientific consensus that there's no way to describe it other than as "disinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As I noted on Talk:Uyghur genocide, Bloomberg/Time, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. In fact, WaPo gave a pretty damn similar estimate to that of RFA. Unless you believe that the The Washington Post is engaging in disinformation here, I don't think that there's much of a leg to stand on in terms of arguing against RFA's general reliability. And, as you might note, the RfC found consensus in favor RFA's general reliability; it did not note any sort of difference in quality of reporting or systemic inaccuracy that would support the conclusions that you are attempting to draw. In fact, it said quite the opposite, noting that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. If you're looking to the RfC's closure for a reason to call RFA unreliable, the reasoning ain't there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Last spring, a number of Western media sources did indeed repeat Radio Free Asia's original, wild speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. That was not a shining moment in journalism history. Just recently, Radio Free Asia has pushed an even crazier estimate - 150,000 deaths. To my knowledge, none of those outlets have repeated this new claim that RFA is pushing. And this time around, there are multiple high-quality scientific studies of CoVID-19 mortality and serorprevalence available, which make it clear that 150,000 deaths is orders of magnitude too high. RFA is engaged in outright CoVID-19 disinformation here, and I don't know why you'd defend it. Finally, you left out a very important part of the RfC on Radio Free Asia - that in geopolitically sensitive areas, in-text attribution may be appropriate. That's an admission that there are problems in these areas, and RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation is a good illustration of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to WP:RS or a community consensus which say that RFA publishes disinformation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop badgering genuine concerns on reliability based on simple comparison of reported statistics with your insistent misunderstanding of when RS applies? Deku link (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking for a source or community consensus which supports an extraordinary claim is not badgering, however repeatedly responding to questions which where not posed to you in an aggressive manner could be interpreted as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The only extraordinary claim here is RFA's suggestion that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. What I've laid out is the fact that multiple scientific studies have found death tolls around 4,500. It's a fact that RFA is pushing a vastly inflated number. If a Chinese government media outlet were to push a death CoVID-19 death toll for the US that was inflated by a factor of 30 relative to scientific studies, I have no doubt that you would consider that disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please AGF. As in this case I would require a WP:RS to have made a clear statement about that source publishing disinformation (remember that unlike misinformation disinformation requires intent). I take it you don’t have either a community consensus or reliable source to point to which makes such a statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you really need a reliable source to tell you that an outlet created under congressional mandate funded by the USFG whose expressed intent is clearly propaganda oriented in nature grossly inflated Covid deaths not just as a harmless mistake? Dogmatically interpreting wiki policy doesn’t change any of this. Deku link (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA's crazy claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan/Hubei province are either:

1. Deliberate disinformation
2. Gross negligence and failure to do any basic fact-checking
3. Willful disregard for the truth

Take your pick. None of the options bode well for RFA's reliability though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not up to me or you to “pick," we only use whats been published by WP:RS. What do reliable sources say about this issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We do NOT need an RS to blatantly say a source is unreliable for the sake of reliability discussions. This is an insanely dogmatic interpretation of WP:RS and is becoming absolutely ridiculous. We have sttistics from RS that directly contradict those of RFA and Thucydides411 has demonstrated this to you several times, yet you continue to deny it. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on reliability for RFA, the consensus is that they’re reliable. The extraordinary claim against consensus that they publish disinformation does actually require a source. If it "directly contradict” then a WP:RS will have noted that, if not then its not an issue for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "extraordinary claim against consensus" and even in the reliability discussion their inflation of COVID deaths was discussed. This is not in contention, and the fact they were considered reliable despite this being acknowledged is (in my opinion) in great error. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple scientific studies in reputable journals (including Nature), which I've cited above, all paint a consistent picture - that approximately 4,500 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. In contrast, Radio Free Asia is pushing the claim that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. I don't think I need a reliable source to tell me that 150,000 is more than 30 times higher than 4,500. It's obvious that RFA is engaged in disinformation here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Your insinuation that the imam Memet Jume's interviews may be some sort of "forced confession" is belied by some basic background information on the subject. For those that are unaware of the background, Memet Jume's father, Juma Tahir, the previous imam of the Id Kah mosque, was viewed as being generally pro-government and was vocally opposed to what he saw as separatism and religious extremism. He was assassinated in 2014, very likely because he was viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist. His son, Memet Jume, is the current imam of the Id Kah mosque, and is the person whose interviews we are discussing here. There is nothing at all to suggest that Memet Jume is being forced to "confess" anything here, and his statements in the interviews are, in fact, generally in line with the views he and his father have expressed for decades.

Fundamentally, I don't think we should present this story in a one-sided manner. Radio Free Asia claimed that a plaque with religious text had been removed from the mosque. The imam of the mosque gave at least two video interviews in which he showed, on video, that the plaque had been moved to a different part of the mosque. We should not present RFA's claims (which now appear to have been perhaps exaggerated) in isolation, but leave out opposing claims by a high-profile individual involved in the story. It is fine to give in-text attribution to every statement: we can write, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state media organization, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ...". Readers can make of that what they will, but we shouldn't hide it from them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue as per Mikehawk and Horse's Eye above. Worth notinng that the imam is also a state official (imams are state-appointed and this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government), which might mean that state media is a reliable source, but only if we express clearly that he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is unreliable here? The imam clearly gave the interview (it's on video). The claims he's making are not in any way extraordinary. In fact, the claim by Radio Free Asia that he replies to appears to be wrong or exaggerated (as the video shows, the plaque is still on display at the mosque).

this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government. I'd be careful with statements like that about a living person. I'd also point out that just because the imam is generally viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist, that's no reason to censor his statements. If we're going to start systematically censoring opinions of people in China who are viewed as generally supportive of the government, we're going to have quite a task on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. This is a rather simplistic view of the Muslim community in Xinjiang. Leaving aside the fact that there are also non-Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the Uyghur Muslim community itself is divided. As a Reuters article about the assassination of Juma Tahir (the father of the imam interviewed by Xinhua) points out, there is significant conflict between supporters and opponents of the East Turkestan separatist movement, and among followers of what are seen as more extremist and more moderate religious movements. The imam interviewed by Xinhua, and his late father Juma Tahir, have opposed the separatist movement and what they see as extremist religious movements. To simplify this all down and say that the imam doesn't speak for anyone in the Muslim community, and then to say that we should therefore exclude his views from an article about the mosque he runs, just strikes me as incredibly simplistic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I simply mean that as an appointee of the government and government official he is by definition a spokesperson of the government. This means that on the face of it, as Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, Xinhua can be used - but our readers will not necessarily understand that the imam is an official of the government without us making that clear, so it's not clear-cut. If we don't consider him a government official, then he counts as BLP: Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of... biographies of living people. But I think both these considerations are overshadowed by the fact that the Chinese government is a stakeholder in a dispute: For 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. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you raise BLP concerns in one breath, but in another breath refer to the imam as a mouthpiece of the government, an extremely insulting characterization. Whether you think he's being taken advantage of by state media, or whether you think he's some sort of government mouthpiece, the imam is a central figure in this story, and we shouldn't censor what he says about it.

When it comes to geopolitically-charged issues like China, Radio Free Asia has a checkered record and should only be used with caution and in-text attribution (see RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I documented above). Yet we include their claim about the Id Kah mosque. We can't then simply omit a central figure's response to those claims. If we follow this sort of systematic policy of including US government media claims about geopolitically-charged issues in China, but censoring Chinese responses to those claims, we will end up with extremely biased articles. I think our readers are smart enough to see a statement such as, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state broadcaster, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ..." and form their own intelligent opinions. But systematically concealing one set of views from them is not the way Wikipedia should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be inherently self contradictory. The imam is a state official and Xinhua is state media and therefore it is reliable for reporting the opinions of the state and its officials, yet it is undue for the purpose of reporting the state’s opinion in this article? Deku link (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try again if this is difficult to understand. EITHER the imam is a government mouthpiece (for which Xinhua could potentially be a reliable source, but we'd need to be clear in the article that the imam is a government official) OR it's a BLP issue (so we should steer clear of Xinhua) - either way it's a bad source. If you are arguing he's central to the story and his words as reliably quoted by Xinhua are due, then the article needs to give a clear explanation of his government links. If you're arguing he's not a government mouthpiece, then we have to avoid the source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing you have BLP concerns here when you repeatedly refer to the living person in question by the insulting epithet, government mouthpiece. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• While Xinhua should not be used for any Xinjiang-related facts, I think it's reliable for the position of Chinese government itself. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Mikehawk and others. PRC has a general media freedom issue and Xinhua can be considered a noticeable example of that. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of Xinhua as a perennial source, this is about the reliability of Xinhua in the case of reporting on the PRC’s own opinions as given through an embassy. Deku link (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Id Kah Mosque is a real mosque in Xinjiang and China, not just a plaything for propagandists using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Yes, you need to cite Xinhua and the Chinese imam of the Id Kah mosque at the article Id Kah Mosque.

Right now [4] we cite a US government-funded newsource [5] and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" [6] to reproduce the allegation that the Mosque has been transformed into just a tourist attraction.

However, the imam of the actual mosque itself, Memet Jume, disputes this in multiple Chinese media sources [7][8][9]. Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination [10].

The fact that Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back are actively trying to push this information from a US-government funded news source into China-related Wikipedia topics, while simultaneously removing all Chinese news sources and Chinese responses from these articles, shows that they don't have the objectivity to edit these articles and are engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing: "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole." -Darouet (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t make this personal, this may come as a shock to you but CGTN and China Daily are both deprecated. If WP:RS cover the Imam’s statement of course we can include it, but if no WP:RS cover the statement then there is simply no way to use it on wikipedia. I would also note that per WP:BLP you cant use those sources to make claims about living people, even on a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: China Daily is not deprecated; you may be thinking of The Global Times.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, I misremembered the consensus (admittedly its an odd one which is extremely close to deprecation) "In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard not to “make things personal” when both users mentioned have actively participated in several China related articles for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective (this entire reliability conflict started when @Mikehawk10 decided to remove the cited Xinhua content from the article simply because it was mentioned on another talk page as being in conflict with an article he created, and proceeded to also add extraordinary claims to it mentioned in few sources, not to mention when RFA was also mentioned on the talk page of the same article he immediately went and altered the lede of its article contrary to the ongoing talk page consensus). Furthermore, you continue to make fallacious use of wiki policy (such as calling into question the competence of and borderline hounding other users over the American usage of “lede” and repeatedly insisting that you somehow need an RS for every claim made in talk page discussions) and generally berate other users with a thick degree of sarcasm. When someone enters the conversation and rightly observes that there may be a significant bias given your preference towards western sources and quick removal of Chinese sources (even those not deprecated), they're not the ones "making it personal." Many people involved in conversations with you across multiple talk pages have stressed how hard you make it to assume good faith. Deku link (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The notion that I go around and edit for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective throughout my editing on China-related articles is simply false; my goal in editing these articles is to improve them by adding appropriate sources and by removing content that is dubiously sourced and/or WP:UNDUE. I am more than happy to incorporate the Chinese perspective into my editing, when the perspective can be reliably sourced and would constitute due weight. In the case for this particular article, the question is regarding whether to include information from a Tweet that has been covered by Xinhua. WP:RSPTWITTER states that Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Xinhua is not a reliable source with regards to topics in which the Chinese government is a stakeholder, and thus the tweet isn't covered by a reliable source simply because Xinhua has covered it, so I think I am reasonable in arguing that the tweet constitutes undue weight.

If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, feel free to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI), but please do not cast aspersions on this page or attack my motives by claiming that there is a malicious "sole purpose" behind my edits (and don't attack another editor by attacking their motives here either; that isn't what this board is for). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Please do not cast aspersions here. Do you believe that my addition of information from WP:GREL sources on relevant topics is "skewed" in light of previous reliability discussions on this board? If you believe that there are behavioral issues, the place to discuss them would be the appropriate noticeboard (either WP:AN or WP:ANI)—not here on the reliable sources noticeboard. If not, I would ask you to take back the part of your statement that is a direct attack against my character as an editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable/propaganda for any claims related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, such as the claim under discussion. This is according to consensus in previous discussion linked at the top [11]. Is it reliable in general? Of course not, although it probably might be used for noncontroversial non-political info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it is unreliable for reporting on a video that as clear as day was posted by the Chinese embassy and clearly shows the imam giving testimony? Deku link (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable in context. This is clearly the sort of thing there is a consensus against using Xinhua for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unreliable"? There's a video of the interview. There's not even a shadow of a doubt that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what specific factual claim are you saying is unreliable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Was the video of the interview published by a reliable source? If not its literally useless for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a very dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy if you believe that this is true. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can point me to something that says we can use videos from unreliable sources I’m more than willing to expand my "dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a perennial source consensus (which is a general guideline) as the end all be all gospel for including information is already dogmatic. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back, you are WP:BLUDGEONING. Besides being against Wikipedia policy seeing you repeat the same points over and over is tedious and boring. I am asking you nicely to drop the WP:STICK. If you continue this behavior I will seek a topic ban. Note that I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are right. I am saying that you made your point. Give someone else a chance.

User:Deku link, you are getting close to bludgeoning. You don't have to respond to everything Horse Eye's Back posts. Give someone else a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my behavior. I've gotten quite heated on this topic and similar ones and might need to take a break. Deku link (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I am but I will respect your opinion. I will however note that per policy we are instructed to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the twitter video with attribution as a primary source as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. A mosque would be most analogous to the business example on the page, which states primary sources are acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions." Whether a plaque is in place or not is both simple and objective (and controversial, but that is unmentioned). WP:ABOUTSELF similarly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." We should be careful when using primary sources, especially a clearly biased one like this, but in this situation they are allowed with attribution. In such a controversial example, the best thing to do would be to report what the primary source has to say on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Include. Xinhua is a reliable source for this type of information; it is one of the main news agencies in the country, and other reliable sources regularly rely on its reporting. In-text attribution is probably a good choice in this context, given the controversy. To include the Radio Free Asia claim but omit Xinhua's reporting on the issue would make a mockery of WP:NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Xinhua is under the control of the People's Republic of China, which routinely disappears people who hold the wrong opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include. Xinhua obviously carries water for the Chinese government, but RFA—constrained by extremely restrictive conditions on reporting in the region imposed by the Chinese government—made a straightforward, factual claim about a feature of a landmark, and Xinhua provided video evidence against that claim. Unlike interviews with factory workers and whatnot, it is much entirely plausible that someone chosen as the head of a major mosque (who undoubtedly underwent serious political vetting) is making that counterclaim absent coercion. We can never know for certain, but to leave out such a glaringly obvious counterexample to RFA's reporting cannot but appear non-neutral. If we reject Xinhua's inclusion here, there seems to be absolutely no reason that we could ever include anything stated by Chinese sources, even in cases where western reporting is factually incorrect, and there are no doubt examples where that is the case, even if the thrust of western reporting is overall more accurate than PRC propaganda. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include in this case. Sate-controlled media is reliable for both the opinions of the controlling state and uncontroversial matters of fact. This seems to be a case where the opinion of western sources and the opinion of Chinese sources differ about a matter of fact (the location of a plaque), presenting only one of those opinions would lead to a biased article. There is also no credible reason to believe that the opinion of a generally pro-Government religious leader that paints the government in a favourable light has been misreported by a pro-government outlet, but even if they have that this is the pro-government opinion is directly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I would like to note that since the opening of this discussion the moving of the plaque inside has been reliably sourced (to The Art Newspaper). RFA says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building but does not specify what happened to it, Xinhua says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building and moved inside for conservation/preservation, The Art Newspaper says it was moved inside. At least on the plaque I’m not actually seeing significant daylight between RFA, Xinhua, and The Art Newspaper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The significant daylight would be that RFA is claiming the plaque was removed for the purposes of nefarious repression, while The Art Newspaper claims it was just moved inside (but not why), and Xinhua claims it was moved inside due to preservation and erosion from weathering (which, for the record, is supported by photographs of the mosque pre-move and the video footage of the plaque outside the prayer hall now restored after the restoration). Paragon Deku (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, but for reasons more nuanced than those presented by Horse Eye's Back and Mikehawk10. Many of the users opposing inclusion have made arguments based on the general reliability of Xinhua as evaluated by past community consensus. While past community consensus is important, there is always room for flexibility, local consensuses, and editorial discretion to override the community consensus for a particular usage of a source. Those in favour of inclusion have made arguments based on the additional verifiability provided by the inclusion of video evidence of the plaque and the imam's testimony, arguments that were not sufficiently refuted by appeals to consensus on general reliability. To really justify excluding Xinhua, we need to also look at ways in which its general lack of reliability might compromise this specific usage of the source. It is true that there is a video interview with the imam, but it could be that the imam was coerced (which is possible, even for pro-government religious leaders, given the recent sentencing of Uyghur education officials over trumped up charges relating to textbooks), or that the imam shown in the video was in fact an actor. Similarly, it is true that we have video evidence of the plaque being in the mosque, but it could have been temporarily moved back there for the video. Since it is above Wikipedia's pay grade to evaluate the reliability of a primary source video, to say that the video is reliable would therefore be WP:OR. This is how Xinhua's lack of general reliability affects its specific reliability in relation to this article.--DaysonZhang (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is starting to veer into conspiracy-theory territory. The imam in the video is not an actor. Memet Jume is reasonably famous, has given interviews to various media, and the person in the Xinhua video is indeed him. We can state that he gave the interview in Xinhua, a state news outlet. That would be fully appropriate, so that readers can judge for themselves how to view the imam's statement. However, there is no doubt that this is an interview with the real Memet Jume. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I have seen way in my life too many staged videos in Communist government-run media. That said, the plaque incident seems way too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Do we normally document when plaques are removed from buildings across the world? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  In most cases no, but when the movement of a plaque generates significant comment in multiple sources from multiple countries it's clear that this is not most cases. Other examples of our covering the moving and/or removal of plaques include Silent Sam, Jonas Noreika#Legacy and controversy and Statue of Jefferson Davis (Frankfort, Kentucky). Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and should be deprecated together with China Daily. Reasons have been given in this previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Xinhua News Agency. Normchou ^💬 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As has been noted multiple times above, this is not a discussion about the general reliability of the source, it is a question about the reliability for a very specific instance. China Daily is completely irrelevant here, as are calls for deprecation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The mere fact that Xinhua is mentioned above is a sufficient condition for the "unreliable" categorization, as well as for a renewed call for deprecation, regardless of any very specific instance. What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? Independent news reporting? Normchou ^💬 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for, accurate reporting of facts that support and/or are neutral regarding the viewpoint espoused by the propaganda, and similar. The publication has not been judged "unreliable" or even "generally unreliable" it has been judged to publish accurate reporting in some areas, biased reporting in other areas and unreliable reporting in yet others - There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.. All this means that there are occasions, like this one, where we need to examine how reliable it is for a specific claim, trying to re-litigate the reliability of the whole publication (which there is no evidence has changed since the recent discussion) is at best pointless and at worst a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
        • In addition to not WP:AGF (cf. "a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus"), the above user seems to indicate that they are totally fine with a propaganda outlet and its overarching goal as long as they deem something from it to be "accurate" (cf. "accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for"), a view on its own that appears to be diametrically opposed to WP:SOAP. Normchou ^💬 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

          Perhaps you should stop thinking this is some sort of conflict between you and them and maybe objectively think about what Thryduulf said? You say he does not assume good faith, yet in the same sentence you accuse him of peddling for a "propaganda outlet and its overarching goal", all the while ignoring the good point he made. As I see it, you have not presented any issues you have with the article presented, your only problem is that it comes from a propaganda outlet. If Xinhua made an article calling the world round would you start believing otherwise? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

          @Normchou: Firstly you will note that my comment about faith was one end of a range of possibilities, but if you feel attacked by that then perhaps you should examine what your motives are? As for the source, if what they are reporting is accurate why would we not include it? By definition any propaganda outlet must be a reliable source for the views those who are espousing the propaganda want promoted (because to be otherwise requires either editorial independence from those setting the propaganda message or such gross incompetence that even a student newspaper editor would be sacked). Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

      • Despite my insistence several times that this is about a SPECIFIC usage of the source, a large swathe of editors seem to have seen the word Xinhua, dropped an "unreliable" without a second thought, and left the discussion based only on perennial discussions that have taken place before. Overall this and the globe discussion below have greatly diminished my faith in the process as it stands. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I support inclusion, I feel that people who respond to queries like this should take more time to evaluate the actual proposition and not immediately jump to conclusions. I have noticed some people also claim that the person was coerced and that it is a staged video without any proof and somehow believe that they have made a constructive argument. You could make this baseless accusation against anything that contradicts your views. I do not see a reason to not include this article, especially if the reported situation is verifiable by anyone. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I support for inclusion, per previous discussion. I am poor in English, so I will quote opinions of someone else to prove my opinion. In my opinion, for official facts and most news in China and abroad, Xinhua is generally reliable. Xinhua News Agency, covering a wider range of news, is cited and quoted in a wide variety of other reliable sources. Xinhua's job is to tell facts, not to propoganda. Even among news organizations sponsored by the government, there has been strong competition for years due to China's market economy. If you make mistakes in your reports, you will be ridiculed by readers.

“ I need to point out that, in cases such as "China's industrial output further expands in November" like what Normchou has named above, Xinhua is the primary source just like China's statistics bureau, Xinhua's role is irreplaceable when making such announcements on official statistics and press releases because this is one of the main roles Xinhua was designated for when it was founded. …… When serving as Beijing's "telegraph operator" for announcements, Xinhua is the ultimate primary source.
In addition to El. D, besides AFP, Xinhua also has collaborations and image exchange agreements with AP, Reuters, Japan's Kyodo News Agency, and several more, and Xinhua has been supplying images to the AP since the 70s. On an unrelated note, CCTV/CGTN also has image/video footage exchange agreements with CNN, and you can definitely see CCTV's footage being used on CNN, while CNN is cited as sources on CCTV. Also, I do consider that the Guardian's article on Xinhua is nonsense. That Xinhua's press release which shamelessly praised Xi Jinping is essentially what you would have been expecting from Xinhua. Firstly, on high Chinese officials, Xinhua does release official profiles for them (which may shade negative news or imperfections of them). Secondly, when it comes to Xi Jinping, do except Xinhua praising him like North Korean media praising Kim Jong-un. Thirdly, Xinhua's English service may not run stories of Xi's personality cult as often as its Chinese version, and that's probably what makes the Guardian's journalist surprised, but hell they run tons more of such propaganda stories every day in Chinese and that also includes CCTV on its prime time news program Xinwen Lianbo. Xinhua has been running such stories all the time, and getting surprised by them most likely indicates that the Guardian's journalist needs to consume more Chinese state media to get an idea of how they behave.

Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism (note by 悔晚斋: acturally most investigative journalism by Xinhua is made through its own newspaper agency, the Xinhua Daily Telegraph.), but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily (note by 悔晚斋: owned by Chengdu Municipality, which with sole responsibility for its own profits or losses.) saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.

Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine.

” — Techyan（Talk）

• --悔晚斋 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include on an WP:ABOUTSELF basis, even if Xinhua was deprecated (which it is not), they are still allowed to be used when citing the Chinese government's response to something, which this is a clear case of. We should leave it up to the reader to decide if they want to believe RFA or the Chinese government. Not allowing someone to defend themselves when they are being accused of something is WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 20:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include - there has been extensive discussion about the innate (and understandably) anti-China bias that english-language sources have, and previous RfCs have established that we need to be particularily careful not to allow that bias to distort our own writing on article space, in particular, the need to include the attributed views of the Chinese state. Including the Xinhua rebuttal, with a clear attribution that it is from Xinhua would accomplish that goal. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but that doesn't matter here This dispute appears to have originated with blatantly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users questioning an easily verifiable fact because said fact didn't agree with their POV. They used the Chinese government's stake in one of the cited sources as a pretext to make a stink about it. This is barely even a content dispute, and certainly is not one that should be allowed to forever influence how we cite this or that particular source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Do you really believe that Normchou, Kashmiri, DaysonZhang, Horse Eye's Back, Adoring nanny, My very best wishes, Solavirum, Bobfrombrockley, and I are anti-Chinese users and that we are supposedly all editing towards a goal of violating WP:NPOV? If not, I'd ask you to please strike the relevant parts of your statement. As I've said before, it isn't appropriate to cast aspersions against other editors on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, it would be best to take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The real question is this: do you really believe it's appropriate to misquote me (replacing anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users with anti-Chinese users) and ping more than a half-dozen users I did not name? I'm generally an RSN minimalist (as, I believe, are virtually all long-term users of this noticeboard): I look at the specific nature of the dispute that prompted the thread, and if I see nothing there (as was the case here -- Xinhua was apparently being used as a source for a claim that is still in a "non-disputed" section of the article attributed to The Art Newspaper) I point this out, and only if I see a systemic problem with a particular, highly problematic, source, will I point this out and request that said source be "deprecated" or the like: here, Xinhua was cited for an uncontroversial, objectively true statement, and some users appear to be making a huff over it because they apparently do not like the fact that this statement is true and is supported by multiple independent media outlets. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would read my comment as I wrote it rather than deliberately misquoting it, pinging in a bunch of unrelated editors to read your misquoting of it, and bringing up a bunch of unrelated drama boards: this feels very much like you are seeking any excuse to deliver a "gatcha" to me rather than actually improve the encyclopedia. Also, when multiple editors are accusing you of bludgeoning the discussion,[12] maybe try not doing what you have done here, essentially pinging back in several people who haven't commented here in weeks in the hope of pummelling users who disagree with you into submission. And if you must repeatedly respond to multiple people, please focus on content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Won't you agree that it's a bit lame to blame Wikipedia editors for how Chinese state agencies function, and that their "facts" are often not what we call facts here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that matters in this context. I wouldn't "trust" Xinhua in my real life, but I also wouldn't trust Kotaku: Wikipedia has lower standards than I do. In this context, it seems like the fact(s?) cited by Xinhua was also easily verified in other sources, perhaps even before this noticeboard discussion was opened (Do I need to the legwork to verify that? I didn't actually make such a claim until after multiple users had started to needlessly dog me on the matter.). I suspect many people commenting in this discussion do not speak Chinese (I don't; I can read a certain amount because of my studies of modern Japanese and classical Chinese) or even know a whole lot about Islam: from my perspective, it makes sense that the crescent moon and star would be controversial within Islam and that a mosque in China and Central Asia dating to the 15th (or 10th?) century might not want to put up a standard that originated with the Christian Byzantine Empire and was later appropriated by some Muslims within the former Byzantine territories (including, notably, the Ottoman Empire) for reasons completely unrelated to government pressure or force, but this content is attributed to the aforementioned Art Newspaper and not to Xinhua. But why are we talking about this? Why am I defending my own general sourcing standards and view that Wikipedia should maintain not just a minimal standard of "verifiability" based on semi-reliable sources but also a high degree factual accuracy and balance? I just wanted to answer the question posed, and I am now being harangued by multiple editors, seemingly for no reason other than that four months ago I pointed out that our article on The Holocaust doesn't contain images of "random Hungarian Jews". that have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Kashmiri hadn't commented on this discussion beyond leaving a !vote two weeks ago, and that he/she obviously was not one of the people I was referring to in my original comment (never having edited Talk:Id Kah Mosque) is proof enough of the disruptiveness of the above mass-pinging. How many of the other seven editors never edited the mosque talk page before this discussion and therefore clearly had nothing to do with my original comment? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable Xinhua is a controversial source and it's not used on Wikipedia for controversial topics involving the Chinese government. Radio Free Asia is a separate discussion but its use in the article is similarly not ideal. Spudlace (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  In at least most controversial topics involving the Chinese government NPOV requires us to at least note what the Chinese government's position on the matter is. Xinhua is a reliable source for the attributed opinions of the Chinese government. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include as an attributed statement of the Chinese government's position - This is what Xinhua is there for. Looking above I see a lot of people responding as though this were a general reliability RFC, because at this point that has become what this page is about to a lot of people here. This isn't a general reliability RFC, you've got to look at the context, and the context here is that Xinhua is not being used to support a statement of fact in the voice of Wiki. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not-An-RfC on RfCs

I propose to add the following to the guidance on RfCs for source reliability.

Before raising an RfC please consider the following:

1. The answer must not be obvious. For example, Reuters is obviously reliable, and the National Inquirer is obviously unreliable, and RfCs on either may be considered disruptive.
2. There must be evidence of ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors over the reliability of the source. If the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight. WP:NPOVN is second on the right down the hall, thanks for asking.
3. There must be evidence of a problem rising to the level of an RfC. A source used in three articles can be discussed but probably does not require an RfC; RfCs are needed to establish consensus where reasonable people may differ, or where the reliability of a widely-used source may have changed.

Opinions (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

1. Support as supporter. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, sensible criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Object If there is more to be said in WP:RFCBEFORE then the appropriate place is the WP:RFC talk page. If the problem is the flood of bad RfCs from people who want blanket approval/disapproval of sources, I blame the bad advice that was added to the top of this page ("In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable" etc.). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support as is; however, inclusion of more criteria and their clarification and their refinement might be even better. See my proposal for clarification in Discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support in principle Perhaps it would be better as a guideline at the top of this page rather than as a strict rule. Springee (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, although I agree with Springee that it is better considered a guideline than a strict rule. Realistically speaking anything that falls under the first point will tend towards WP:SNOW anyway, and most things that fall under the second point will as well (although that can still leave problems when eg. someone is asking a patiently obvious question that they actually intend to use as the answer to a less-obvious question - I feel like it might be more useful to have a separate essay describing that problem, since it's not an issue limited to WP:RSN, even if it comes up a lot here due to people interpreting a specific objection as a general objection to the entire source.) And the third point is already somewhat covered by the existing guideline that reminds people that such sweeping RFCs are generally for things that are widely used in articles. But all three points are common enough issues that it cannot hurt to remind people about them. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support, and concur with Springee. Also agree with most of Szmenderowiecki's points below, though it would need to be compressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support. These seem like reasonable steps. I would also suggest that the person starting the RFC should explain why they are doing so, either in the opening statement or in the top response in the survey section. Simply asking "is x reliable" is insufficient. -- Calidum 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support in principle. I may think we need to change a word or two, and maybe cut down on some of the snark, but fundamentally I agree with the spirit of this entire thing. --Jayron32 15:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support overdue and badly needed. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
11. Support with Springee's suggestion being my preferred method of implementation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
12. Support with the added parameter that the "obvious" answers are only those which have no significant information change since last discussion (or ever for those which have never been discussed). While Reuters is obviously reliable now, it is improper to attempt to say that things that are "obviously reliable" will not ever become unreliable, and in fact we've seen multiple sources that were "obviously" reliable become unreliable quickly with new information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
13. Object to proposed phrasing. In particular, the second bullet is rather snarky and, I believe, shifts some disputes that belong here to WP:NPOV. The notion that it is always the case that [i]f the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight is a bit silly; oftentimes many disputes over inclusion (and whether or not something constitutes due weight) intersects strongly with the reliability of the source in that context. This board is appropriate in discussing questions of reliability that may play a role in further discussions surrounding whether or not inclusion is WP:DUE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
14. I abhor the practice of stripping a dispute of its context and then going to RfC with what purports to be an open, general question about the reliability of a source. I support the general idea behind this not-RfC, but I think it doesn't go far enough and I would like to propose a one-year moratorium on RfCs on this noticeboard, during which time the noticeboard restricts itself purely to evaluating the reliability of a source in the context of a specific dispute. If this noticeboard fails to resolve the question then the escalation should be an RfC on the article talk page for the community to evaluate the source in context. I believe this would improve the quality of our decision-making.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
15. Support, and thank you for proposing this. I'd say these criteria should be common sense, but the proliferation of unnecessary RFCs on this page shows that guidance is needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
16. Support - Way, way, way past time that a halt was called to these context-less, WP:FORUM-style discussions that do nothing to actually help editors edit. This is a page for discussing sources not media in general and particularly not a place for deciding which media outlets you think are morally bad (which is typically the real rationale behind condemning a certain outlet). Sources are things that are used to support information in an article, and if the RFC cannot be linked to specific article-content then it just shouldn't happen. FOARP (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
17. Support I'm rather neutral to the specific details of how to implement these recommendations. In general, we need to stop the use of RSN as a general forum on media, as well as a venue to blanket mass removal of certain media categories, such as the recent attempts to deprecate all national media from many countries. MarioGom (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to condition 1. Telling editors that they cannot bring an RFC for an unreliable source is completely at odds with the deprecation process, and while I know many editors are uncomfortable with or oppose the deprecation process, this guidance is an inappropriate roundabout way to end that process. As for obviously reliable sources, if the other two conditions are met, it may not be clear just how reliable a source is or how best to use it. John M Baker (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

• Is condition 1 necessary? If there is an ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors (condition 2) rising to the level of an RfC (condition 3), then surely the answer cannot be deemed obvious. JBchrch (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Additional criteria to be considered and reformulation of what is proposed.

Criterion 1. The answer must not be obvious. Opinion on the general reliability should not be solicited if there is broad consensus the outlet is generally reliable or unreliable, unless there is an event (i.e. change of ownership, amendments to laws regulating freedom of speech and freedom of press in the country where the outlet is based, or a change in staff) that significantly influences the quality of the publication in question.

Criterion 2. is fine as is.

Criterion 3. The outlet in question should have multiple instances of usage. If the source has been used in relatively few articles, it may be discussed, but triggering an RfC is not recommended.

Criterion 4. Check if there were recent RfCs. An RfC should not be solicited if recent RfCs were close to unanimous or unanimous in their conclusions, unless a reasonable editor may conclude that the events that happened in the meantime significantly altered the quality of coverage.

Criterion 5. RfCs and responses to RfCs should not be guided solely on webpages that evaluate reliability and/or bias of the publication (i.e. Media Bias Chart, Media Bias/Fact Check, Newsguard etc.). These pages might be somewhat useful, but they do not have strong methodology. Instead, propose specific examples of what you feel shows (un)reliability of the publication and scholarly articles (if available) that evaluate the source.

Recommendations for those answering RfCs:

1. Presume that the publication is reporting news and investigating properly unless the pattern of reporting flaws is such that a reasonable reader would agree it is unreliable. A single instance of an error (particularly if a correction was issued) is not sufficient to declare that the source is unreliable or such that needs additional considerations. No source is perfect.

2. If citing older articles, do not apply hindsight. Stories should be evaluated on the basis of what was known at the time of their creation.

3. When voting, try to be as short as possible. General discussion on the motives to vote should be presented in the Discussion subsection. Use 2-3 lines at most to justify your answer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am assuming we're talking about source reliability as to add to RS/P? or is this meant in general? --Masem (t) 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• If 1 is retained, I suggest using The New York Times and The Daily Mail as examples instead of Reuters and the National Inquirer. Reuters may be unfamiliar to the reader and some readers may be familiar with one of the famous 7 stories The National Enquirer actually got right. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that we did have a huge discussion about the Daily Mail (multiple times, even), so even if it is obvious now it at one point wasn't, we should assume that a small but not insignificant minority of editors will continue to see it as non-obvious. Even if the National Enquirer occasionally gets stories right, I've never seen anyone seriously defend its usability as a source (and the fact that them getting a story right is rare enough to be noteworthy obviously doesn't really recommend them.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would add something to explain when to file an official RFC asking about general reliability vs when to hold an informal discussion about specific context reliability.

Specific context reliability can certainly be discussed at RSN... but if it rises to the point of needing a formal RFC, that RFC should usually take place on the article talk page, not at RSN or RSP.

Also, while a formal RFC on general reliability is appropriate at RSN, I think multiple specific context discussions (to show that the issue is indeed of a of “general” nature) are needed as a prerequisite before posting it. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't find appealing the idea to discuss the specific context reliability on the talk page of the article. There is a centralised venue for these requests for a reason, and I believe way more Wikipedia editors go on centralised noticeboards to see if they have something wise to say rather than click the "random page" link and go to the talk page to see if there's a dispute. If we were to search these several specific content disputes to escalate into an RfC about general reliability of the source, we'd need to keep them in one place to retrieve them when needed and not scatter them around Wikipedia. The editors, though, must first try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and only then seek further input from the community if the dispute could not be resolved there.

I don't even see having the RfCs on the pages of relevant news sources at issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Question for Peter Gulutzan: in your !vote you state that the appropriate venue for this discussion would be the RFC talk page. Since this is a discussion about RFCs specifically about reliable sources, and not all RFCs community-wide, what benefits would there be to holding the discussion there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Every RfC should be specifically about something, but it doesn't follow that for every talk page that has RfCs there should be different instructions on how to hold an RfC. I'm not sure what "not all RFCs community-wide" means, but if it's acknowledging that WP:RSN RfCs aren't products of any "Wikipedia community", I agree. Bypassing common rules and pretending WP:RSN is special won't help that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What we're all dancing around here is that "general reliability RFCs" are actually a bad thing and simply shouldn't happen any more. They have no positive impact on Wiki. They neither serve as a guide for specific reliability (people can and will always argue that their circumstances are special) nor prevent the use of "bad" sources (because the "bad" sources are not actually bad in every contest). FOARP (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest this as a guideline at the top of this page. In the interest of keeping things short I would skip #1 based on the idea that such RfCs would be SNOW closes. For #2 I would emphasize that editors should show prior examples of RSN discussions that include discussions related to the source's general reliability (either as a general question or part of the discussion of a specific use). Finally, this shouldn't be applied to RfCs related to specific use examples (is this source reliable for this specific claim). Springee (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• As this came to mind while replying elsewhere, I wonder if we can point to the Ad Fontes media bais chart [13] and note that we are pretty much never going to question the block of sources that sit at its apex (those it ranks "Fact Reporting" or better and fall within "Middle" on bias - eg the ones that Ad Fontes has outlined as Reliable) those stress that that bias chart does change over time and sources can move in or out of that range. There can be singular article/events with one of these sources (as to be discussed at RS/N but that doesn't impact the reliability of the source overall. --Masem (t) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The only issue I might see for "obvious" unreliable cases is that it would make it a bit more difficult listing them at RSP, unless we'd be willing to alter the existing procedures there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• In condition 1, the National Enquirer is a poor example of an inappropriate RFC. While the Enquirer is obviously not reliable, there was not a strong consensus as to whether it is merely unreliable, or should also be deprecated. (While the weak consensus was deprecation, there was no consensus to create an edit filter.) Indeed, since deprecation requires an RFC, I am not sure that there is any example of a source that would be an inappropriate RFC because of its obvious lack of reliability. Also, while I am completely comfortable with Reuters as a generally reliable source of news, a famous journal such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine might be a better example of an inappropriate RFC for an obviously reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nature is known to publish sensational claims that then turn out to be unlikely, see the Cerutti Mastodon site for an example, so I wouldn't use it as a "gold standard" for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken. But the "gold standard" doesn't have to be a periodical. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary is unquestionably RS. John M Baker (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely no to the idea that we should use the Daily Mail (which was and remains a controversial decision) as our example of the "perfect" bad source. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll go further: the DM ban was the cause of the problems we're trying grapple with here. The mass-banning of media sources was exactly what people who opposed the ban warned would happen and here we are. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

IDK if it was intended at the time, but, paraphrasing this masterpiece, what I'm saying is that all the problems we have with deprecation are ones we create ourselves. Deprecation isn't broken by default, it is functional, high-performing, and to the point. You make it problematic. You son-of-a-bitch. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: WikiLeaks

Notice. Non-admins are requested not to close this discussion. Quote: Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. The ruling is likely to be controversial. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC).

There seems to be consensus we should treat any WikiLeaks document as a primary source, however, opinions vary wildly on the authenticity, reliability and verifiability of the documents hosted on the webpage as well as to when to cite the documents, as evidenced in this discussion. To settle this dispute once and for good, please answer these questions here:

1. "Is WikiLeaks per se reliable for publication of genuine government documents?"
   • Option 1. WikiLeaks is generally reliable.
   • Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
   • Option 3. The resource is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
   • Option 4. The resource is not reliable and editors should not cite it.
2. Does your answer change if a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject (see WP:BIAS)?

Note. Please leave 1-2 sentences for a succinct justification of each vote; you may further expand on your reasoning in the Discussion section.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Edited 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (see previous version)

Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)

• Option 2. Avoid using WikiLeaks for ongoing controversies or if there is coverage by RS. All for using WikiLeaks as the only source, particularly when English courts accept them as evidence, if verifiable information (facts) are mentioned in the document; opinions should be evaluated for being WP:DUE. Their selection may exhibit owners' bias, but taken one-by-one, the documents seem to be all right, and no one has shown that any of the documents were forged or doctored, as Alaexis correctly points out. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I don't think WikiLeaks ought to be cited directly in most circumstances it tends to cover (usually if it's notable enough RS picks up the slack) but for small clerical bits and bobs of foreign policy I don't see an issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Wikileaks, itself, performs no fact-checking or verification. Therefore, things there do not pass the definition of "published" in WP:RS or WP:OR and cannot be cited directly under any circumstances, fullstop. I would consider Wikileaks (when used alone) a remove-on-sight source and I'm baffled that anyone would argue otherwise - it is no different from self-publishing in this context. If a secondary source covers it, we can rely on what they say, but only for the parts they specifically mention, since only those parts have been published; the argument, which some people are trying to make in the linked thread, that we could say "well, this trove of documents is validated in this source, therefore we can go through it and pull out anything we please even if it has no other coverage" is straightforward WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiLeaks does, in fact, verify the authenticity of documents before it publishes them. The most famous leaks published by WikiLeaks are all widely acknowledged to be genuine: the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. Several of these publications were carried out in collaboration with major international newspapers, including Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, the New York Times and El País. I don't believe any document published by WikiLeaks has ever been shown to be fake. If you have seen evidence to the contrary, then please post it. Otherwise, it looks like WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of authenticating documents before publication. Whether those documents are usable is a completely different matter, because they may be primary sources, they may express opinions, etc. But they are genuine documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Generally reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS and no evidence of tampering. Probably should not be used as the only source for controversial statements or in BLP context and in general should be treated as a primary source. Alaexis_¿question? 06:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. I completely agree with Aquillion's rationale above. ElKevbo (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I agree it fits WP:USEBYOTHERS. There are some cases when it is used to supplement or reinforce claims made elsewhere in investigative journalism and whatnot. In that case, you should probably refer to the sources doing that though I suppose it might not be necessary to also link to Wikileaks in that case. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Wikileaks is an indiscriminate collection of communications and internal files leaked by a website with a very specific political agenda. The documents themselves are not official in any sense of the word: they have only been drafted by government employees, often with very little oversight and—obviously—no peer-review or editorial standards. Moreover, they have been covered by many, many press articles from highly-reliable source: if editors cannot find a press article covering the leak in question, this should be an indication that it is dubious. The WP:USEBYOTHERS argument is not applicable here, because Wikileaks is, functionally, documentation center: it would be like citing files from historic archives, directly, on the grounds that professional historians use them. JBchrch (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "historic archives", such files are used quite frequently as references in all sorts of articles about old stuff. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am mostly addressing the USEDBYOTHERS argument made above. The fact that experienced journalists are using leaked emails as the basis of their reporting does not make it acceptable (in my view) for editors to use such materials as sources on the basis of USEDBYOTHERS. On your point about archive documents: yes, you sometimes see them, but (as I understand) the real standard (i.e. the one used at WP:FA) is that it's not the recommended way to source articles. JBchrch (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. We should treat Wikileaks closer to how we treat a publisher of user-generated content (e.g. YouTube) than how we treat a publisher of in-house journalistic works (e.g. a Newspaper). Content on Wikileaks is a mix of verified and unverified, notable and non-notable, works by a massive range of authors some of whom are subject-matter experts, some of whom are random people on the internet. In most cases the copy of Wikileaks can be regarded as an accurate copy of the primary source documents, without guarantee (in most cases) that every document that is part of a set is present, but the reliability of the documents themselves must be evaluated individually. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with everything Thryduulf says above. It would be taken on a case by case basis and attributed appropriately. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Should ONLY be used in conjunction with reliable secondary sources that have vetted the specific information being cited. Basically, if someone like the New York Times has written an article about something in Wikileaks, then it may be OK to also cite Wikileaks alongside it to cite a specific quote or paraphrase, HOWEVER, it should be treated like a primary source otherwise, and should also never be used to cite something that has not already been vetted in reliable sources which are also cited in Wikipedia. I am very leery of using results of random data scrapes from Wikileaks and accepting the results of that as sufficient to cite some statement at Wikipedia, no matter how banal. If it only exists in Wikileaks, and no other reliable source has vetted it, it's a hard no from me. --Jayron32 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 In principle, I think there might be cases where a document posted to Wikileaks is useable, but in practice, such situations are very difficult, perhaps even impossible to find or even formulate as hypotheticals.

With respect to the claim about documents on WL being primary: in many cases, they're quite clearly not primary. A recent example I saw was a cable purporting to be from a US embassy describing the membership of a Laotian political committee. It's clearly not a primary source with regards to that, as it doesn't purport to be from the Laotian government, nor any member of it, but from a US embassy; undoubtedly a third party.

However, the reliability of documents on WL is highly debatable. There's no system of checks and balances, no chain of custody, and usually no way for a WP editor to verify the accuracy or provenance of the documents. They might and indeed probably are what they purport to be, but we have nothing but WL's rabid anti-secrecy stance to evince that. But we also know that WL has a right-wing, or at least conspiratorial bias, and numerous connections to Russian anti-democratic cyberwarfare actors. We even know that they don't always support their own principles, as WL and Assange were notoriously critical of the Panama Papers. We also know that they claimed that the Clinton email leak did not come from a Russian source, when virtually every cybersecurity expert out there was in agreement that it did.

Even though I generally believe that the documents on WL are what they purport to believe, I cannot dismiss the possibility that WL would allow or even engage in the forging of leaked documents, and they provide no mechanism to assure us that they haven't.

So in any case in which a document leaked to WL is to be cited, I would instead seek to cite coverage of that document in reliable sources, instead. At the very least, I would cite both the document on WL, and the RS that vetted the document. If no RS has vetted any particular document, then I would not cite it at all, absent a compelling (and hitherto unimagined by me) argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 (WikiLeaks has a strong record of validating documents) and Option 2 (additional considerations apply when using these documents). Option 2 is the obvious answer. WikiLeaks hosts various types of leaked documents. It's impossible to give one single rating to all the documents, because they're so different from one another. If ever there was a case of "additional considerations apply", this is it. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying the authenticity of the documents it publishes, and I don't think there is any known case of WikiLeaks having published fake documents (contrary to the evidence-free speculation by some editors above). Some of WikiLeaks' publications are extremely well known and have been vetted by numerous other organizations: the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs and the Syria Files come to mind. The reliability of the claims made in any of these documents would have be be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote the document, the claim being sourced, etc. Most of the documents are also primary sources, which would obviously affect how they can be used. As I said, additional considerations apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (Updated based on Szmenderowiecki's clarification of what the options mean. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC))
• Option 4, per Aquillion. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I don't see any evidence that WikiLeaks has falsified information. I see the claim that they are "rabid", but not that they are unreliable; the political opinions of the people who run a website do not magically make the content on it unusable. Sure, it is great to back it up with a second reference to another RS, but that's true of basically anything. The claim that "well, I think the New York Times is trash because they're a bunch of libs" doesn't cast substantial doubt on the fact that, generally, the NYT is a reliable source for factual statements; I don't see why it is any different for WL. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (with overlap in opinion on the question to Thucydides411). And I'm just spitballing here, but — I would recommend looking at potentially some sort of time divider similar to Newsweek here, because I think they had a much better reputation for integrity pre-2016 (or so). --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. I have had enough of this bullshit. This is not actually a RS quesiton, it's an attempt by the Assangites to crowbar Wikileaks into the project in defiance of a blindingly obvious WP:UNDUE failure, but their determination makes it necessary to be unambiguous. No. We absolutely do not include stolen copies of primary sources published on a site that has been a Russian intelligence asset for at least five years, because of course we fucking don't. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Wikileaks has a process for verifying documents prior to publication. It has published an enormous number of documents and, while there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents, I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. It is clear why some people or organisations would like to claim Wikileaks is unreliable. The documents themselves should be treated as primary sources. Any statements or claims made within the documents published by Wikileaks may be erroneous but that is a separate matter. Burrobert (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Burrobert, sure, we know: as far as you are concerned, being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance. Only issue is, one in eight of your 4,000 edits is to Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or Talk, and 100% of them are Assangite boosterism. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance": I said that a document being on Wikileaks means we can trust that it is genuine. The claims made within the document are a separate issue. I didn't comment on the significance of any document and the RfC is not asking us to address that issue. The significance of any particular document on Wikileaks should be determined in accordance with existing procedures for treating primary documents. Burrobert (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The source cited here for its fact-checking process (which is from 2009 and so possibly out of date for more recent material anyway) does not inspire confidence: The number of people involved in the verification process, as with the rest of Wikileaks, is unclear. But Wikileaks claims to have published 1.2 million documents in three years. This means its - presumably extensive - team of volunteers receives, verifies and publishes over 1,000 documents every day... There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility"... most of the members of the advisory board to whom Wired spoke admitted that they had little involvement with Wikileaks, and have not done much "advising". "I'm not really sure what the advisory board means," says Ben Laurie, a computer- security expert and member of the board "since before the beginning". "It's as mysterious as the rest of Wikileaks."... Phillip Adams, an Australian journalist, is listed as an advisor. But he told Wired that he had "resigned early on because of workload and health issues". BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

An anonymous person claims that they submitted fake documents, which WikiLeaks correctly flagged as fake. Meanwhile, all of WikiLeaks' major publications are widely considered to be genuine. These include the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. For many of these, WikiLeaks worked with major newspapers, such as Le Monde, El País and the New York Times. Look, if you want to argue that WikiLeaks cannot be trusted to validate documents, then you'll have to address the fact that its major publications are widely considered genuine, and you'll have to provide some actual evidence that WikiLeaks is unreliable. I haven't seen anyone in this thread do so yet, which makes the "Option 4" votes quite puzzling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Per Aquillion and others. Wikileaks has never been a reliable source, and has only gotten less reliable as Assange's infatuation with Trump grew. Security experts have repeatedly cautioned about accepting Wikileaks dumps at face value, and given Wikileaks intentional obfuscation, and outright lies, about its sources, which it weaponizes to achieve its political goals as in the Seth Rich case, it should be abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted. Any outlet that intentionally weaponizes disinformation should not even be considered as a source for Wikipedia.NonReproBlue (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is a questionable source, a disorderly collection of WP:PRIMARY claims some of which may be outright wrong of very difficult to properly interpret. In any event, one needs other secondary RS that provide proper context. But if there are such RS, then the claim can be cited with a reference to the secondary RS, not Wikileaks themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - it is generally concluded by reliable sources that WikiLeaks is accurately portraying the documents as they are there. However, care should be taken as to which documents are used, and they are all in any case primary sources for subject matter talked about, unless they are finished copies of documents that summarize other sources - and even then, they're less usable than other secondary sources. Their obvious bias doesn't matter - we don't require sources to be unbiased at all - and in fact there are multiple obviously biased sources that are perfectly reliable sources (looking at CNN, as an obviously biased but still reliable source, as an example). Note that the "published" argument does not apply either - because "published" doesn't mean that it's accessible to the public - and completed government documents are not unreliable simply because they are or were classified and thus never published in a public source. As a primary source, documents from WikiLeaks can be used - but I echo the concerns of many here who have said that it would be preferable to find coverage of the documents and cite that instead - if only for the added encyclopedic information such coverage may provide. In a case where no other coverage exists but a document on WikiLeaks expresses a significant and encyclopedic view, it can be cited as reliable. No evidence has been provided that WikiLeaks is systematically altering documents or forging information, and in fact reliable sources don't believe they do so. TLDR: see jzg's !vote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per Guy & MVBW, its potentially a useful research tool, but it should at no point be cited as a source in an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Seems fairly straightforward option. Basically treat it as a primary source with all the considerations that go with that. RS seem to treat them as reliable for authentic documents. Lacking any substantial reasoning beyond "Assange/Trump BAD!" I see no reason to black list them or treat them as unreliable for what they are. On the contrary, as brought up by others above, their repeated use by other RS is a strong indication that they would be acceptable. Just have to keep in mind the primary nature and careful of UNDUE. PackMecEng (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 They seem to (or have least been heavily accused) of just info-dumping. They may well all be true, in that they are real documents, but not that what is contained within those documents is true (after all they published the Xenu bad SF story).Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• WikiLeaks is not reliable. If there's something interesting there, let journalists do their job and then cite them - First, the question is bizarre. This is formatted like a typical source RfC but the question isn't about reliability for Wikipeda, but whether it's "reliable for publication of genuine government documents". That's why I didn't just choose an option. Look, WikiLeaks is at best just a host for documents/uploads like Scribd or Etherpad or Dropbox or whatever. Add to that questions over authenticity (no, we don't need to come to a decision about whether or not they're genuine to know that there have been a lot of questions raised in reliable sources) and of course we shouldn't cite it. If it has something useful, let someone else vet it and link to it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• RFC choices aren't a good fit in this case. I agree with Rhododendrites above. This RfC is not a good fit since Wikileaks is not so much a publisher as a repository or primary source. A document on Wikileaks may be cited but only if a RS has discussed it. If the WSJ discusses contents of a document on Wikileaks then it may be appropriate to also link to the document. We might do something similar with a statement from the SEC. "The SEC released a statement saying they opened an investigation [cite RS, cite SEC statement on SEC page]". An edit like this is OK "According to the NYT documents released by Wikileaks showed the State Department issued a request to... [cite NYT, cite specific wikileak document <- must be clear from RS this is the correct document]" In this case the wikileaks document is a supplement to the RS's statements. It isn't a requirement. It would never be OK to cite the Wikileaks document absent a RS. For this reason I can see why editors have picked both option 2 and option 4. Springee (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1-2, depending on what the question is, exactly. Yes, Wikileaks documents are genuine government documents (or sometimes documents from banks or other institutions). Those documents themselves may contain unreliable or inaccurate information. So in general, information on Wikipedia that's sourced to Wikileaks documents should be attributed to Wikileaks and the government document. The only case where attribution may be dropped is when the information has been verified elsewhere (e.g. by a reliable secondary or tertiary source). In that case however we may still want to attribute to the government document, particularly if its publication was the reason the information came to be more widely known. -Darouet (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - First: Wikileaks is not a source, but a host site for primary documents. Wikileaks is more like publisher than an author. That said - Since the possibility exists that a document uploaded to Wikileaks may have been edited or changed from the original, we can not rely on the version hosted on Wikileaks for information. We can ONLY rely on the original, or copies that have been verified to be “true and accurate copies” of the original (example, copies that have been submitted as evidence in a court case). Now... if the version on Wikileaks HAS been compared to the original, and can be verified to be “true and accurate”, THEN we can cite the original and use the version on Wikileaks as a courtesy link.

There is one exception to this. IF a document appearing on Wikileaks is itself the subject of discussion by independent sources (say in a news story about was leaked), the version on Wikileaks can be cited as a primary source for itself (ie the text that appears on Wikileaks). The key is that it must NOT be cited as if it were the original document. Instead, it should be cited as a separate document on its own - with appropriate attribution (example: “Text of document downloaded to Wikileaks, purporting to be document XYZ” not “Text of document XYZ”). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if a Wikileaks document was cited and discussed in other sources, then the claim can be cited with a reference to other sources (+ the courtesy link), but I do not see this as "option 2" when the source (Wikileaks) is regarded as an RS by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 seems to be the best fit out of the possibilities given, but I'll concur with the sentiments above that it's kind of a weird question to ask. Like Rhododendrites said, it's like holding an RfC for the reliability of Scribd. Let the journalists do their job, after which we can do ours. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - WikiLeaks would seem to be the quintessential case of an unreliable source. The documents it hosts are admittedly stolen, and we have no confirmed information as to what, if any, steps have been taken to ensure that they are authentically sourced and unaltered. Indeed, WikiLeaks itself accepts anonymous submissions. The face of WikiLeaks is Julian Assange, who has been on the run from the law for years. The mere fact that, in some cases, reliable sources have used particular WikiLeaks documents that they believe they have been able to authenticate seems like weak justification indeed for treating WikiLeaks as reliable. If there are particular documents that it is appropriate to cite, they should be cited to the reliable sources discussing them, not to WikiLeaks. (In such a case, I would not object to a link to the document discussed, but the document itself should not be cited for anything not in the reliable source.) John M Baker (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning to option 3 or 4. Not totally sure yet which option is best, but two comments: 1) WP:USEBYOTHERS does not apply, for the same reason that we would not say that Donald Trump is a reliable source because he has been quoted by reliable news sources. Wikileaks material has certainly often been reported on, but (with the exception of collaborations where e.g. NYT and Guardian were able to themselves verify particular dumps) the reporting typically adds caveats. 2) This is probably too obvious to be worth saying, but the editorial material by Wikileaks itself 9as opposed to leaked material in their archives) should be treated with particular caution. For instance, its recent dumps of small batchs of highly redacted and by themselves confusing OPCW documents about the Douma chemical attack was accompanied by long editorial introductions explaining them which actually contained several errors as well as a very slanted interpretation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To point 2): question (1) was not asking about the editorials that accompany the documents, only the documents themselves. What Assange says they might mean and the conclusions he says we can draw, given his strong political views, is WP:UNDUE, or, for some tastes, even WP:FRINGE. You can reformulate question 1 thus: Can we trust what WikiLeaks says are government documents to be genuine? As to point 1), I address it in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki It's cler that the question as posed here was about the documents, but when this RfC is closed, if Wikileaks is deemed reliable in any way it will be vital for the closing statement to be very clear that that decision refers to the documents in the archive and that what Wikileaks says in its own voice should not necessarily therefore be deemed reliable but treated as opinion generally is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that you separate the documents themselves from their interpretations by Assange/WikiLeaks staff while making summary judgment on reliability of the website (which you do), and also to warn other commenters that we shouldn't conflate these. Have a good day. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Wikileaks is essentially Project Veritas on a global scale...private individuals with no methods of fact-checking, accuracy, or verification, claiming to be The Ones Who Show You The Truth. IF actual reliable sourced have vetted a piece of info originating at Wikileaks and voice for its accuracy, then it is fine. But at that point, the question of citing Wikileaks itself is moot. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Bellingcat can also be characterised as private individuals who claim to know the truth. Now they are considered reliable as they were extensively cited by other reliable sources. The traditional media don't have a monopoly on reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 14:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  This assessment is inapt and grossly unfair to Wikileaks. Broadly speaking, if Project Veritas publishes something then you can be confident that it is false and intentionally misleading; the same is not true for WL. (I say this as a person who agrees about the conclusion.) --JBL (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 WP:PRIMARY. There is some editorial control on WikiLeaks' end and more by various newspapers that collaborate with it. Obviously, not all documents have been verified by WikiLeaks or journalists, so WP:USEBYOTHERS is not absolute. But the bottom line is that editorial control exists to the degree it is possible in this type of publishing. As argued above, WikiLeaks has never been shown to publish false documents, so this editorial control has been effective. To wit, reliable but WP:PRIMARY.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - The RFC as presently constituted is not directed to a specific content issue. It is therefore impossible to give a decent answer. Wikileaks consists of a collection of primary sources of varying charactersitics and so the idea of rendering any kind of general view on its reliability is simply for the birds. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Wiki leaks does no independent verifying or factchecking, so they really should not be used at all.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence for that? Other people in the discussion have cited evidence to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Wikileaks verifies the authenticity of documents before releasing them, which accounts for sometimes lengthy delays between receiving and publishing them. There are no verified cases of any of the documents released being fraudulent. That is a higher standard than most reliable sources. That of course does not mean that that the information in the documents is necessarily accurate, since that depends on the original authors. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per Aquillion, JBchrch, and MjolnirPants. Wikileaks itself is a collection of raw primary source documents (raising serious WP:OR issues when used directly), and the organization itself has questionable reliability and processes. Any information from them should be cited though reliable journalistic sources (i.e. not-Wikileaks), which could be counted on to do their own fact checking. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 Wikileaks is a reliable repository of authentic leaked government and business documents. Wikileaks has an extensive partnership with the best journalists in the world. The United States diplomatic cables leak for instance are genuine US government embassy reports. The usage of the different stored documents needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on policies concerning the usage of government and business sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Wikipedia has a process for verifying the authenticity of documents. If the authenticity is verified and there is no other appropriate source that can be used then I see no reason why wikileaks should not be ok as a source. However its usage should be strictly limited to cases where the authenticity of the document is verified and its the only available source. RedAlert 007 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

• Yes, but not outside Option 2 I would be even more careful when citing opinions on subjects few people have idea about (that may significantly influence perception of the article and we will probably not hear the other side if the issue is contentious but local in nature). The source should be used, but particular caution must be exercised while citing it, except for non-controversial facts which can be cited as they are presented in the document. Better this kind of source than no source at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• It depends. Where coverage exists in a clearly reliable secondary source, this is obviously preferred, but where it doesn't (and mention is still WP:DUE) then the circumstances need to be evaluated individually - why is there no secondary source coverage? Is the material plausible? Is there any evidence the material is incorrect? These questions need to be evaluated based on the original source, the reliability or otherwise of Wikileaks will in most cases be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, in most cases There is a strong preference with Wikileaks for additional sources to establish weight and firmly anchor the article content in the published literature, and a must for anything controversial, but in some areas where English language sources are lacking (such as the domestic politics of Laos) it's not a violation of sourcing guidelines to use Wikileaks to fill in non-controversial facts. Spudlace (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously not. The question is self-defeating: by definition, if the information cannot be found in a reliable source, it should not be included on Wikipedia at all. Using unreliable sources is not an effective strategy to globalise wikipedia. In fact, it's even worse than having biases. JBchrch (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure I understand where Question 2 is going, but basically I said what I think is the same thing in my original vote above: Wikileaks should ONLY be when vetted by actual reliable sources, should never be the first or only source for anything. --Jayron32 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  The intent and context of the question was that Lao domestic politics (and their Kremlinology in particular) is a topic very scarcely, if at all, covered by RS, and Western RS in particular, so corroboration by RS would be not possible because the outlets simply don't cover the region, even when for Laos, the event (Party Congress) is important. Access to Lao media is also limited, as the Internet in the country is very poorly developed and this is a Communist country with few civil liberties. The question goes: should we make an exception in this case and cite WikiLeaks under some special conditions that differ from the answer in question 1 (which is a general answer) because of an objective lack of RS coverage which is caused by an event happening in an isolated country with little interest in its news? (This is the reason I have inserted the WP:BIAS link)

  This question should not be interpreted as whether to grant a waiver to cite any claim or fact asserted in a WikiLeaks cable and for which coverage in RS would be likely ample were the fact significant enough. This is what you answer in question 1, where you choose your default option to treat WikiLeaks; question 2 concerns a very specific situation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias does not lay out a “reasonable editor” standard in this regard, what do you mean by that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Treating this as a kind of a court deliberation where each editor (and voter) is a judge of sorts, it's something that would be called reasonable person in common law court proceedings. In this particular case, anyone with some knowledge of Laos as well as the way Communist parties, diplomacy and media function qualifies as a reasonable editor (which I assume everybody writing here is); in general, a person with a reasonable knowledge of subject matter discussed is one. I didn't want to write "consensus" because I can't write "consensus" if we are about to establish it here. Also, WP:BIAS is only meant to indicate here that the fact is significant but coverage by RS is scarce, because it's Laos after all, not USA, Western Europe, Russia, Middle East, China or even North Korea, which is rather frequently mentioned in the media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The non-existence of any reliable sources on a topic is not a reason to fall back on unreliable sources. It just means that Wikipedia doesn't cover it. WP:BIAS is not fixed by lowering our standards. --Jayron32 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Claims that are not covered in RSes are not suitable for inclusion in this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with JBchrch, Jayron32, and ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Incidentally, "does your answer change" is a terrible question since the same answer has different substantive meanings depending on the person answering it. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Echoing Thryduulf. As for the "Is there any evidence the material is incorrect?" question — if RS say Wikileaks is boosting untruth in some way then would certainly weigh their view heavier than WL. --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. Stop it. Just stop it. See also WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• If "a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject" then we should be even less inclined to use them as a source. If this question is implying that RS ignoring it should grant some kind of exception to allow us to use it, I wholeheartedly disagree. If there are no good sources covering something, we should not accept bad sources as a substitute to allow us to cover it, we should not cover it. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. My vote for Option 2 clearly states that I believe this should be taken into account, but they can still be cited in circumstances where an official government document/view on something is acceptable with a primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh No as per MP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, if more information cannot be found, the information from the Wikileaks document still needs to be attributed to the document in question, and Wikileaks would need to be mentioned as well, as the publisher. Contrary to some editors above, I do think that Wikileaks could be cited, even in a case where a journalist hasn't covered the document in question. In that case however, in-text attribution of the information both to Wikileaks and the document in question would be absolutely essential, since we're dealing with a primary source. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Trivially, tautologically no. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS, no coverage. That might leave us "biased" in various ways, but as Jayron32 said, lowering our standards doesn't fix anything. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• No. It seems kind of weird that we are even talking about this. We go to considerable lengths to rely only upon reliable sources and to limit use of primary and tertiary sources. Then it's suggested that, specifically because we don't have any information as to reliability, we're going to turn to an unreliable repository of primary sources as citable information? That seems twisted. John M Baker (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. WP:DUE issues are a separate matter from the initial question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• No It will be a form of bias. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Lack of coverage in secondary sources merely means that the information in the documents was not noteworthy. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Wikileaks documents about events not covered by RS are the ones most likely to be unreliable, and the use of Wikileaks in this case would be unambiguously unacceptable WP:OR. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)

This is far too complex an RFC to be useful, FWIW. --Masem (t) 04:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, actually I thought of making it as useful as possible by having the first four questions considered in order to answer the fifth. Question 5 is the most important of those - comments for the first four are auxiliary and I did not intend them to carry as much weight as for the fifth (which is the reason voting for question 5 appears first). Moreover, all of these questions surfaced at least once in that discussion alone, not to mention previous dozen or so in the archives. Some seemed to assert that WikiLeaks have 100% legit documents; there have been questions about verifiability, potential weaknesses and usage in particular contexts. Alone these questions would be pretty useless and an RfC on these would be odd. Besides, my understanding of the RfC process is that every participant is sort of a juror, and IRL they are asked several questions at once for them to evaluate evidence and arguments on each of them (1-4) to deliver a verdict (question 5); what I only wanted is to separate each discussion so that it could be easier to parse through it and sum it up when an uninvolved user closes the RfC.

I don't deny this is a difficult topic, but we would have to discuss it sooner or later. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the auxiliary questions; they make me a bit uneasy in that they read like they're trying to dictate acceptable lines of argument or reasonings for the primary question. I would suggest removing them (and also sharply trimming the RFC just to ask what is currently question 5, with no further details beyond a link to the discussion that prompted this) - the primary question is what matters; allowing users to come up with and state their own reasoning for that is the entire purpose of an RFC. I don't think you intended to write a non-neutral RFC, but in general it's safest (and best) to stick to one easy, straightforward question. I would also omit the word "genuine" (it is begging the question), and just say something like "Is WikiLeaks reliable for publication of government documents? This was prompted by this discussion." --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Question 2 is important. The RSP entry for Wikileaks mentions tampering and it gets hoisted as an argument every time there is a discussion on Wikileaks. Alaexis_¿question? 06:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

After some evaluation of the arguments, I think that yes, I'll change it as Aquillion (in most points) proposed, I admit it was too clumsy. I also post the last diff of the expanded RfC for reference, as I believe considering all of these questions is important so that they could sort of guide your decision; but of course I did not mean to suggest to vote one particular way - you are free to express and argue your opinions whichever way you wish to.

I will retain question 4, though, because that seems to be the question coming from that particular dispute. I believe answers to all the other questions may be incorporated into your justification, either in vote or discussion.

@Alaexis: you may want to change the content of your vote and your vote, now that the auxiliary questions have gone, and only two are here in place. I, for instance, incorporated some arguments from these into my vote. You didn't vote for the second question (which was question 4), so I did not include your answer. @Thryduulf: I have copied your comment under questions 3-4 under question 2 after reformulation - the comment itself has not been altered.

Sorry for the false start and all the mess it caused - I'll do better next time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There is enough precedent to believe it's trustworthy, but there is no hard proof for it and is mostly circumstantial, so it doesn't fit the rules strictly. This is generally how leaks go unless the originator of the leaks (I don't mean the leaker) admits to its veracity and of course that is never going to happen. You need to take into account too that diplomatic cables are essentially correspondence and might have mistakes themselves, so if information contained there is later proven to be false or inaccurate, that doesn't need to be because of any tampering on WikiLeaks' part, as the creators of these can be responsible for such innacuracies on their own. WP:NOR applies, of course. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For Question 1, Options 1 and 2 are also not mutually exclusive. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying that documents are genuine, but additional considerations do apply (the documents themselves, while genuine, may express opinions, may be WP:PRIMARY, etc.). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 is meant to give full endorsement to the resource, on or close to the level of NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Associated Press, AFP etc., that you would cite without much reservations and doubts. Option 2 may be not mutually exclusive if you believe that the resource is generally reliable (option 1) but you'd still not use it because of some issues concerning bias (for example, just as we don't give full endorsement for political coverage on HuffPost but we consider it generally reliable otherwise); option 2 also encompasses cases when you believe that we should only cite WikiLeaks for some types of coverage and not others (e.g. reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, unreliable for the rest). That we should handle opinions and primary sources according to current Wikipedia policies is self-evident, so I don't believe it should be a factor in voting. That is at least the meaning I intended to put into the options. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• What does "genuine government documents” mean in question 1? I’m assuming that means published by wikipedia but authenticated by an independent reliable source which is not wikileaks like BBC, NYT, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that for Question 1, Option 1 is supposed to mean that documents published by WikiLeaks can be assumed to be genuine. However, this is not how I (or it seems anyone else) has interpreted the question. The problem is that even if WikiLeaks does a good job of validating documents (as I believe they do, based on their apparently spotless track record), additional considerations apply, because the documents themselves may be WP:PRIMARY, may contain opinions, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't precise enough, but that is what I meant here. Option 1 would mean that if you say this is a diplomatic cable and it was published on Wikileaks, you know it's genuine by virtue of being published on WikiLeaks, and thus WikiLeaks is (generally) reliable for publishing these documents word-for-word. Additional considerations apply should not refer to standard Wikipedia policy arguments, because everyone should follow the guidelines by default - this RfC is not about whether to follow guidelines or to change them (at most we can discuss which in this particular case have priority). Generally it is meant to restrict the usage of the resource to specific areas (which you mention in your vote, e.g. not in BLP or in uncontroversial settings only). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don’t understand why the question has “genuine” in it then, no matter which option you pick you are assuming that the document is genuine based on the question asked. Option 4 would still be under the presumption that the document is in fact genuine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The word "genuine" was included because there was (and is) a substantial share of editors who argued these documents are not genuine and/or impossible to verify whether they are genuine and therefore reasonable doubts could be raised on their authenticity, which is one of the main concerns raised in discussions on the topic. Contrary to your suggestion, the word "genuine" does not presuppose my attitude to these documents. Yes, you can believe the documents to be authentic but vote to declare the resource generally unreliable or deprecate it nevertheless, which seems what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants did; you can just as well believe the documents are not genuine and vote for option 3 or 4 based on that (and, if I were to vote for Option 4, odds are that I would mean exactly that). It's up to you to decide whether these arguments are convincing enough for you and argue them in the voting section and here.

You are right, however, when saying that I assume the documents to be genuine until proven forgeries or at least when there is reasonable doubt as to whether they are indeed authentic. This is a matter of principle for me - just as I assume all editors do their job in good faith, so I do with journalists, writers, and scientists, just until I stumble upon glaring errors, logical fallacies or blatant lies. It is also my belief that so far the concerns about integrity of WikiLeaks mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia article as well as here are yet to materialise, so I don't think there should be reasonable doubts, at least for now. But again, if WikiLeaks is going to be caught for forging documents or being a conduit for forgeries on a massive scale, I will revise my opinion.

Hope this helps. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The “you” there is general not a reference to you Szmenderowiecki. Specifically I’m the one trying to figure out how to vote on this. The question itself presumes the documents are genuine, we are asked to consider a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a genuine government document not a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a document which may or may not be genuine. It seems like it builds on a prerequisite, which if I look at the original format of the question appears to be because it did. It seems that as is we have at best a leading question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you struggle with your answer, you can remove the word "genuine". I did not write the question(s) to presuppose authenticity of the documents, because this is contentious in the first place. While it was indeed one of the leading questions in the previous version of RfC, after reformulation, I tried to strip it from its previous role (given two users have at once suggested the RfC needs rewriting) and tried to construe it as broadly as possible. In other words, do not automatically assume authenticity, just imagine you are presented with a reference which directs to a WikiLeaks cable, that's it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that removing the word genuine completely changes my answer, those are not comparable questions. In other words, what you’re saying here and the question that was originally asked don’t line up, they’re not the same question. “Genuine” does in fact require us to "automatically assume authenticity.” The current question does in fact presuppose the authenticity of the documents. Theres no way around that without re-writing the question, I’m sorry if you didn’t ask the question you meant to but we can’t really change that now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, actually, I think it is rather simple. You may well disagree, but for me, the fact that this debate exists because editors were unable, or refused, to find any unambiguously reliable source that include the information, says it all. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem was commenting on an earlier version of the RFC that asked multiple questions (ie. it was too complex structurally, not too complex in terms of the core underlying issue.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this was the state of the RFC my comment was directed to. --Masem (t) 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, Ah, ok. Well, WP:FUCKTHATNOISE covers the core issue, for me ,so. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• @NonReproBlue, @Guy: Just to make sure - we are not evaluating reliability of Julian Assange and whether his views are WP:DUE and admissible (which may belong to the article about him but certainly not to this discussion), so any comments about what he thought of the documents and the conclusions he has drawn from the documents are not relevant. The fact that third-party bad-faith actors (and Assange himself) used the documents in an ugliest way possible, i.e. to create conspiracy theories, fake news and make unsubstantiated allegations doesn't mean that the documents themselves have been manipulated or doctored; even the fact Assange publicly lied about the source of the document does not mean the documents were not verified beforehand or not published unaltered. Actually, your statements that Assange was driven by his agenda and conclusions from the Mueller investigation (Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material., quoted from Julian Assange), prove the opposite - he knew the true source of the documents, he cooperated with Russian hackers, so there must have been at least some review before the documents were published, in this case by Assange himself. Now that the documents have been verified, the question stays whether they were altered, and by all indications they weren't, because nobody credibly suggested the documents themselves were fake.

I agree that multiple security experts warned against using the documents at face value, but I again heard no such expert saying that this particular document was fabricated or altered (and they should be the ones who are closer to the tools to verify the information), so in my opinion, this is so far a theoretical possibility, which should be taken into account when citing the resource (if allowed to use) but should not serve as an excuse to blanket ban the documents, whatever their content.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, no, we are discussing whether stolen primary documents can be crowbarred into Wikipedia despite the general unreliability of Wikileaks. And the answer is: no. Sources need to be reliable, independent, and secondary. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

On what policy is this assertion based? It seems to contradict WP:PRIMARY which says that primary sources can be used in certain cases. Regarding the independence, biased sources are expressly allowed. Alaexis_¿question? 07:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's your way to frame it. I don't want to "crowbar" documents despite consensus (which does not exist so far, otherwise there would be no RfC), I only politely ask if they are admissible, and if the consensus emerges the documents should not be cited, so be it. Contrary to your assertions that users supportive of using WikiLeaks are necessarily "Assangites" and insinuations they are acting in bad faith, they (we) are neither. I understand your opinion on WikiLeaks is that it is unreliable; the purpose of that comment, however, was to show that at least some parts of your argument are, in my opinion, flawed, and probably turn your attention to them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This might be a good time to remind people that the New York Times also publishes "stolen primary documents" (more commonly known as "leaked documents"). In fact, one of the most famous episodes in the paper's history was the publication of a "stolen primary document", the Pentagon Papers. As far as Wikipedia WP:RS policy goes, whether or not a document was leaked is irrelevant. What we're discussing here is whether WikiLeaks validates the documents it publishes, and it appears that WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of doing so. Its major publications are widely considered genuine, and nobody here has yet provided any examples of WikiLeaks publishing fake documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Intentionally lying about your sources in order to push a conspiracy theory is the kind of behaviour that is absolutely disqualifying as an RS. They are not a reliable source. At very best they are a collection of possibly genuine, selectively released primary source documents. If reliable sources cover something they leak, we can cover what they say about it. Otherwise we shouldn't cover it at all, just like any other document of unknown provenance or authenticity. Without RS covering a document contained in a leak, it absolutely fails the standard of due weight. We cover things in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If reliable sources give it zero coverage, then that is the same proportion we give it. No information is "important" enough to justify including it when reliable sources don't cover it.NonReproBlue (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that undermines the credibility of Assange but not the authenticity of documents. No one says we can't correct the source if RS unanimously say the source is different. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I believe editors participating in the discussion may find this table useful:

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Courts/judicial bodies ruling on reliability/admissibility of WikiLeaks as evidence in their cases

Special Tribunal for Lebanon: In deciding whether to admit the WikiLeaks documents into evidence, the Trial Chamber must consider whether they contain adequate indicia of reliability. This includes authenticity and accuracy. Ruling: overturned on appeal, ruled inadmissible into evidence because of dubious reliability. (apparently lower court ruled admissible and relevant). Summary judgment for the case issued without WikiLeaks admitted to evidence. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: ruled inadmissible into evidence; reason unknown. Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic ICTY-02-54-Misc.5 & ICTY-02-54-Misc.6; Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic MICT-13-55-R90.1; Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic MICT-13-58-R90.1 Court of Justice of the European Union: has expressly allowed the admission of WikiLeaks cables into evidence while emphasising the clean hands of the party relying on such evidence. and The Court confirmed that the ‘sole criterion relevant in that evaluation is the reliability of the evidence’. See: Persia International Bank v. Council, Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri case (Al Matri v. Council). European Court of Human Rights: no particular opinion - not excluded, not ruled inadmissible, but they did not mention the source in their ruling in Al-Nashiri v. Poland, nor El Masri v. Macedonia. International Arbitration Investment Tribunal: Yukos v. Russia: Interestingly, even though it is beyond doubt that WikiLeaks’ disclosure of the cables was illegal under US law, the Tribunal relied on such evidence to reach conclusions on the facts of Yukos’s demise, but offered no view on the issue of admissibility of the cables or treatment as illegally obtained evidence.; there was a strong dissent written in one of the cases that explicitly advocated for admission. ConocoPhillips v. Venezuela: documents ignored, as Venezuela could not present enough witnesses and other documents to corroborate the allegation made in the cable. Caratube International Oil Company LLC v. Kazakhstan: Thus, the tribunal found that the balance tipped in favor of admitting the documents,[33] placing special emphasis on the fact that they were “lawfully available to the public.”; previously ruled that evidence that became public but was protected by legal professional privilege is inadmissible. Opic Karimum Corporation v Venezuela - ruling partially relied upon evidence provided by Wikileaks - admissibility or legality issue not addressed. Kılıç v. Turkmenistan - ditto. Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: ruled admissible (see R (Bancoult) v. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs). International Criminal Court: 1. Sydney Morning Herald suggests the documents submitted to WikiLeaks are verified before being published. 2. Court case: The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang - both Prosecutor of Kenya and defence relied on WikiLeaks, case terminated without prejudice (=may be prosecuted again), so far acquitted; now again being decided. No WikiLeaks ruling. WikiLeaks has been used in other cases, too, but they are in too early a stage. Special Court of Sierra Leone: ruled admissible (Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor) - as described here, contributed to an overturning of a procedural verdict, even as he was ultimately found guilty of war crimes. Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: ruled inadmissible - was not satisfied with authenticity and/or relevance: Case 002, Decision on the Co-Prosecutors' and Khieu Samphan's Internal Rule 87 (4) Requests concerning US Diplomatic Cables (E282 and E282/l; E290 and E290/l) US Department of Justice: lawyers for inmates of Guantanamo Bay may use WikiLeaks cables in their defense, but may not copy, share or print it. US neither denies nor confirms authenticity.

I conclude that a majority of courts makes at least some use of WikiLeaks in their rulings, but few explicitly allow such evidence to be entered. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the courts would be considering the reliability and/or admissibility of the specific documents relevant to the case at hand, not the reliability and/or admissibility of documents from Wikileaks as a whole. It is possible for different documents made available by Wikileaks to be differently reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, some did. Special Tribunal of Lebanon and Court of Justice of the European Union have addressed the issue directly (whether it is admissible in general). And while indeed most of these rulings concerned particular applications and particular documents, the fact that a majority of the courts drew from the WikiLeaks cables while providing their reasoning to the judgment suggests that majority believes them to be authentic, and WikiLeaks reliable. Citing shoddy documents undermines the credibility of the court and is a very good case for appeal/rehearing, which the judges understand, so they must have evaluated their reliability, authenticity as well as conformance with current laws and bylaws concerning the procedure of admission of previously illegally obtained evidence before citing it or at least relying on it to issue the verdict.

Of course, quality of material dumped on WikiLeaks may be variable, so it might be that other courts, given the same documents, could reach other conclusions, but that's the current picture. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And so what? Courts also use unpublished oral testimonies as their main sources to decide cases. So can I use an unpublished oral testimony as a source on Wikipedia now? Obviously not. The judicial process and wikipedia are completely different processes, with diametrically different aims and methods. JBchrch (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My point was not to equate Wikipedia to a judicial procedure. That said, just as the judiciary, we have to evaluate whether the evidence is reliable enough, verifiable and authentic to be admissible. In this way, Wikipedia and the courts are fairly similar. And anyway, if I can file a lawsuit and win it based on cables obtained on WikiLeaks, it speaks volumes about the quality of the resource; conversely, if the courts consistently declined to view my claims based on WikiLeaks revelations or if plaintiffs/defendants who relied on these consistently lost their lawsuits for non-technical reasons, it would be a good indicator not to use it on Wikipedia. Here, the record is slightly in favour of WikiLeaks - I could not find more papers or news concerning WikiLeaks admissibility, so I think that's the full picture as we have it now. Szmenderowiecki (talk)

It's actually hard to provide a full answer to this comment because the reality is so much more complex then you try to portray it. So here are just two high level comments. First: As a matter of principle, courts accept everything into evidence: handwritten notes, UN reports, blood stained shirts, press releases by the US Department of State, used condoms, text messages, bags of trash... The fact that something was accepted into evidence indicates nothing about its reliability. Second: Most often, the question of admissibility is not related to the material reliability of the piece of evidence in question but to the question of whether it was illegally obtained. And often, you find yourself in the possession of a highly reliable piece of evidence, which was unfortunately illegally obtained (classic example: a hidden camera footage of a private meeting). So I reiterate my point: admissibility in court and WP:RS are completely unrelated. JBchrch (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To the first point: I can't agree with you, because I have explicitly cited cases from Cambodia and Lebanon which did not allow the documents to be introduced into evidence because they had doubts over their integrity and reliability; on the other hand, CJEU and UK Supreme Court endorsed WikiLeaks, so no, it's not automatic and it's not everything.

To the second point: All of the courts mentioned dealt with documents that were previously obtained against the law, and none of them dismissed the documents because they were illegally obtained some time before plaintiffs/defendants used them. Citing cases where Wikileaks documents were dismissed because they were illegal in the first place would be useless, because in these cases, reliability, veracity, authenticity etc. are not considered at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

First point: this is why I said as a matter of principle, i.e. there are exceptions.

Second point: All admissibility decisions are useless, because the standards they apply—may they be illegality or patent unreliability (which is, for the record, a way lower standard than the one we apply here)—has nothing in common with the standards we are supposed to apply. JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To the first point: sorry, haven't noticed these words. To the second, actually, if not in all, in most of the cases, the ruling itself was not specifically over whether to admit WikiLeaks but they mentioned it in a few paragraphs. Moreover, it seems that the outcome of most of the litigations mentioned hinged on whether WikiLeaks documents were admitted or not. In the UK case, it actually meant Chagos Islanders won against UK (because basically that was the main evidence of malfeasance and intent of the UK and US officials), so they must have investigated the document thoroughly. The reliance was not that large in Yukos v. Russia, Caratube Int'l Oil Company v. Kazakhstan and CJEU cases, but was still pretty substantial. The same can be said of cases where the WikiLeaks documents were dismissed as unreliable/impossible to verify their authenticity. I believe all of these cases are relevant; and your conclusions may be different based on the table - my, sort of, duty as OP of the RfC was to provide available evidence for community evaluation to make a better decision. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I still fail to see how any of this translates to Wikipedia-reliability. Courts have the tools, the time and the ressources to analyse documents of questionable origins and any other dubious stuff the parties usually throw at them. We don't have that. In fact, Wikipedia is specifically built around the idea that editors should not do that. If you need citations regarding these affairs, then you can cite the court case or, better yet, a secondary source about the ruling. JBchrch (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't say we should be engaging in WP:OR, as the policy says we shouldn't. What I say is that, from the resources I've dug out from Google on the subject on WL reliability/admissibility as evidence in courts, the majority either explicitly says it is or that it uses the documents to draft their opinions (and they must be impartial while doing it). Had the courts been unanimous in their rulings concerning reliability or at least unanimously used the resource to draft their rulings, I'd vote for option 1, but since it's only a majority, I opt for Option 2, and I specified that we should avoid drawing statements from WikiLeaks to Wikipedia if the matter is a subject of controversy, but for documents that are not (and are rather unlikely to cause it), i.e. for the category of documents that don't need OR to be determined faithful and authentic, I see no obstacles doing so.

The court cases are cited for reference in the table, you may check the details for each court case if you want; I added some names so that people could search them. Also, you have seven secondary sources that interpret them (and other original cases); I believe it will be fine for your analysis should you need it.

As an aside, I should note that international courts (and, apart from UK Supreme Courts, all of these are international), apply much stricter standards of admissibility than your local court you will normally sue anyone in, common law or civil law. Which is one of the reasons international courts have pre-trials and trials lasting several years. EU courts are largely civil-law ones, and they too seem to have a higher bar for admission of evidence than EU member state courts (unlike in US, where a lot of states copy federal guidance on admitting evidence) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I really want to WP:AGF here, but you make it harder and harder, honestly. Regarding the length of international procedures, I assume that you are confusing admissibility as a question of jurisdiction (i.e. is the court competent to rule on this matter?) and admissibility of evidence? I am not aware that admissibility of evidence takes this much energy at international courts. However, I know that admissibility as a matter of competence is always heavily challenged by the parties, and it is in fact the topic of the first big decision in international criminal law. Regarding admissibility of evidence by international criminal law, the relevant literature says the following, which completely contradicts what you said:

Regimes as to the admission of evidence differ. Common law systems often have strict technical rules on the admissibility of evidence. They are meant to exclude irrelevant evidence, safeguard the rights of the Defence and protect a jury from exposure to unreliable or unfairly prejudicial evidence. Inquisitorial systems have a more liberal regime. They place more weight on the ‘free evaluation of evidence’. All evidence is generally admitted, and then evaluated by judges. This flexible approach is reflected in international criminal procedures. Procedural instruments grant judges a wide degree of discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. The idea is that evidence should be weighed at trial, rather than precluded per se. This approach takes into account the difficult context of international criminal investi- gations, including limited access to documentary evidence and witnesses. It is increasingly important in light of the multiplication of fact-finding and evidence-gathering bodies, and the absence of a single set of procedural rules governing investigations and prosecutions. It makes the acceptance of material as evidence dependent on the judgment of those who receive it.

Stahn, Carsten (2019). A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 343.

The approach to evidence at the Tribunals has been described as flexible, liberal and unhindered by technical rules found in national and particularly common law systems. Professional judges try both fact and law and there is no need to protect jurors from lay prejudice. The same is true for the ICC.

Cryer, Robert; et al. (2010). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press. p. 465.

JBchrch (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, these were more of my impressions from reading separate decisions about whether to admit documents into evidence or not, of which I'm not very much aware in common-law procedures and probably just a little in civil law; if scholars say admissibility is indeed a rather liberal procedure, I'm not here to dispute it :); though the fact the documents are frequently contested and the courts have separate decisions on each batch of evidence compensates somewhat for the laxity. My bad, it wasn't intentional. I am sure though that I don't mention admissibility as a matter of jurisdiction, because, from my reading, no court said it would not admit the documents into evidence because it couldn't rule on it, all that did rule did so on the merits. I wouldn't want cases on lack of jurisdiction anyway to be mentioned here because they don't rule on the contents of the resources.

OK, let's even suppose we don't take admissibility too seriously. My point is that if the judges use the reasoning provided in cables in their rulings, and by your admission, the judges have the tools and time to verify if the evidence is reliable and authentic, that means they established that the source is good enough to be relied upon, even if they don't rule explicitly on admissiblity or reliability. The corollary also holds true that if a court explicitly dismisses WikiLeaks or has a long practice of not mentioning the (alleged) facts presented from the evidence in WikiLeaks (which can't be said from here because no court has a long enough history of deciding on WikiLeaks), it should make us suspicious to use it. I still find the balance favorable for WikiLeaks, even when excluding strictly admissibility questions: Supreme Court UK, SCSL, 3 rulings of international arbitration decision, CJEU (2 cases) vs. STL, ICTY, (probably) 1 international arbitration decision and ECCC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible ([14]), but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What you say is true, but I'll repeat again, cases where WikiLeaks has been dismissed on procedural/technical grounds are not mentioned here, and in particular no court has ordered the evidence dismissed/admitted while applying the Vienna Convention; I did mention some cases where they just ruled them admissible but nothing beyond that, which JBchrch suggests we should also not take into consideration, and he might have a point if the evidence was admitted and no one made any specific remarks on the resource's quality.

Btw, the resource you cite is mentioned as number 2 above the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the version of a document hosted on Wikileaks is a “true and accurate copy” of the original - or whether it has been tampered with.

Eventually, the government will release the original document to the public, and at THAT point we can compare it to what is hosted on Wikileaks. IF there are no discrepancies, THEN we can cite the original and link to the version hosted on Wikileaks (as a “convenience link”). Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a selective application of an impossible standard of accuracy, in spite of no evidence of actual tampering. Also, they do have a verification process, as noted by Burrobert earlier [15]. Alaexis_¿question? 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not an impossible standard, just severely limited. The original document will (eventually) be released and thus citable... and (in most cases) Wikileaks can then be used to view it. Just not YET. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Szmenderowiecki, no, the list of cases is not particularly helpful. Wikipedia is not a court. The question for Wikipedia is whether we should cite stolen copies of primary documents hosted on a website with a clear political agenda and considered, in our terms, of questionable reliability at best.

As Wikipedia policy questions go, that's about as simple as you can get: No. Sources are supposed to meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary, and we must not give undue weight to things.

If the fact is true and not contained in other sources, it is not significant.

If it is true and contained in other sources, we use them instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I hope you read the explanation as to why I listed the court cases. I know Wikipedia is not a court, but it does share some principles with the court system, one of which is to exclude evidence that is likely to be unreliable, forged, or both. And the courts dealt with evidence that was clearly obtained against the US and other laws, and argued in favour of those using the documents and/or used the documents themselves in a majority of cases. Please stop arguing that the document is not admissible because it was stolen X years ago - it's now on public domain and only Wikipedia policies may bar us from using it, which we are to determine here.

2. No policy on Wikipedia says the source must be all of three (and yes, even if you author an otherwise brilliant essay, policy guidelines are more important than essays). It must be reliable, agreed, no exceptions (that's to be decided). WikiLeaks, unlike regular outlets like NYT, does not produce news themselves and is only a repository of documents, as JBChrch rightly noted, so independence principle does not apply here, and even if it did, bias is not something that disqualifies the resource, whatever your opinion on Trump is. Verifiability, on the other hand, does, which I believe can be inferred from a clean record when it comes to documents per se (not how others interpret them). It needn't be secondary, otherwise WP:PRIMARY would be redundant. WP:PRIMARY expressly says primary sources may be cited, but we should be cautious. On the other hand, there's almost unanimous consent that, faced with the choice to cite WL or secondary RS, we should cite the latter. We don't always have that luxury, however, which was the case in the disputed description of a Lao politician. It does not follow automatically that the fact is not significant. Most Europeans or Americans would say "whatever" if the Chinese built another dam on the Mekong, but for Laos that's important, and that should be our vantage point. That attitude is the reason we can't find the news, not because Laos itself is insignificant (even if it is small and poor). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Would wp:copy come into this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Can we please have an extended confirmed requirement for opening one of these RfCs? There are lots of them, and it's not always worth settling on which shade of lousy a source is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bobfrombrockley: To comment 1): There are four prongs of WP:USEBYOTHERS: 1. How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source, 2. whether they are used often. 3. whether the coverage is positive or negative, and 4/3a. whether RS release information "as is" or heavily comment on it and its veracity. Even if we assumed Donald Trump is a source (even though WP:USEBYOTHERS concerns other media outlets in general, not person's opinions, but so be it for the purposes of the argument), we just say he's largely unreliable, because while he is covered by RS extensively, the coverage about him personally is negative in the majority of RS (particularly since late 2020) and the majority also comments extensively on his claims to rectify them. In general, though, what Trump says has much more to do with WP:OPINION, or, as in the case of 2020 election, WP:FRINGE.

Zaathras: I don't believe the comparison is correct. Project Veritas is known to repeatedly manipulate their videos which they purport are how it looks like IRL so that the impression from the dialogue is different from what you'd hear in full dialogue - there is no known instance the same happened with WikiLeaks's documents (redaction of which does not preclude authenticity). Then, unlike WikiLeaks, Project Veritas settled a libel lawsuit against an ACORN employee, in which the defendant admitted having created deceitful coverage, and that's only because common law allows settlements that they weren't indicted; WikiLeaks AFAIK was not subject to any. You also say they are not known to be fact-checking or verifying the documents, but sources submitted here so far indicate to the contrary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your fevered opinions supporting Wikileaks are of no interest to me, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DoctorTexan: You may want to move your comment to the "Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)" section above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. Here you go. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There has not been any question of the reliability of Wikileaks' documents from reputable observers. While some of the targets of Wikileaks have questioned the accuracy of the documents, none of them have provided any evidence.

I would caution against using any primary source that has no coverage in secondary sources, since it raises problems with original research and weight. It requires original research to interpret primary sources and if information does not appear in secondary sources, it lacks weight.

There was a similar RfC after Wikileaks released documents relating to the War in Iraq. You should provide a link.

TFD (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes definitely agree with that view. The question of the reliability of the Wikileaks documents needs to be separated from the issue of when it is appropriate to use them. As with any primary document, we should not be introducing a Wikileaks document into an article without some good reason, e.g. when it has been covered by secondary sources. The process of choosing a particular document to cite, even if the document is presented without any interpretation, would generally involve original research. Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bundesverfassungsgericht's interpretation ( BvR 1864/14 ) of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13.

EDIT: Ok, this discussion has gotten a bit out of scope so let me rephrase my original question as the implications of that are a discussion for another talks page...

The law as it is written is obviously a primary source.

We now have a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht that didn't change the law or it's meaning but the judges provided a precise interpretation/explanation of said law in justifying their decision.

Is this court's decision a (reliable) secondary source for the law?

In this particular case we're talking about the court decision "BvR 1864/14" and the explanation of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. contained therein. KuchenHunde (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is in part a discussion about the use of German sources in an English Wikipedia article due to lack of precis English sources. I hope this is the right notice board.

Over on the Legality of bestiality by country or territory Wiki page there has been a "years long discussion". about the Legal situation in Germany, specifically weather or not bestial acts are entirely prohibited or only when the animal is forced.

This is the passage that would be supported by this source:

❌ Illegal if the animal is forced, Legal if the animal is not forced

Now I'm a bit unsure as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source in the context of law. Am I correct in my assertion that the relevant law (Here "TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13".) as it is writing is the Primary source and any published interpretation of that law would be a secondary source?

In this case the Bundesverfassungsgericht "Published their interpretation". of this law in December 2015 when they rejected a constitutional complaint about it. If I understand this correctly this would be a very reliable secondary source for the meaning of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. and a primary source for the rejection of said constitutional complaint?

However in the discussion on the talks page there were accusations that using their interpretations would be original research so somewhere there has to be a misunderstanding.

Now as an aside this ruling is already used in the "German Wikipedia article". (as far as I could find uncontested since 2016) as a source for the claim that (roughly translated) "prohibition anchored in the Animal Welfare Act only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to species. Accordingly, sexual intercourse with animals is not generally prohibited in Germany" so one of the two articles is wrong. KuchenHunde (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The problem is that the BVerfG doesn't really say "Illegal if the animal is forced" and "Legal if the animal is not forced" explicitly. It examines the criminal offense found at §3 para. 13 TierSchG, explains the technicalities of how it should be interpreted and determines that this provision does not breach the German Constitution. I think you need a better, more explicit source if you want to add these statements to the article. JBchrch (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the "legal if the animal is not forced" part is not supported by this source? Because the BVerfG is very clear that this passage of the TierSchG is limited in two ways: "sexual act" and "forcing" to do a “behave contrary to species”. As this seems to be the only law regulating this sort of thing "sexual acts" that don't meet the criteria for "forcing" the animal would be legal, correct? Or would it be better to just write what is illegal an let the reader figure out the rest?

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt

KuchenHunde (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The court doesn't examine whether bestiality is legal or illegal in Germany. It only examines whether §3 para. 13 TierSchG is constitutional or not. This is why the source is not adequate. To determine whether something is legal or illegal, you need a broader analysis or the legal system as a whole. This type of analysis is generally provided by secondary and tertiary sources (legal articles, government reports, legal textbooks). This is specifically the case when the content you are trying to add is disputed. JBchrch (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC) What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant to this discussion as we're not talking about the result of their decision but rather their explanation concerning the meaning/scope of § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG ! Given That all sources I've seen so far that make any claim about the legal situation around Bestial acts in Germany are all centered around this sentence from the TierSchG it seems, to me at least, that having a crystal clear interpretation of what exactly it encompasses (in this case by the BVerfG) would provide some clarity. Even reputable news sources seem to have different interpretation. As an example: The BBC has been consistent in being explicit that the fine only applies when the animal is forced while other international news articles (like APNews) seem to rely on questionable translations of the law. (see further down on appropriate translation for "dadurch", specifically "in this way", and how that might change how one would interpret the English translation)

"BBC in 2012".: The German parliament's agriculture committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex.

And: A fine of up to 25,000 euros (£20,000) is proposed if someone forces an animal to commit "actions alien to the species".

"BBC in 2016".: Germany's animal protection laws set out fines of up to €25,000 ($27,700; £19,000) for forcing animals to participate in what is termed as unnatural behaviour

Now that I'm reading them would those two BBC articles be a better source for this claim? The first one very clearly lays out the legal situation as of 2012 and the upcoming change and the article in 2016 merely serves to confirm that the proposed legislation from the first article made it's way into law. I mean they are also secondary sources and while I would call the BVerfG a more reliable source on this subject matter when it comes to international publications the BBC seems to be very highly regarded.

No because the BBC articles don't use the terminology "illegal if forced" or "legal if not forced". At best, they say that it will become/is illegal to "force an animal" into unnatural behaviour (although this is not the prevalent language in both articles). But if you add the conditional language ("if") yourself, then you are not complying with WP:V. Regarding What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant, please refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. JBchrch (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They ofc don't use the exact wording but doesn't every Wikipedia article require some rewording for for an article not to be overly long and unnecessarily complicated? Regarding your input concerning WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn't the relevant context that it is an official statement by the BVerfG that goes into great detail as to what exactly TierSchG §3 Sentence 1 No. 13 means? How does what exactly they were deciding influence the validity of their analysis? KuchenHunde (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The statute making any sexual contact with an animal illegal is crystal clear. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities or to train it or make it available for sexual activities of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species." Individuals are prohibited from personally engaging in bestiality, and from providing an animal for others to have sex with. And thereby force it (animal) to behave in a manor contrary to the species. The "force" refers to sex with a human is not a "natural" act for any animal. The laws says nothing about "forced sex" or the use of violence. The law was challenged in 2015, the plaintiffs claimed the law as written which prohibited any sexual contact with animals, violated their right under the constitution to sexual self determination. But the complaint was not accepted for admission for decision. Meaning the complaint was dismissed for having no constitutional significance. So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal, and that consensual sex was legal. Is a bold assertion. But that assertion just isn't supported by any reliable news sources. Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources. Shiloh6555 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It might seem that way from the English translation of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 but keep in mind that this is a law written in German Legal Language and as such it's meaning might not be intuitive to even a native German speaker. You interpreting the translation and deriving a meaning from it would be original research! (Also: Laws usually aren't there to define causality but actions) "Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources" I wouldn't agree that the TierSchG only protecting animals from obvious harm is an extraordinary claim but luckily having an exact explanation of what that particular law means by the BVerfG is an extraordinary source that you don't get for many laws.

"So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal" (forced meaning: physical violence or a behavior comparable to the use of physical violence) Literally just read their justification for why the complaint was dismissed. They were very clear on how TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 is limited in scope, one being the term "force" (see above) KuchenHunde (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you insist on trying to interpret a law written in a language you don't speak let me point out that "in this way". is also a valid (and I'd argue in this context more appropriate) translation of "dadurch". While there isn't an official translation of the German TierSchG that I could find "this". translation by the aaalac uses the following wording:

It is prohibited [...] to exploit an animal for own’s own sexual acts or to train it or make it available for sexual acts by third parties and in this way to force it to behave in a manner which is unnatural for its species.

Suddenly the meaning isn't as crystal clear anymore. KuchenHunde (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

if your meaning isnt crystal clear it shouldn't be in the article. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Delderd (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! So if the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 isn't crystal clear on it's own then why are you so insistent on keeping Germany as "Illegal" in the article when that would at least put it as "Unclear/Unknown". Of course the meaning gets to the point of being "crystal clear" when you read BvR 1864/14 which is why I cited it as a source!

as I said back in February last year when these same arguments were being used, "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here with '[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.' That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case, including the associated press, have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal." You're using your own interptetation of the law, and not what the actual news reports are saying. Delderd (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, the statue is crystal clear. And still in effect, exactly as written as of 2021. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities" It makes no mentioned of "forced" sexual activities, or the use of violence. The word force is used to describe a behavior that is a result of any sexual contact with a human. "And thereby to force them to behave contrary to the species. "und dadurch zu artwidrigem Verhalten zu zwingen. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Laws are WP:PRIMARY sources (they are almost textbook examples of primary sources that must be used with extreme caution, since interpreting and understanding them is an entire skillset requiring years of study and often relying on knowing related precedent, otherl laws, etc.) And the claim that German law allows bestiality in any form is patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You need a secondary source for this - even if it seems crystal-clear to you, how do you know what the relevant precedent means? Do you know every other possible law that could apply, and the full legal context in which this law is being used? I am skeptical, but if you did you still could not use that to write the article, since it would be WP:OR. Find a secondary source discussing it; otherwise it has to be removed entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. The German constitution court's own headline says, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." Not the offence of "forced" sexual activity. The constitutional complaint was not admitted for decision. Meaning the complaint was essentially dismissed. Which is why mainstream media sources such as AP news, DPA (Germany) and AFP (France) all reported that the challenge to the existing ban had failed. So to claim every one of those news agencies got it wrong. And that the court actually determined that consensual bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly an exceptional claim. Shiloh6555 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that interpreting laws (especially when written in a language you don't speak natively) meet the criteria of WP:OR. Regarding the need for a secondary source: We have exactly this in the aforementioned decision by the BVerfG (BvR 1864/14)!

While it is a primary source for their decision contained therein is a very detailed explanation as to the exact meaning and scope of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. This would make it a secondary source for this and, I'd argue, a very reliable one since it's an official release by the supreme constitutional court of Germany. Here is what they have to say about it (highlighting different forms of the German word "Zwingen" -> "to force" in bold since google translate is inconsistent):

BvR 1864/14 Section 6

German original

Google translate

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt. Diese unbestimmten Gesetzesbegriffe sind weder im angegriffenen Tierschutzgesetz noch in der Gesetzesbegründung definiert. Sie sind aber der näheren Deutung im Wege der Auslegung zugänglich (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); ihre Bedeutung ergibt sich aus ihrem Wortsinn (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) und entspricht dem Alltagssprachgebrauch. Zudem handelt es sich um Begrifflichkeiten, die auch in anderen Gesetzen und im Tierschutzgesetz selbst verwendet werden. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass weitgehende Einigkeit über ihren engeren Bedeutungsgehalt besteht (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) und sie insofern durch die Gerichte weiter konkretisiert werden können

The offense of Section 3 Sentence 1 No. 13 TierSchG is limited in two respects by the characteristics of “sexual act” and “compelling” to “behave contrary to species”. These indefinite legal terms are not defined either in the challenged Animal Welfare Act or in the explanatory memorandum. However, they are accessible to more detailed interpretation by way of interpretation (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); their meaning results from their sense of the word (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) and corresponds to everyday language usage. In addition, these are terms that are also used in other laws and in the Animal Welfare Act itself. It can be assumed that there is broad agreement on their narrower meaning (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) and that they can be further specified by the courts

BvR 1864/14 Section 9

German original

Google translate

Der Begriff des „artwidrigen“ Verhaltens steht zudem in engem Zusammenhang mit dem weiteren Tatbestandsmerkmal des „Zwingens“ zu einem solchen Verhalten, der eine tatbestandsbegrenzende Wirkung entfaltet. Nach der Gesetzesbegründung soll das „Erzwingen“ zwar sowohl durch körperliche Gewalt als auch auf andere Weise möglich sein (vgl. BTDrucks 17/11811, S. 28). Eine Auslegung anhand der Systematik des § 3 TierSchG und im Hinblick auf Sinn und Zweck des Verbots ergibt, dass es sich bei dieser anderen Weise des Zwangs um ein Verhalten handeln muss, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.

The concept of “inappropriate” behavior is also closely related to the further constituent element of “compelling” to behave in such a way that has a limiting effect. According to the explanatory memorandum for the law, “enforcement” should be possible both through physical violence and in other ways (cf. Bundestag printed paper 17/11811, p. 28). An interpretation based on the system of § 3 TierSchG and with regard to the sense and purpose of the prohibition shows that this other type of coercion must be a behavior that is comparable to the use of physical violence.

BvR 1864/14 Section 12

German original

Google translate

Der Schutz des Wohlbefindens von Tieren durch einen Schutz vor artwidrigen sexuellen Übergriffen ist ein legitimes Ziel. Diesem in § 1 Satz 1 TierSchG zum Ausdruck kommenden Grundprinzip kommt nach Art. 20a GG Verfassungsrang zu. Es liegt im - grundsätzlich weiten - Einschätzungs- und Beurteilungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers (vgl. BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 f.>), zum Wohlbefinden der Tiere und ihrer artgerechten Haltung auch den Schutz vor erzwungenen sexuellen Übergriffen zu rechnen.

Protecting the well-being of animals by protecting them from inappropriate sexual assault is a legitimate goal. This basic principle expressed in § 1 sentence 1 TierSchG has constitutional status according to Art. 20a GG. In the - fundamentally wide - scope for assessment and assessment of the legislature (cf.BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 and 347>), the welfare of animals and their species-appropriate keeping also includes protection against forced sexual assault calculate.

So if any news source (which themselves are a secondary sources on this) makes claims about TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. that are inconsistent with the BVerfG's interpretation I'd argue that use of the interpretation found in BvR 1864/14 is warranted given that it was made by an governmental institution of Germany and not a news organization KuchenHunde (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The BvR 1864/14 decision is a primary source. That source being a legal decision. Its difficult for the average person to fully understand or correctly interpret. Which is why Wikipedia requires reputable news sources to determine what BvR 1864/14 established. News services reported that BvR 1864/14 was an "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." The assertion that BvR 1864/14 instead established that only "physically forced" (rape) was illegal and thus consensual bestiality was legal. Is an interpretation that is clearly contrary to what was widely reported. There is not a single reliable news source that reports that non forced sex with animals is legal in Germany. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution."[3] So simply using your own interpretation of BvR 1864/14 isn't acceptable. Shiloh6555 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see how BvR 1864/14 is a Primary source for the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 as they didn't change the wording or meaning of the law. When reading through their decision in this context it matches the description of WP:SECONDARY pretty well and doesn't match the description of WP:PRIMARY at all. Did you perhaps missunderstand the context in which we are talking about their decision? As WP:SECONDARY established: "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context" and the court's decision is obviously a primary source for the court's decision...

Regarding reputable news sources: I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't require "news sources" just reliable secondary sources regardless of weather or not they were published by a news organization. Regardless of that I haven't found many news sources that said anything about the courts justification of their decision but the few that do are also very clear that this law is limited to forced sexual acts. as an example these two: "heise.de". and "lto.de". KuchenHunde (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first article literally says "Sexual act with animals remains an administrative offense," unless that translation is incorrect?

and why do you keep waiting so long to respond? Delderd (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, BvR 1864/14 certainly is a primary source. Its a legal decision which you have been interpreting, and claiming only you understand its true meaning and significance. Wikipedia does not allow original research. In this scenario, you MUST produce independent, reliable news sources that back you interpretation. An interpretation I might add, that isn't accepted by mainstream media sources. I have, and can again. Give a very different interpretation of BvR 1864/14. One which is fully in line with the widely reported mainstream view. But this has already been argued and decided previously. It doesn't matter how right you think your interpretation is. You have to produce some verification other than your own or another's personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14. Shiloh6555 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If KuchenHunde wants to continue discussions concerning the legal meaning of BvR 1864/14 in the main article. That's fine. But I don't believe KuchenHunde has provided any reputable news sources that warrants any change to the existing "Illegal" in Germany status. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just provided you two "news sources" (not that tat's required for Wikipedia as the guidelines just require reliable secondary sources) by reputable German publications. Not my fault that there aren't in-depth international articles about the obscure topic of the legal situation around Bestiality in Germany.

Could you perhaps explain to me how a Court decision That didn't change anything about a law or it's meaning is "close to an event" or "written by people who are directly involved" if non of the judges had a hand in the governmental process that lead to the writing and passing of the law (WP:PRIMARY)? And how The judges analyzing the meaning Of this particular passage by looking at the wording of the law and exploring the meaning of the terms used in the context of the TierSchG isn't "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"(WP:SECONDARY)?

Regarding Delderd remark: I won't go into to much detail as that's really out of scope for this Noticeboard but do you ever read anything but the headlines? Because here on Wikipedia the policy about headline is very clear(WP:HEADLINES): "News headlines including subheadlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source"! The whole Article mirrors the courts explanations with this very explicit quote at the end: "weil der Tatbestand nur [dann greift], wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird" -> "because the offense only [then applies] if the animal is forced to behave contrary to the species" KuchenHunde (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

most headlines don't directly contradict their articles like you're suggesting. Its more likely you're misinterpreting what the article says to support your own viewpoint.

and if the topic was so obscure, why did the ap report on it in the first place? Plus it was all over the news when Canada ruled that bestiality was still legal because of a loophole, you really don't think nobody would be talking about Germany making it legal again?

You really need to take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, you're checking off most of the boxes (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, "Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit," WP:REHASH, "Not accepting independent input," and the aforementioned WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Delderd (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, with the amount of sources that are not reporting the points made by this source, and the "niche"-ness of it, the notion that bestiality is legal if it's not forced upon the animal is WP:UNDUE anyway. You are not going to WP:GAME the rules by finding the one source that supports your viewpoint, when all the other sources by highly-reliable outlets don't mention it at all. In addition, I have actually spent money on this, and taken a look at what I could find on my professional Beck-Online database. None of the secondary sources I could find—including a Neue Juristische Wochenschrift summary of the decision—mention the idea that bestiality is legal if it's not forced. Driving home the point that we are in WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE, territory. JBchrch talk 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the opinion of the BVerfG is WP:UNDUE? I'm sorry, I just wanted to get an outside opinion on weather or not the BVerfG's decision BvR 1864/14 passes as a secondary source for TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. 'cause for my personal life if the BVerfG tells me "Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird." (Google Translate: "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species.") Then I'm going to take their word for it, especially after their explanation of what the term "zwingen"->"to force" means in the context of the TierSchG. What could that possibly mean other than if there is no use of force then it's not against this law? I mean I've seen this sentence from the BVerfG quoted in a few articles (not sure what's in the Beck-Online database) so it's not just me thinking that this is an important to know part of this law. Only thing I haven't seen a lot is articles that were explicit that things not covered by this law are legal (Why would they?). There were these two, admittedly less reputable, sources: "juragentur.de". and "lawblog". that made it explicit, one credited to a small law news organisation and the other on the private blog of a lawyer. The latter actually got a Grimme Online Award "link". so it's not just some random blog that nobody reads... KuchenHunde (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde is not accepting the true meaning of the statute. The statute was passed as a total ban on bestiality. The "force" is a "compulsion" to species inappropriate behavior. The statute makes no recognition whatsoever of "consensual" or even "forced" sex acts. The sex is what "forces" the animal into a inappropriate and unnatural act. This "forcing" of an inappropriate and unnatural behavior, is what triggers the offense. "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species."Again, having sex with an animal. "Forces" it to behave in a manner contrary to the species. Which is the whole point of the statute. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or where you live but I'm actually a zoophile living in Germany so I actually have an interest in knowing what the legal situation here is. I'm honestly pretty happy with this law but it sadens me to see how my homecountry is missrepresented internationaly by people who don't even speak the language thinking they know a law better based on a google translat than oure supreme constitutianal court... Like srly we even have the "ZETA-Verein". some of who's members are puplically out as zoophiles and don't exactly make a secret out of the fact that they are sexually active with their non human partners. If this law really said what you claim it does and not what the BVerfG explained it to mean you'd think that, given how many bigots are out there to call the cops on them, they'd be in constant trouble with the local Veterinäramt/Police, but they're not! I'm not entirely sure where I head it (I think it was "this". episode of Zooier than Thou) but iirc one of them told the story of his interaction with the Veterinäramt and it basically boiled down to them asking a few questions, taking a look at his dog and letting them be...

P.s. I still don't understand your claim of BvR 1864/14 being a primary source in regards to TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 given how it doesn't fit the description at all. KuchenHunde (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Our or anyone eles's "Personal "interpretation" of BvR 1864/14 is considered to be original research. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, the widely reported interpretation of BvR 1864/14 was that it upheld TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. According to which "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual acts or to train or make available for sexual acts of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species."

The assertion that BvR 1864/14 reinterpreted ierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. As meaning only "forced" sex acts was forbidden, and "consensual" bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly a bold assertion. One that simply isn't evident in the mainstream reporting. If/when you can produce press reports confirming your conclusions. This can be addressed again. Your current, everybody is wrong and I'm right based on a personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14 is not acceptable. Shiloh6555 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@kuchenhunde NAMBLA was allowed to operate in the usa, that didnt make child molestation legal.

Malcom J. Brenner is an open zoophile who's talked about molesting his dog, he's still free. The host of your ztt podcast was recently exposed with his real name, nothing's happened to him yet.

It usually takes actual physical evidence for someone to get punished, unfortunately; just talking about can't get you in trouble. Delderd (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shiloh6555 I have yet to see anything backing up your assertion that BvR 1864/14 is a primary source. There is no "reinterpretation" of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. going on in there! As you've pointed out several times: The constitutianal complaint was rejected. Nothing about the law or it's meaning changed! The only thing that is of note for this discussion is that they provided a detailed explanation of this law and it limitations. Now if you can't read it because you don't speak the language please just ask someone who does instead of authoratively asserting that you know what they said better than a native speaker.

P.s. If an article quotes TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. (or in the case of international articles a possibly missrepresentative translation) in their explanation of the BvR 1864/14 decision and you take your interpretation of what is and isn't illegal from that quote then we're back at square one as that would be primary research!KuchenHunde (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSLAW § Original texts. Please not that I speak the language and am familiar with German law, so I can confirm that this decision is not a reliable source to source what you want to source under WP:V because it doesn't speak about the legality of bestiality, it speaks about the constitutionality of §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG. At this point, please consider WP:STICK. JBchrch talk 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter

I've had this source removed, with the comment that it isn't a reliable source. Could I have some opinions please? - Thanks very much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

So you started this discussion before you raised the issue on the talk-page? Why don't you wait more than −2 minutes for a response from Crossroads? P.S. For everyone else, here's the relevant diff, at Consequence culture. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would have, but because Crossroads was the one that removed it because he believed it wasn't RS, so I already know where he stands and I wanted a second opinion? Isn't this page for determining if something is RS or not? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Even if it wasn't an opinion piece, you'll never get it accepted for anything related to "consequence culture". In terms of the belief systems of the right, "cancel culture is the greatest existential threat to America" ranks below only "Trump won in 2020" and "abortion is murder". As long as we allow right-wing editors (which we do and should), consensus for a CNN opinion in support of consequences vs. cancellation is never going to happen. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's punditry, akin to an opinion piece, not factual reporting. The whole article of "consequence culture" is a non-notable WP:POVFORK of Cancel culture; see Talk:Cancel culture#Proposed merge of Consequence culture into Cancel culture. I should have nominated it for deletion. Guy/JzG, you comment smacks of WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm not right-wing, although they do exaggerate the concept, and keeping out all opinion pieces is the best way to go on controversial topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But does the fact its his opinion, and its from a noted authority/person, exclude it as an RS? Where in WP:RS does it say its not allowed? Doesn't the fact its from CNN mean it is RS? (not a rehotrical question, I'm just not sure). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Being aired on CNN does not automatically mean it is reliable, particularly if it is aired on a show that focuses on commentary, as opposed to straight news reporting. Brian Stelter's show on CNN (and other opinion shows on cable news networks) should be viewed similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper, meaning that they're not reliable sources for statements of fact, but can be used to give the opinion of the person who is talking. Still, I'd strongly prefer a written source, as opposed to an on-air segment, because interpreting an on-air segment comes close to WP:OR. Even a written source summarizing what Stelter said would be preferable to the video itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guy JBL- politics aside (which I'm not to interested in) and protocl aside, do you regard this CNN reference as RS? So far I only have stated opinion from the original editor who removed it. Cheers, would appreciate the input. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Nope. Primary, opinion. See WP:ARSEHOLES. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the input GuyI really just wanted a second opinion, and that will do cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 explains it well. Next time, you might try WP:3O as a good venue to get another opinion on something. --JBL (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL For a general opinion, yes WP:3O, but in this case, I needed a decision on whether a reference was RS or not. This is the RS noticeboard, so IMHO its appropriate to post it here, as per WP:RSN. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Stelter, a pundit who promotes fringe views or figures, is not a reliable source. Stelter's show is not known for fact-checking, accuracy, and corrections.

A perfect example would be this video segment. A guest made totally false statement "[Trump] may be responsible for many more million deaths than [Hitler, Stalin, and Mao]". Politifact gave that a "Pants on Fire!" rating. Stelter did not challenge the guest's statement on air, later claiming "technical difficulties ... had distracted him". The video is still up without a correction. Another guest on the video was ousted from Yale for making public comments about mental fitness, in violation of Goldwater rule.

And who could forget Stelter's promotion of Michael Avenatti. To quote Erik Wemple Blog:

"A highlight of [the Washington Free Beacon] video comes when CNN media boss Brian Stelter tells Avenatti in a September 2018 interview, 'And looking ahead to 2020, one reason I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news." That moment is a favorite among CNN critics."
— Erik Wemple Blog in The Washington Post

Politrukki (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site denying Uyghur Genocide

The World Socialist Web Site has apparently published several articles denying the Uyghur Genocide.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Perhaps we should reevaluate this source’s credibility? X-Editor (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors, but should not be used to present material in WP's own voice and WP:DUE must be considered. The outlet has a gatekeeping process, a consistent presence over time, and an IRL legal personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. On the other hand, it is not - itself - sourced by unambiguously reliable sources. For those reasons I don't believe we can question the authenticity of writing attributed to individuals but we can decline to present that material in WP's voice and should take care to balance attributed opinion statements within the overall ecology of commentary on a particular subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Seems like the best option for handling this particular source. X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces are not reliable for facts. And unless covered in secondary, reliable sources they're pretty much always UNDUE. This site's editorial stance favors alternate views, which means its opinions are even less likely to be WP:DUE. There are hardly any cases where it's a good idea to cite this source on Wikipedia. As Guy has said, "opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one" (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see why we would be citing a publication of the Trotskyist International Committee of the Fourth International for facts anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I certainly would not cite any socialist/communist website for impartial coverage on China (or any Communist state) for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name, and even less so when it comes to opinions. Citing any such Communist/socialist organisation for Xinjiang is a left-wing equivalent of relying on One America News Network for coverage of Jan 6 events at the US Capitol - you of course can, but it's no good. For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS, possibly with linking to the WSWS website as an aside but definitely not alone; just like we do with Trump supporters when describing their reactions to the events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name" I think that's an overly reductionist representation of the pantheon of contemporary Marxist thought, which is diverse and non-monolithic, however, I do agree with this in general terms: "For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS". Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Szmenderowiecki this is too blanket a position: Trotskyists take very different positions from Maoists; democratic socialists even more radically different positions. And even "socialist/communist websites" are biased, that doens't mean they're not reliable. if The question is whether this particular source is reliable or not on this particular issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I know Maoism is not Trotskyism is not democratic socialism, but I said my general impression from my experience offline, however limited and anecdotal, because I find there's too high a risk citing another CCP's apologist website when citing communists. Actually, Demsoc has The New Republic and The Nation as some rather good publications. But there is a threshold of partisanship above which a resource simply cannot be reliable because of extreme bias, and that concerns both the far left and the far right.

If you want my opinion on WSWS specifically, as I said, it's shit. They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children and I'm not aware about that 14% of people who had asymptomatic infections (given that data from Israel indicate a 94% reduction of chance of getting any COVID, so it can't be that 14% had COVID after vaccination). The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world - that should not be anything resembling RS. It's also hard to distinguish news from opinions here because the language they use is so loaded, and I shouldn't be trying to apply OR to understand if that piece is still news or already WP:OPINION. As for Uyghur coverage, while they made a disclaimer that they do not support CCP for basically betraying communist ideals, I can't be so sure about it if I read that apparently RS massively misrepresent evidence on Xinjiang, which is both WP:EXTRAORDINARY and echoing CCP, while the sentence The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism is potentially libellous -- another reason to avoid WSWS. Also, when they say: His campaign team issued a statement in August 2020, concluding that the unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs constituted “genocide” (here), you can't help but conclude they are (being) denialist. From a risk-benefit analysis, I see practically no benefits but so many associated risks that it just makes no sense to cite it whatsoever. The only possibility remains for their philosophical essays that reflect the development of Trotskyist/Marxist thought, but I would still first look for other resources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You give a laundry-list of complaints, which I think are mostly about opinions that you disagree with:

• They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children: They're saying that children play a significant role in transmission SARS-CoV-2, and they cite a survey of epidemiologists. I'm not an expert in this subject area, but I know that this is the same point that Christian Drosten, a leading virologist in Germany who has done studies of SARS-CoV-2 in children, has been emphasizing for a long time. This point is largely moot, though, because WP:MEDRS imposes a much higher standard for any scientific claims about SARS-CoV-2 - a standard that virtually no popular media, newspapers of record included, meets.
• The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict] is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world: It's definitely highly critical of Israel's bombardment of Gaza (as most left-wing media is), but I see nothing in that article that in any way supports Hamas. Are you referring to the line that mentions that Hamas has called for a cease-fire?
• echoing CCP: This reminds me strongly of how supporters of the Iraq War accused opponents of the war of supporting Saddam Hussein. It's really sad to see this sort of rhetorical device being used here on Wikipedia. The article you're quoting repeatedly refers to the CCP regime and accuses China of using police state measures, but since it argues against Mike Pompeo's description of what's occurring in Xinjiang a "genocide", it somehow echoes the CCP? It looks like you're just trying to rule out any source that doesn't fall into line.
• the sentence "The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism" is potentially libellous: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that this would never be considered libel in a US court. It's a political criticism of another outlet. The specific criticism of the Times here is that they presented testimony from someone they simply described as a Uyghur American, without noting that the person giving the testimony has worked extensively with the US government, previously worked for Radio Free Asia, and now runs an NGO with close links to the US government (its parent organizations are funded by the US government). I don't know, but it seems to me like criticizing the NY Times for not mentioning those links is reasonable.

If anything, this reminds me of the scathing critique of the NY Times' Iraqi WMD coverage written in 2004 by none other than the NY Times' own public editor (a position which no longer exists, by the way). The critique is worth reading in its entirety, but I'll just point out a few highlights. First, on the overall tone of the NY Times' coverage of Iraqi WMD:

To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable.

Then, on how the Times wrote headline articles that made questionable claims, but either buried or didn't publish corrections:

But in The Times's W.M.D. coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war -- but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. Some remain scoops to this day. This is not a compliment.

The public editor accuses the Times of basically claiming that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

'Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell,' by Patrick E. Tyler (Feb. 6, 2003) all but declared a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -- a link still to be conclusively established, more than 15 months later. Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors.

The public editor accuses the Times of giving license to anonymous sources to lie:

But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, 'We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it,' may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars.

The public editor finally accuses the Times of having been used as a tool in the cunning campaign to push the war:

No one can deny that this was a drama in which The Times played a role. On Friday, May 21, a front-page article by David E. Sanger (A Seat of Honor Lost to Open Political Warfare) elegantly characterized Chalabi as 'a man who, in lunches with politicians, secret sessions with intelligence chiefs and frequent conversations with reporters from Foggy Bottom to London's Mayfair, worked furiously to plot Mr. Hussein's fall.' The words 'from The Times, among other publications' would have fit nicely after 'reporters' in that sentence. The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign.

My point is just that the NY Times' own public editor described the Times' coverage in the run-up to the Iraq War using far harsher language than anything I'm seeing in the articles you've linked above. WSWS is definitely expressing strong opinions, but that's not at all the same thing as fabricating information, and the outlet seems pretty open about its point of view. Reason writes from a stridently Libertarian point of view. Jacobin writes from an openly socialist point of view. These sorts of opinionated sources have their place. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to start from, but it seems I will have to, so I'll move by the order of your quotes:

COVID studies: the article states in the headline that apparently NYT published a scathing survey that debunks establishment's views. The survey they refer to, however, only mentions that epidemiologists would hesitate to gather inside until children are vaccinated. This does not mean that these folks confirmed the "central role that children play in spreading COVID-19", they only said they are susceptible - not news. It is common knowledge by now that children are less contagious and the risk of getting to hospital is lower; but nobody from govt institutions said the risk of contracting COVID for children is 0, as they pretty boldly but erroneously claim in the headline. The fact they don't hyperlink to the relevant statements, or other research, at all, doesn't help them.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict: if you want to be reliable, you'd want not to mix news with opinions. Hamas calling for a ceasefire is a wonderful thing, in fact; it's also OK to be highly critical of one side if they support the argument appropriately and mark it as OPINION/EDITORIAL or something. They make no such indication, however, and it seems a lot of editors have interpreted the site as reporting news where most RS would almost certainly have put an "OPINION" label. To be fair, they did write that "WSWS strongly condemns the Israeli conduct in the war" which could be clearly read as opinion, but only once. Condemnation alone is perfectly fine, but very slanted reporting, as is the case here (with basically no thorough analysis of the conflict), bound with their non-distinction between news and opinion, is what would urge me to declare the resource unreliable.

As for "echoing CCP" - they are echoing CCP in that they state that Uyghurs are not to be trusted at all (pretty repeatedly in coverage) - which itself requires extraordinary proof. Also, they repeatedly say that while they are preoccupied with Xinjiang, they seem to suggest it's more because of what they perceive is an exploitation of the working class rather than because of loss of the already limited civil liberties The repression of the Uyghurs is completely bound up with the far broader oppression of the working class by the Chinese capitalist elites and the Chinese Communist Party regime that defends their interests.. To add insult to injury, they seem to make a presumption of guilt when discussing US government, claiming justification in, for instance, Iraq as a precedent, and dismissing any US claims as advocacy for US imperialism. I find it unacceptable for a prospective RS to do so.

As for libel: US does afford broad free-speech protections for news media, but Wikipedia is not an American-only source. In Europe, it could be easily prosecuted. Even in the US, the cause could be probable; the only obstacle might be for PR of the newspaper, but I also see it as pretty prosecutable if NYT insisted to do so. I also cannot agree with the analysis you claim shows NYT used far more aggressive language. First of all, the public editor writes on NYT about NYT coverage; it would be cowardly of NYT to sue the author for libel after publication (which it didn't), even more so for a post of a watchdog (sadly gone). The story also makes it quite clear it is the opinion of the public editor. On the other hand, the story as published by WSWS does not show itself as opinion, asserts something for a fact that NYT is grossly violating journalistic principles by being unduly influenced by CIA and State Dept. and that essentially it is a govt mouthpiece. The proof they provide is insufficient to prove the allegation - what it might be sufficient for is COI of two activists.

Advocacy - maybe. Reliable reporting - sorry, not this time.

EDIT: Darouet is right that WSWS covers labour relations quite extensively, so that might be something for which they could be cited; of course we will have to sieve through the bias WSWS has, but the coverage is indeed valuable, and, even if opinionated, is unique so pretty important. Other than that, no, thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• They're a stridently biased source who exists to advance a particular position, and therefore should not be cited except as opinion at most. Even as an opinion site they're likely to be undue in most contexts; the example you gave underlines that their opinions are fringe-y, but we knew that already. And I would be skeptical about citing them directly for any shocking / exceptional "socialists / Trotksyists think X" stuff anyway without a secondary source, which doesn't really leave much use for them. Looking back at past discussions, it seems like they've generally been assessed this way in the past, but somehow we're still citing them over a thousand times. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• What Buidhe and Aquillion said. I'd be surprised if there are any cases where the opinions expressed are going to be WP:DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors when due. Agree with Buidhe and Aquillion summary. Although it's been online for longer than lots of Trotskyist websites and so has accrued more links and search engine juice, it is highly unreliable and prone to conspiracy theories, making it resemble something like GlobalResearch more than a typical Trotskyist website. Reliable only for opinons, and only when they're due, which would be not often and certainly not on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs is extremely controversial, and heavily disputed by a great many commentators and experts, including the US State Department's own legal advisors, meaning that the official position of the US government on this issue actually contradicts the position of its own experts. One of the reasons that the accusation is so controversial is that there's no evidence of any mass killing (which is commonly considered the central element of genocide) or of any genocidal intent (another central element of the crime of genocide). I'd be very wary of ruling out sources simply for the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo about China. Otherwise, we might also start having to rule out sources like The Economist, which has flatly denied the claim of a Uyghur genocide and accused the US government of diminishing the unique stigma of the term by applying it where it clearly does not apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Equally, we should be wary of using sources just because they disagree with Mike Pompeo. We should be using reliable sources, such as the Economist, if we want to discuss these controversies.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The original comment in this section asks us to reevaluate this source’s credibility because it supposedly denyi[es] the Uyghur Genocide. That's what I referred to as the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo. The accusation that the US government has leveled - that China is carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang - is extremely contentious, and as I show above, has been dismissed outright by The Economist as a trivialization of the meaning of the word "genocide". Nobody is saying that we should use every source that disagrees with Mike Pompeo, but we're being asked to reevaluate sources specifically because they disagree with one of his more controversial claims - a claim that even the US State Department's own legal advisors disagree with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WSWS also denies that there is any internment of Uyghurs in at least one of those articles. X-Editor (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Where? What is the exact quote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

...unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs.... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying that there are unsubstantiated claims of mass internment is very different from den[ying] that there is any internment. The very same article states, Undoubtedly, the CCP regime in Beijing uses police state measures to suppress opposition in Xinjiang, so it clearly is not denying the use of any police-state measures in Xinjiang (such as internment). However, the claims of 1 million or even 3 million people interned are, at present, very poorly sourced. A recent article from the South China Morning Post discusses some of the disagreements over these claims, and cites one expert (Grose) who believes that there is evidence, but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts. Another expert (Sautman) emphasizes that the data underlying the various charges being made in the media about Xinjiang is poor, and says that he believes many of the charges are probably incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats bad and entirely separate from the genocide labelling discussion. Especially for when it was published, the claims of mass internment of Uyghurs has been entirely substantiated including by the Chinese government... They no longer deny the existence of the camps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government disputes both the characterization of the camps as internment camps and the numbers claimed by some Western sources. As the SCMP article I linked above makes clear, the evidence underlying the estimates commonly cited in the media is very poor at present, and viewed as highly uncertain by experts. "Unsubstantiated" is a reasonable way to describe those claims, in other words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Internment =/= internment camps and we aren’t talking about specific numbers. Thats not what that SCMP article makes clear, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. If I wasn’t AGF I would say you’re cherrypicking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I substantially agree with everything Horse Eye's Back has said here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucy’s twisting of Grose’s opinion almost beggars belief... "Regardless of the media approach, Grose said he disagreed with the paper’s suggestion there was no hard evidence of mass internment... He said he had put 325 documents from official Chinese sources related to incarcerations in Xinjiang on the project’s website. Grose said the paper suggested it was more plausible that local ethnic people were graduating from vocational schools rather than political re-education camps, an argument he said was disingenuous. “I have posted and made publicly available Chinese sources that call students of these vocational schools ‘detainees’, you don’t call students ‘detainees’,” he said.” Gross is clearly saying that the claims are substantiated and heavily criticizing the anonymous paper which argues Thucy’s position on the subject “It was built up as this path-breaking piece of research, and when I read it, I was shocked at how poorly it was written, and just the lack of academic rigour that was put in the piece,” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your twisting of my words beggars belief. I very clearly stated that Grose believes there is evidence for mass internment, but I noted that he also criticized the media for reporting uncertain estimates as fact. You left out that quote from Grose (Oftentimes, the 1 million figure is used uncritically, and especially it’s reproduced and recycled in media where it’s almost become this undisputed fact), which makes me question your honesty here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You said "but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts.” but I see only one estimate being talked about and he does not directly say the media’s behavior is improper and theres a qualifying “almost" which is completely absent in your summary. Perhaps you erred in your original summation of that point? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You've come a long way from saying that I twisted Grose's opinion to quibbling about the word "almost". Feel free to read my above statement as the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as almost facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that “improperly” and "highly uncertain” are not part of his opinion, you also have a plural statement with only a single underlying case... You mean reported, estimate, and fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite used to it at this point. I mean, the claims from the Chinese government are laughable on their face; this is not what a trade school looks like, but it looks suspiciously like an internment camp with a strong propaganda focus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Which evaluation of the website's credibility do you think we should re? Where is it referenced in the encyclopaedia, and to support what statement? This is not a forum for general discussion of websites. Cambial foliage❧ 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would not use this source for any claim of fact. It seems mostly okay for opinion stuff, but I'd still be cautious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• If the authors are notable then yes we can (and most likely should) use it as an attributed source for their opinions. I would not generally use them for statements of fact, WSWS is more David North’s group blog than an actual news source. They don’t have a positive reputation and they are very open about their activist nature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason I refer to it as a genocide is because that is the terminology used to refer to it on Wikipedia. If you think the terminology is wrong, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the Uyghur Genocide article. Also, WSWS calling the claims of mass internment camps unsubstantiated is very clearly them denying the well documented massive scale of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. X-Editor (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're an appropriate source to cite on that specific topic unless we for some reason have to discuss what Troskyists think about it (and I'd be cautious even then; as I said above, they're not a source with very much use for a variety of reasons.) But I disagree with the idea that simply arguing over whether it's a genocide would disqualify a source; I think such opposition is a minority voice now, but looking over the sources I'm not really sure I'd call it WP:FRINGE: [22][23][24]. Even sources that plainly favor calling it a genocide often acknowledge that there is debate, eg. [25]. Personally I wouldn't really change the overall tone of the Uyghur genocide article, but I would probably add a section for debate over the use of the term "genocide", which plainly does exist. See eg. Holodomor genocide question for comparison (although I am not really impressed by that article's structure, which feels like it gets more into laundry-list nose-counting as opposed to covering the debate in-depth), and the more cautious wording on Holodomor, which states who has called it a genocide rather than simply declaring it one in the article voice. Although really that is a question for WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGEN rather than here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: we already have a section for that, see Uyghur genocide#Classification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: The Uyghur genocide article is not intended to state, as a fact, that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. When the name of the article was changed to "Uyghur genocide", the argument was made that this is merely a phrase that's been used commonly in the media, and not a statement of fact. However, I have argued that the name of the article and the first sentence of the lede both come across as a definite statement by Wikipedia that there is a genocide. @Horse Eye's Back: This illustrates the point that I have made previously when discussing with you, that the title and first sentence of Uyghur genocide will be interpreted by readers as a Wikivoice statement. As you can see above, it's even being interpreted by some Wikipedia editors as a Wikivoice statement. -19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (signing properly: -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

If there was a better or more widespread term we would use it, but as has been demonstrated time and time again while a contingent of editors dislikes Uyghur genocide they have been unable to propose a more suitable name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you at least acknowledge that at present, readers are interpreting the article as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs? If you accept that this is the case (as it is with X-Editor), then you should be in favor of changes to the article to make it clear that we are not making a Wikivoice statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I use the term genocide because that is what Wikipedia uses currently. If you want to change the name of the article, propose a change on the article’s talk page. X-Editor (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I hesitate to judge a website based upon its opinion pieces, since we generally consider them separate. However, the site's publication of conspiratorial claims (and perhaps even false or fabricated information) goes beyond the publication of pieces clearly labeled as opinion, as evidenced by the content of the links provided by OP. I see no reason to treat it as any more reliable than The Federalist in this regard, and the publication of false information (and lack of apparent corrections) might well be a reason to classify it as deprecated, just like The Grayzone. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that the source is used in approximately 1200 separate wikipedia pages. It seems to be repeatedly cited as a source for facts across these uses, in many cases without attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be considered generally unreliable, the WSWS is essentially the newsletter of the Socialist Equality Party (United States), a pinprick Trotskyist party with a history of quite esoteric action, such as declaring that racism doesn't actually exist and is just a tool to divide the working class and other such kookiness. Generally, I would say it should only be used with direct in-text attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" is a designation for sources that regularly publish fabricated information, not for sources whose views you don't like. newsletter: A few dozen articles a day in several languages is a bit more than a "newsletter". declaring that racism doesn't actually exist: Quote? Marxists view class as more important to the structure of society than race, but that's not the same as saying that racism doesn't exist. We're discussing opinions at this point, though, not reliability. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If An Phoblacht is considered unreliable for being the mouthpiece of Sinn Fein, the same logic applies here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be less a matter of "denying the Uyghur Genocide" than a difference of opinion over the definition of "genocide": the literal (and original) meaning of the word is that given in the OED: The deliberate killing [emphasis added] of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.[26] Modern historians, etc. seem to take a broader view of the term and use it to refer a larger range of actions (or even any action) with the goal or effect of destroying or removing (i.e., to another place) an identifiable group of people, which is currently the definition given by Merriam-Webster: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group[27] (Webster also wrongly says that the word originated in 1944 with this very meaning, which is clearly wrong). The use of the word in this latter, broader definition is made clear by the US government's statements on the matter themselves.[28] (Heck, even Mike Pompeo, while emphasizing the various atrocious actions of which he is accusing Beijing, doesn't seem to actually mention mass-murder: the arbitrary imprisonmentor [sic] other severe deprivation of physical liberty of more than one million civilians, forced sterilization, torture of a large number of those arbitrarily detained, forced labor, and the imposition of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.) This article (one of those linked by the OP) makes the distinction clear, as it states there is no doubt that China’s government, which represents the interests of a corrupt capitalist oligarchy, is carrying out widespread repression against the Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. Yes, the article clearly has a bias, but said bias is made clear by the title of the publication. Whether Wikipedia uses a "narrow" or "broad" definition of the word in question in any particular context is matter for said context's article talk page (certainly, I think we can all agree that our article on The Holocaust should never include a footnote attached to the word "genocide" that clarifies that modern scholars also use the word to refer to practices like widespread forced conversions and prohibition on certain actions with the goal of making people to "voluntarily" adopt a different religious of political belief system), not RSN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I read some of this thread beyond the title and the OP "question". I'm not sure if I'm at fault for not reading the whole thread before responding to what seemed to be the ostensible core issue or if others are at fault for dragging the conversation off in all sorts of directions. I agree and disagree with a variety of statements by a variety of editors within this discussion, but not enough to try to wade through it all and find some "point" to the conversation or even to defend my own response to the OP question in light of said conversation. So I've stricken it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the World Socialist Web Site is a socialist news and opinion service that is run by an international editorial board [29] and is explicitly partisan. They have a lot of reporting on labor issues in the US and internationally that is valuable, since I've found they'll cover strikes or labor conflicts that have little coverage elsewhere. That reporting and their commentary looks like it's cited countless time in academic books and journal articles (according to google books and google scholar), meaning that citation here at Wikipedia is also reasonable. They were very involved with leading American historians in a critique of the 1619 project (e.g. [30][31][32]).

Given all this, what is the specific question being asked? I looked briefly at the articles linked by the OP: where is this material being proposed for use, and how? In general, I agree that when this source is used, it should be often be with attribution - particularly if the content in question is opinion, or contentious. It's hard to evaluate how to respond in this particular case since I have no examples. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors when due. Should not be used in controversial topic areas and even attributed options from authors are hardly WP:DUE in related pages. CutePeach (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Silk Road

I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment (see WP:RFC).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions about the reliability of the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which is definitely a reliable publication, and which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road "Journal" that is the subject of this discussion is based primarily around Central Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by individual researchers, who are disproportionately from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So basically, the Silk Road Foundation is a mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication". A lot of researchers don't want to write for it, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide useful quirks like DOI. So it's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your comments. Hunan201p (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for here? You've answered your own question. It's not peer-reviewed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, Headbomb: this source is widely cited on Wikipedia and especially on ethnographical and historical articles. What I'm looking at here is whether or not this is a matter for deprecation or classification as generally unreliable, because a lot of people are apparently unaware that the publisher doesn't peer review, and will continue citing it in the future if it doesn't get blackballed. Hunan201p (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: It seems you wanted to trigger the RfC on the topic of reliability of the Silk Road Foundation (diff). If so, a few things:

1. "Wikipedia proposals" is a non-article RfC (project-wide), so it's not very suitable for evaluation for reliability of articles published on a source in question. "Wikipedia proposals" have more to do with changing the rules Wikipedia governs itself, and seems to be a general venue for other non-article RfCs, too. You might want to ask for the opinion of folks in "History and geography" for evaluation of the source, though, as this is the closest topic to archaeology available.

2. Please place the RfC header at the top of the whole discussion, and formulate a short question. Guidance of how to write them is described in WP:RfC. It then should appear on the RfC webpage - if it doesn't, you'll probably have to make it shorter.

3. It would be desirable to have an ongoing dispute about the resource in the first place to trigger an RfC. While the usage is indeed quite wide on Wikipedia, I would like to see the underlying arguments and possibly then vote for something. Could you please link to some discussions (not necessarily ongoing) that feature the resource?

PS. I have removed spare lines from the quotes because they looked awful in the source text. And unfortunately, I've got nothing to say on the merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Szmenderowiecki. Thank you for fixing the source and for your helpful advice. The purpose of opening this discussion here is to get an RfC on whether The Silk Road Foundation should be deprecated, or classified as unreliable, as happened at the Daily Mail RfC. I'm not aware of any discussions that were ever made about Silk Road Foundation, and I don't believe anyone has noticed on Wikipedia up until now that this is not a peer reviewed source.

As I understand from the banner at the top of this page, and the aforementioned Daily Mail RfC, this is the place to "seek requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles". I don't have any articles on Wikipedia to complain about, or any Silk Road Foundation articles to complain about, this topic is strictly about the reliability of Silk Road Foundation. The Silk Road PDF I quoted is provided here only as evidence that the publication itself is not peer reviewed, and the complaint here is that a borderline predatory publisher is being prolifically cited on controversial subjects like linguistics and ethnic origins. Take care. Hunan201p (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

1. If there are no disputes you are aware of and no discussions have been held, I'd suggest you remove the RfC tag, because it's not yet something that was significant enough to be disputed, and it will anyway not really appear in WP:RSP, as the criteria of inclusion include at least 2-3 discussions on the topic. You may also ask folks in WP:ARCHAEO for their opinion on the resource. I also agree with Headbomb that you have essentially answered your question, so if you want an RfC held, rewrite it so that it is not a polemic with yourself.

2. If you decide to stay with the RfC, Legobot (the bot that moves the question to the feedback request service list) does not see the content of the question. You should make the question shorter and put it at the top, too, for example: Is Silk Road Foundation's publication a predatory journal? or Should Silk Road Foundation's publication be used for Far East archaeology articles? etc. You then have to sign the question so that the bot copies the question. Also, I'd also suggest you mark the place for discussion and voting. See previous RfCs for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I greatly appreciate your efforts to help me through this process. I intend to re-post my question in the way that you suggest. I have a question for you. I recently found a comment from the WP:RS archive about the Silk Road Foundation that essentially mirrors my concerns. It was authored by Fifelfoo on 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) and can be seen at Archive 82. Do you believe that that discussion, along with my RfC, could meet the criteria for inclusion in WP:RSP? I intend to start a discussion at ARCHAEO. Hunan201p (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: The comment is indeed confirming your suspicions, so you could use it as support for your position. I doubt, however, that it will be included in WP:RSP, because per WP:RSPCRITERIA, a discussion should normally have 3+ editors who weigh in their opinions on authenticity/reliability (as the title is different from the source in question), and there is only one editor who analysed it. Also, the topic itself doesn't really merit an RfC on WP:ARCHAEO, these are usually reserved for questions governing WikiProject and not specific enquiries as this one; and one more thing, it's a niche topic. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Deprecation/blacklisting is not necessary since this journal is already formally disqualified per default by the general rules of WP:SCHOLARSHIP (last bullet point). The case of the Daily Mail is different, because it belongs to a group of sources (news media) that per se are neither reliable nor unreliable, but are evaluated as unreliable based on their track record of spreading misinformation. I can understand Hunan201p's intention to have a strong tool that discourages editors to insert information solely based on Silk Road Foundation-articles, and which also justifies the removal of such information if it cannot be verified otherwise. But we already have this tool with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. –Austronesier (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Hunan201p: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Turning Point USA and Right Wing Watch (People for the American Way)

• tpusa.com  
• rightwingwatch.org  
• www.pfaw.org  

Can we agree that even though these two organizations are non-profits they lean very left and very right, respectively? They have shared content numbers times that is not accurate. They should not be sources in my opinion. I think they should both be deprecated. Both organizations claim to run news organizations. If nothing else, can we agree these are politically biased sources and should be used with great caution.

See these example failed fact checks instances for Turning Point USA: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/02/turning-point-usa/video-gives-inaccurate-reading-redistricting-overh/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/turning-point-usa/conservative-group-meme-distorts-nevadas-chloroqui/

Their website states "Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on high school and college campuses across the country."

See these example of failed fact checks instances for Right Wing Watch and People for the American Way (Parent Organization): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/14/people-american-way/did-marco-rubio-vote-deport-dreamers/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/jan/14/people-american-way/seeing-red-over-warren/

Their website says "People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization."

DoctorTexan (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there some place where you have having a disagreement with someone who is using one of these sources without appropriate caution? --JBL (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be wary of drawing equivalence between these two sources just because they're both biased does not put them in the same category. I'd also be cautious of reducing Right Wing Watch's reliabilty to that of its parent People for the American Way as it may have seperate editorial processes. What are they being used for here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Which usages in Wikipedia are drawing your attention? Without context, it is hard to assess whether or not the sites are being cited inappropriately. --Jayron32 15:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be appalled if anyone cited TPUSA for anything on Wikipedia, and quite disappointed if we used Right Wing Watch other than in informal discussions on Talk to point to more reliable sources or issues that might be covered in such. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both biased sources, but they're not equivalent. TPUSA has actively spread disinformation and I'd be surprised if anyone who even casually glanced at WP:RS claimed it to be reliable. If there were a pattern of people trying to use TPUSA as a source, it would almost certainly be deprecated. RWW is an unambiguously WP:BIASEDSOURCE operated by People for the American Way, though its reputation for accuracy isn't bad. It's mainly clips and quotes of right-wing politicians/pundits/activists saying extreme/false/whatever things, and sometimes contextualizing (with commentary) or juxtaposing them, and always critically, of course. It's more of a WP:WEIGHT and attribution issue. It generally shouldn't be used to present potentially controversial statements of fact without attribution, and odds are good that if something it covers is worth including, it's been picked up by other sources, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Both sources are quite terrible, and I can't imagine a scenario where you'll actually need to use them except for the most basic WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Both are hyperpartisan advocacy groups that have no reputation for fact-checking. Right Wing Watch/People For the American Way has been running false ads for years ([33], [34], [35]). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• PFAW is a partisan political advocacy group, which means I generally trust them about as far as I can throw them. They have absolutely no motivations to be honest, only to "win the fight" as it were. Right Wing Watch might be an exception to the treatment their parent org gets, as they're widely cited by RSes and don't do anything but documenting right-wing figures. It would really depend on how they're used.

Turning Point USA is a laughing stock. They're basically the poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect in political thought. I don't think I've ever seen one of TPUsa's ads and not laughed at how moronic it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, I have, but only because it was so stupid that I had to go and check if it was real. They are the living embodiment of Poe's Law. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy, that's actually a good point. Interpreted as deliberate satire, their ads are far too stupid to maintain any trace of humor. They're only funny when you know they're serious, and even then, only if you don't pause to consider what their popularity says about us as a species. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question about use of one of these sources for a specific claim in a specific article? I'm starting to get a little tired of these open-ended discussions about sources with no context. Can you give more specifics? -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you would want to use these sources, but absent an example of use discussion here is difficult.Nyx86 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has already covered most of what I wanted to say about this. I don't see why you would want to use these sources and it's difficult to offer constructive input on biased sources absent context. Spudlace (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks

Quick search:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Are_Think_Tanks_considered_reliable_sources_for_politically_controversial_articles?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Think_Tanks_as_A_Source
• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_61#Think_tank_or_special_interest_sources

I'm uncomfortable with the use of think tanks in articles. They are pretty much advocacy groups, and my understanding is that they should almost never be cited without WP:INTEXT attribution and should not be used as a source for statements of fact in wikivoice, especially controversial ones. I believe the above discussions confirm this. The context to this discussion is the (at times) extensive use of think tank pieces without attribution on 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. I'd appreciate some uninvolved opinions on the reliability of think tanks for statements of fact. If my understanding is correct, can we add some wording to this effect in WP:RS? Possibly they should be treated as SPS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Same question for NGOs that focus on advocacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that the field is so broad its basically an unanswerable question. There are think tanks/NGOs out there with the very highest reputation and credentials and there are think tanks/NGOs out there which actively spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. Most are somewhere in between, in my experience attribution with an in-text link normally clears up the problem and if thats not possible because the think tank/NGO doesn’t have a wikipedia page then thats a situation in which you’d want to take a good hard look at whether you should be using it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Think tanks are not always advocacy groups. Many just have a topic focus for research, some focus on research in order to advocate particular political positions, and some mainly just produce propaganda. Compare Pew Research Center to The Heritage Foundation, for example. They're also not clearly defined. Would we consider any research and/or policy-focused organization that isn't part of government or academia a think tank? All of this is to say they can't really be treated as a group. At minimum, the quality of their research and degree to which they're considered authorities on this or that topic varies dramatically. Could you give some examples of controversial use in the 2021 Israel-Palestine context? That's certainly a subject for which there are tons of think tanks operating, and a subject for which there is a massive amount of coverage such that irrespective of reliability there could be a local consensus to only pick up think tank material once it's been covered by a secondary source or whatnot... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  One example: A piece from the NGO Avocats Sans Frontières is used to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute.[36] The think tank Kohelet Policy Forum says nobody seriously questions the legality of those transfers.[37] Another example, slightly less controversial but eh: the entire bulk of the "Historic dispute" section is sourced to a publication by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, another think tank.[38] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why not mention both views on the legality of the transfers as the New York Times does? VR _talk 08:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The NYT unfortunately doesn't go into sufficient detail to verify the entire prose afaik. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding think tanks are not always advocacy groups, one thing I mentioned further down is that looking at a think tank's mission statement and stated purpose can be a good starting point. Obviously some may have a stated goal that diverges from reality, so we also have to look at their reputation, but it's a good place to start - eg. the Pew Research Center has providing accurate information as its stated purpose. Whereas if a think tank's stated purpose is to advance an ideological goal, we can stop there - those think tanks would never be usable for anything but WP:RSOPINION at best (and I would caution against using them even for that without a secondary source; that falls far short of the RSOPINION gold standard of opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Publication in an advocacy-oriented think tank doesn't generally mean anything beyond 'the people who pay the think tank believe publishing this will advance their agenda'; people publishing there are essentially "hired guns", which gives what they say no inherent weight. Citing such a think tank directly would be like citing a TV commercial directly - it doesn't matter how many screens they paid to get it on; if the only source you can find for something is someplace where someone had to pay exclusively to push it out there, that's a pretty strong sign that it's not worth covering. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To add to Horse Eye's Black, it's down to having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have used material from the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations to source factual statements before, but only when I was not able to find material in high quality press. WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:RSOPINION (and WP:DUE) may apply. JBchrch (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I assume you're referring to this edit: [39]. Unless Weinberg's quote has received significant secondary coverage (i.e., other articles commenting on his Op-Ed), then I don't think his quote should be mentioned in the article. This is less an issue of think tanks than a question of inclusion all sorts of opinions on quickly evolving news stories. I don't think we should be including opinions from random Op-Eds, unless there's some reason to believe that they're particularly weighty (as evidenced by secondary coverage). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's one of such edits I'm concerned with, yeah, but it was properly attributed so more of a due/undue issue. My feeling is more that 'facts' that can only be found in think tank publications should generally be attributed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This question keeps coming up in one form or another as with Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem recently, blue chip hr orgs but often described (wrongly) as advocacy orgs. In IP area, safest course is to attribute if in doubt, it only leads to disputes else.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. Since PR has requested 3rd party input, I'll keep out of this. But I would note that mentioning Avocats Sans Frontières wasn't meant 'to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute.' It was cited simply to state the fact that the Palestinians involved in the case have repeatedly challenged the authencity of the documentation presented. That is a fact known from several sources. Whether their challenge is valid or note isn't known. Since we do not have independent legal analyses of the court documents. We only know that Israeli laws regarding property owned by Palestinians (there are numerous academic studies on this) make it extremely difficult for the plaintiffs to win a case there. The most famous example is at Susya, where Israel's leading land expert determined that the Palestinian villagers had title and their Ottoman era documents were authentic. The Israeli court has consistently supported their eviction notwithstanding the proof of ownership. Ottoman era documents secure a Jewish right, but are not valid for assertions of a Palestinian claim (which here likewise is armed with Ottoman era documents whose relevance is dismissed). Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow what you are talking about without diffs, but I think you're referring to this: [40]. The claim that Palestinians have challenged the authenticity of certain documents in court does not appear in any way WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me, so Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF) should be reliable for this claim. If ASF were claiming that the Palestinian claimants were correct, then that opinion would best be attributed in-text, with a brief description of who ASF is. Whether this material is WP:DUE is another matter - I would look at whether secondary sources covering the issue tend to mention it or not. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute is up for DYK, any POV issues will get picked up there I should think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Another claim in the article that's sourced to a think tank is as follows: According to the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, this approach to property rights is unacceptable in international law. The source a report from the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. I can't actually find this claim in the JIPR's own voice, though the report does note that several different parties (including an Israeli Attorney General and representatives of various countries) have stated that Israel's evictions in Sheikh Jarrah are illegal under international law. JIPR appears to be a fairly pro-Israeli organization, and its report framed from the perspective of advancing Israel's national interests, so I don't think there are pro-Palestinian biases that would make this source particularly unreliable in this context. From a reliability standpoint, it is usable in this case, though the text should clarify that JIPR does not call Israel's actions illegal in its own voice, but rather attributes this opinion to others. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree: we should never cite think-tanks as primary sources. They are a special case of primary sourced opinion, which is a bad idea to start with (see WP:ARSEHOLES) but unlike most opinion sources, they exist solely to advance an agenda through the expenditure of money. If you want to see how pernicious the influence of think-tanks is, look at the Kansas experiment, where a state was nearly bankrupted by believing the writing of right wing think tanks. Or look at the effect of climate change denial, which, as Oreskes does a masterful job of establishing, was built and suystained by think-tanks. Where think-tanks produce research, it is very often policy-based evidence making designed to serve the economic interests of the people who are paying them. Don't use think tanks as sources is an excellent rule for Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "be aware of their possible biases" and "when in doubt, attribute" are reasonable rules to go by. But each case needs to be considered: above, we have a somewhat pro-Israeli think tank noting that international observers have called Israel's evictions of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem illegal under international law. The think tank has a bias, but what it's writing in this particular case actually goes against that bias. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE may still not be established, maybe if the viewpoint is published somewhere as a WP:RSOPINION but quoting a report selectively seems eh. There is lots of material in these 3 reports which favours one side or the other, much of it not reported in independent reliable secondary sources. How are we meant to decide which to include, which to treat reliable, etc? You can take totally different interpretations of what the majority position is depending on which think tank piece you read. The point of think tanks, policy institutes, and many NGOs is often to promote a certain agenda or to produce 'research' to support their position. Their primary goal is not to report facts. Even if some of their statements are true, what might they have omitted? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUE must still be established - that goes for any source. But given that fairly high-ranking officials from a number of countries (France, UK) and supra-national organizations (UN, EU) have commented on the (international) legality of the evictions, this particular claim seems due to me: [41]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no, you're talking about the content, not the source. The fact of it being arguably illegal under international law is likely significant, but we don't then go out and trawl the internet for any source that makes the statement we want, where a colourable argument for reliability could be made.

If multiple world statespeople are saying it's illegal, there will be non-opinion sources saying so. If this opinion is uniquely insightful, it will be referenced in secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, then cite third party sources that establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the WP:BURDEN in this example would be on Thucudides411, if he were to advocate the content. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: What is Pew Research Center's political agenda? Who is a better authority on, say, demographics of internet use? If you're only talking about the policy-focused opinions, then fine, but you're talking about all think tanks like they're all the sort that produces research about cigarettes not causing cancer, which isn't true. It's too broad a brush. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's usually very easy to find a secondary source for Pew research. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

? But that's not what I asked? If we're talking about an absolute prohibition on primary research, then fine, but this section is just about think tanks. What is Pew's political agenda or poor record of reliability such that it would be subject to different rules from other well respected sources of primary research? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, my response is that it's not for us to judge. Pew genuinely is nonpartisan, but most think-tanks claim to be (largely in order to qualify for 501(c)3). Yes there is a difference between Pew's nonpartisan nonpartisan approach, and the nonpartisan approach of think thanks that support all hard-right pro-corporate positions regardless of party, but in the end it's still a think-tank, and primary-sourced opinion is still primary-sourced opinion. Defer to secondary sources - which, for Pew, normally exist. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying to find a secondary source for Pew not because of a principled primary vs. secondary sources which extends beyond think tanks, and not because there's anything at all wrong with Pew's reliability, but because the reliability of some sources within the category "think tank" is inconvenient to an effort to prohibit use of all of them. I'm just saying it's too lazy to try to write off the entire category because there is clear evidence they're not all propaganda garbage, so they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis like any other primary source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, actually it's a straightforward question of WP:RS/WP:UNDUE. Primary opinion sources are a terrible idea. Pew is an edge case because a lot of what they publish is not opinion or advocacy, but factual reporting, accepted as such by reliable sources, but still, if no reliable independent source mentions it, it's likely UNDUE IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I think all this depends entirely on (1) what think tank; (2) what topic; and (3) what kind of piece. The Council on Foreign Relations has a series of excellent, authoritative, up-to-date "backgrounder" documents, and I think it's entirely appropriate to freely use and cite these as sources without in-text attribution. Ditto for things like Pew Research Center. But purely opinion pieces from think tanks, or pieces from think tanks that are partisan, state-controlled, or less well-known, will often require in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't an easy question in my view. One option is to just treat all think tanks and their related publications as primary sources and then say a secondary source is required to establish weight. I kind of like this since it is at least simple to understand. However, if we pick that path would it stand to reason that we would treat other focused organizations in a similar fashion? What makes a think tank different than the SLPC or many of the climate focused organizations that release reports on climate change (groups we might call climate change watch dogs)? At some level these organizations are all similar. They have made it their mission to discuss/persuade others to adopt their views on issues, to support what they like and condemn what they dislike. If think tanks are considered primary then I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat basically all advocacy organizations in a similar way. It would also open a question like, is a book by a person at a think tank an acceptable resource if published via normal press even if it just says what this person has said through the think tank? I can see another issue with my proposal. Why would I treat a strongly biased news source as acceptable/DUE but not treat a think tank the same way. An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper. Why would we treat the paper as reliable while CATO isn't? I can see an argument if the types of things being cited (basic facts vs analysis/interpretations) are different. However, if say VOX says the economic impact of a new law is up (not quotes a source, but offer's their own analysis) while CATO says it's down would we only report VOX's opinion (for argument sake these are the only two sources and consensus is the discussion is DUE). The core of this second line of questioning is, what is the difference between activist press vs a think tank? Why would we treat one as secondary source while the other is primary in a case where both are generating original claims/views/opinions? I agree with the view that there are lots of think tanks and many show limited ability to actually think but I think if we justify treating all as primary sources based on their inherent bias, what makes that different than many other sources we use? Springee (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I responded to this in more detail below (since I think the comparison is illustrative), but I want to underline that Vox and the Cato Institute are in starkly different categories. Vox is a WP:NEWSORG with a commitment to fact-checking and accuracy and a mission statement based around accurately explaining the news; the Cato Institute's mission is to advance Charles Koch's ideological goals in the form of libertarian principles. They are completely different categories. No news organization is completely free of bias; some may even be biased to the point where it interferes with their accuracy, although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of that for Vox, whose reputation is generally strong. But the Cato Institute is not even attempting to accurately explain the world - that is not its purpose. It makes no commitment whatsoever to telling anyone the truth or to performing even the most minimal fact-checking on anything it publishes. (Notably, the small number of think tanks that people are mentioning as reliable are different - they are ones that both were founded primarily to provide accurate information and which have sterling reputations at doing so. The Cato Institute not only fails to do so, it is not attempting to do so.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I picked Cato and VOX somewhat at random but more on that in a moment. Consider if the comparison were Jacobian, Slate, Snopes (not a traditional news org) or Jezebel? I think a problem is there isn't some sort of unbiased, independent body that certifies "news organizations". To some extent the difference only comes down to funding. A news org has to convince advertisers to buy add space while a think tank with a reporting component, presumably, does not. While I don't think we should ever turn over our source discussions to the Ad Fontes Media team it is interesting to look at their ratings of CATO[[42]] and VOX [[43]]. CATO is rated as more reliable (41 vs 39) and less biased (5 vs -11). Don't get me wrong, I understand the choice to treat think tanks as primary and thus only include their views if a secondary RS covers it. What I'm asking is if this would mean we automatically apply the same rule to other purposed organizations (SPLC, various climate change groups) and/or at what point do we ask if a strong POV news source is really any different than a think tank when it comes to things like bias, analysis/commentary etc. Sometimes the difference between a think tank with a reporting component and an activist press source seems little more than how they are funded. This isn't so much an answer/path forward as it is a question that should be asked with respect to any path forward. An alternative might be to move away from treating sources and generally reliable/due or not and towards spending more time asking if particular source articles/reports and reliable/due in context. Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the SPLC (the easier question), I mentioned three categories of think-tanks below - the "default" where a think tank isn't really useful for anything; think tanks that are so well-known and widely-cited on a topic that their opinion is almost automatically relevant when that topic comes up (but the threshold for this is usually that we can always find a secondary source when we need one, so it doesn't matter); and a small number of think tanks who actually have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and usually have that as part of their mission statement, which can be cited for facts. The SPLC is in the second category - almost any source that discusses hate groups cites their opinion, which I think means we can consider their opinion significant enough to mention on its own but usually shouldn't have to. I wouldn't cite them without attribution, though - they are respected because their opinions are considered authoritative, not because they are known for accuracy. Regarding newsorgs, again - if a source does have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, bias alone doesn't disqualify it, though we have to take its biases into account and an extreme bias can be a reason to doubt that reputation. But the basic point is that a newsorg is, by definition, something that at least notionally aspires to fact-checking and accuracy; assuming they're not completely unknown, there's a presumption of "they're doing what they say" that has to be overcome by demonstrating otherwise to show they're unreliable. An advocacy-oriented think tank is the reverse - they are not claiming to do any fact-checking, and are specifically saying they have other priorities, so you have to start from zero (or a net negative, even) and show that they are specifically reputable for that before it would become even debatable whether they might be citable for facts. Certainly I agree that there are less-unreliable newsorgs and more-reliable thinktanks, but all else being equal being a newsorg is a positive and being an advocacy-oriented think tank is a net negative (when it comes to citations for facts, being an advocacy-oriented think tank is such a severe net negative that I would say it is nearly impossible to overcome, since it means their core definition as an organization is to be as WP:BIASED as possible; the only situations we might cite them for facts are extremely limited, unexceptional, non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF stuff and the other narrow exceptions that let us cite anything.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Summed up very well by Springee, Neutrality, Rhododendrites, and I particularly commend Springee's analysis, thank you very much. Not all research by think tanks is partisan/unreliable, some is actually very worthy, and I don't believe all think tank research to be primary, too, since they (at least claim to) include other bits of data to (mis)guide policy. While WP:ARSEHOLES makes a point that think tank policy may ruin entire governments, we as editors are not here to determine if they are bound to (unless we were all scholars in the economical domains, which we are not); at most, we could point to some glaring flaws in reasoning as reported in widespread scholarly criticism to make the point made by the think tank look bleak, or to a pattern of factual inaccuracies or outright lies made in the reports. Just as we do with any news outlet. The difference may be that we might want to pay more attention to manipulations or lies by omission they (may) make, but other than that, I'd treat is as any other source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with JZG we need a secondary source from WP:NEWSORG or scholarly publication to make their claims notable --Shrike (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Most think tanks are unusable without a secondary source; status as a think-tank (unlike status as a WP:NEWSORG) provides no presumption of reliability in and of itself, and few think-tanks have anything else that would give them a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A few exist that are important enough that we ought to cover what they say (though the threshold for this is generally that we will not need to cite them on their own since anything important they say will have secondary coverage.) A very small number of further exceptions exist that have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy sufficient that they can be cited for facts despite being think tanks; generally these are the few think-tanks whose mission statements are focused on providing accurate information and which have a reputation to affirm that they live up to that. But most think tanks, even very well-funded and well-known think-tanks, are by default not attempting to be reliable source as we understand the term; most of them exist solely to advance the agenda they were founded for and have no commitment to (and make no pretense of committing to) fact-checking or accuracy. At best such think-tanks are usable for opinion, and for opinion they are usually WP:UNDUE because publication in a think tank means nothing beyond "people with the money to fund a think tank wanted to say this." (ie. publication in a source otherwise recognizable as reliable, like the editorial page of a major paper, carries at least some implication of due weight; publication in a think tank carries no such weight because a think tank will by definition publish anything that they think advances their goals.)

The comparison of the Cato Institute, in particular, to Vox is very telling - while people may disagree with Vox in various ways, it is fundamentally a news organization, with a commitment to, and a reputation for, fact-checking and accuracy; no matter how much some people may disagree with its conclusions, it is by all accounts at least attempting to accurately describe the world, and accurately explaining the world is at least notionally its purpose. The Cato institute has no such commitment or reputation and, more importantly, is not intended to perform any sort of fact-checking; it is not intended to explain, only to convince. Its purpose is to advance Charles Koch's political agenda (and the agenda of anyone else who funds it); it can maybe be cited as a WP:PRIMARY source in contexts where that opinion is relevant, ideally with a secondary source to establish this, but cannot be cited for statements of fact ever. As with personal websites, there are a small number of think tanks whose reputation is strong enough to overcome this, but it has to be demonstrated on an individual basis because unlike a WP:NEWSORG there is no commitment to fact-checking or accuracy inherent to defining oneself as a think tank (and in fact, in many cases, a commitment that runs counter to it - again, the Cato Institute vs. Vox comparison in particular is a good example because the Cato Institute's founding mission is explicitly to push a specific agenda, not to report anything accurately. If you want to show that Vox is unreliable, you have to demonstrate that it is failing to live up to its mission of reporting with fact-checking and accuracy. If you want to argue that the Cato Institute is reliable, you have to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy despite giving no evidence that this is a priority, and despite a mission statement that directly implies that it will say and do anything to achieve its policy goals. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, exactly so. In short, Wikipedia is looking for facts, think-tanks almost always exist to promote Truth™. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, What do you think about starting RFC about this matter here or at WP:RS? Shrike (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, in my view it's more of an UNDUE question than an RS question, but regardless, some kind of centralised discussion to firm up guidance would be a good idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: IMO it's an RS question too. The claims of think tanks are often made in wikivoice, and asserted as fact. On the Israel-Palestine crisis article I would guess, as a matter of fact, the current claims cited to them are factually accurate, but this doesn't itself make it an appropriate usage. After all, the Daily Mail might, in some article, publish something factually correct but that wouldn't be good reason to use DM as a cite. Ultimately the issue becomes whether it can be trusted that the claim is factually correct. When an organisation's purpose/mission, as Aquillion says, is not the reporting of facts, I'd say it's quite dubious to trust indeed. It's also a DUE question in cases where they're actually attributed. ProcSock (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Are we asking for citations to statements of fact (i.e. events that happened) or are we asking for citations to interpretations of events (i.e. statements of opinion). The first is the realm of WP:RS. The second is the realm of WP:UNDUE. If we are citing someone for their opinion, then the only issue related to reliability is "can we trust this source to accurately represent the opinion of the person or group in question". A self published source is sufficient for that. If we're asking "Is this opinion well-recognized enough to be even worth citing", that's a different issue, but is unrelated to reliability, which is primarily about trusting sources to present reality accurately, and not about how we should feel about reality. --Jayron32 12:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, as several have argued, that it is dangerous just to use a generic label, 'think tanks' and then judge the RS reliability in terms of that designation. They differ widely and RS must be evaluated case by case. Concretely, to return to the original query.

(a) Avocats sans Frontières financed a team of British lawyers to conduct a fact-finding mission in 2011. The only 'fact' we use is that they register the datum that the claims of Jewish parties based on Ottoman documents, have been challenged. This fact was entered per WP:NPOV. There are 2 sides to the dispute. The Ottoman documents are almost certainly, regarding a purchase, authentic (in my view). Israeli courts that determine this have systematically dismissed Palestinian documentation from the Ottoman period. So, while the court verdict is given most space (Israeli POV), the existence of dissent is required (Palestinian POV).

(b) The second source challenged is this, the most extensive reconstruction of the dispute and its roots available, and written by two major area scholars, one who is considered one of the front-ranking experts on land in East Jerusalem. It vindicates the historicity of the Ottoman documents, (Israeli POV) but concludes after a close examination of the evidence that the settler groups using the Israeli courts to expel Palestinians and reclaim a portion of land there are acting in a way which will have serious consequences for the Israeli government,(p.71) and undermine attempts to reach a peace accommodation with the Palestinians. That is a very middle of the road approach, 'fact rich' all sourced to primary and secondary sources according to rigorous research protocols, and outlining Jewish claims as authentic, while detailing in the text the huge problems this creates for Palestinians in the area (Palestinian POV recognized). It has done its work with reasonable neutrality. And, apart from the aim to put before Israeli policy makers an overview of the history and the potential dangers arising from the purely judicial resolution, rather than a political resolution that mediates between the parties, they also wished to create a neutral record of this obscure incident's travailed history, almost exclusively in Hebrew documents, for the international community. The quality of the study meets exacting academic standards, and is cited as such in the relevant literature. I think therefore we are fussing too much. The two are used sparsely, and for two facts. Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, unless I am misreading, the challenged doc is published by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. They would on the face of it have a dog int he fight. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just as, and I think this is a fair characterization, nearly all news sources from the New York Times down to the Jerusalem Post - use of which is never questioned - have a mongrel in the baiting square. (The NYTs's reportage is notably partisan, customarily omits or 'balances' out anything negative with 'but-on-the-other-hand'-waffling, but if you read its I/P reportage in the elitist New York Review of Books, with a sparse but important circulation, they put the boot on the other foot, and publish overwhelmingly top-ranking but little known Israeli or Jewish scholars of the system whose devastating reviews would never get past the moderation board on their daily version.) Abstract rules cannot resolve all these issues on wiki. At times one needs commonsense, and discretional judgment (always before one's peers here) on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not good on wiki rules, I admit. I just apply the methods I was taught to use by Greek and Japanese scholars at university for writing summaries of the state of the scholarship in an academic field. These at least are comprehensible and virtually universal - tight source control, examine the background of the publishing organ and the writers; ensure that the material used reflects standard analytic protocols. So when I read, say Martin Bernal's 2 volume Black Athena I could see that nearby all of the 800 pages (excluding the historical overview, which most specialists thought made a cogent case for the existence of racism at the historic heart of Greek studies) was unusable, despite my partiality for the idea that, contrary to the standard model, Greek mythology reflected decidedly strong semitic and Asiatic elements. So here, I don't think, with my known 'Pro-Palestinian' POV, 'Ah, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies is just another Israeli policy lobby, so I'll exclude it!' I read its 96 pages closely and came away with the impression that it fits the highest standards of the kind of scholarship we regard as optimal. I don't share their optimistic decent faith in high principles, no. But I respect quality from whatever quarter it comes form. Sorry for the length. Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: For the record, it's obvious you're well read in this topic area, and the publication does look high quality, so I don't doubt you might be right as a matter of fact. But, as I linked above, another think tank report written by a few university professors seems to say the majority opinion is that nobody seriously disputes the legality of the ownership. For the sake of argument let's say this think tank is correct. So our portrayal in the article, which seems a bit like WP:FALSEBALANCE, actually gives the impression the legality is more disputable than it actually is. Let's instead assume your think tank report is accurate, and the legality is indeed dubious, then the current portrayal is accurate. But your think tank report is produced by a source which clearly has a advocacy focus, and I'm assuming Kohelet does too. So which think tank do we trust, and on what fair and consistent grounds do we make this decision? And how can our readers trust it too? Your point about news orgs, as you showed with evidence re. the Irish Times, is taken, but I am not sure falling back to think tank pieces are the solution. ProcSock (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You're asking me to put two vastly different types of documents, both from Israeli think tanks, on a par, precisely, a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

• (a) Avi Bell, Understanding the Current Sheikh Jarrah (Jerusalem) Property Dispute Kohelet Policy Forum 9 May 2021
• (b)Yitzhak Reiter,Lior Lehrs 'The Sheikh Jarrah Affair:The Strategic Implications of Jewish Settlement in an Arab Neighborhood in East Jerusalem,' The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies,

(a) is, excuse the harshness, an opinionized rant, unfootnoteded, undocumented, asserting that international law is being misinterpreted by 'bigots' who deny Jews their property rights solely because they are Jewish. (Subtext: the 'squatters' and their supporters are antisemitic)

(This is embarassing since, as Reiter and Lehrs point out,the descendants of Arabs and Christians who once owned and had title to 45% of West Jerusalem (10,000 of the finest homes), as opposed to the 30% on its outer suburbs owned by Jews, have zero property rights of restitution under Israeli law. Bell complains of ethnic bias in Sheikh Jarrah, and turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room of West Jerusalem (as Reiters and Lehrs don't). In short he has no concept of ethnic-neutral law) It goes on for 5 pages. It ignores what international law states (the basis of Palestinian counterclaims), asserts East Jerusalem is in Israel. No, forget the details: the blatant error-ratio is so high, it would end up in a WP:TLDR tract.

(b) Is coauthored by a top Israeli Islamic studies specialist, and a leading Israeli authority on land in East Jerusalem. It had 96 pages, annexes, 213 footnotes, 19 annexes, with maps, photos of sites, statistical breakdowns etc and detailed coverage of both sides, and of the international legal problems the Israeli court decisions cause.

I don’t think one can make analogies between chalk and cheese, or apples or oranges. One could cite Avi Bell’s paper for Bell’s view. By wiki criteria, one could cite Reiter and Lehrs’ paper for factual details about all aspects of the ongoing legal, sociological, political battle and its historical roots. One paper is an abrupt set of outraged expostulations, many of which patently ignore the legal details and international law. The other is a careful meticulously documented outline and overview of all of the cruxes in the Sheikh Jarrah quagmire, and strives for even-handedness.

Bell's piece is so careless in its language of assertion that it states from the outset (which you quote)

No one seriously disputes the validity of the transactions through which the current owners acquired rights from their predecessors in title.

The meaning is, since Palestinians are asserting International Law endorses their argument, and has a higher legal force than an ethnically-biased Israeli framework of legislation, Palestinians are nobodies. That kind of extraordinary thoughtless gaffe sets the tone for the rest.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Along the lines of my previous comments consider the following hypothetical. We have a US state trying to pass a firearms law that would ban and collect all phased plasma rifles with ranges over 1 watt. Slate comes out with an article which has a clear editorial slant towards supporting law and cites things like how dangerous such weapons are when combined with T800s etc. Cato comes out with an article opposing the law noting that these rifles aren't available in stores and even in the 40 watt range these just aren't a factor in firearms crimes in the US. Both articles have a clear editorial bias, both contain gathered facts (crime stats, sales volumes etc), and both have commentary in that they make arguments based on the facts they have gathered. So why would we give one the presumption of WEIGHT (and thus presumed inclusion) while the other is considered a primary source and would thus require mention by a 3rd party before inclusion? If both sources are processing the information and offering their own commentary why would I treat one as fundamentally secondary while the other is fundamentally primary? It would seem in this case both are doing the same thing, a kind of investigative expose. I grant this is a cherry picked hypothetical but it gets to my question/concern, why would we assume a biased news source is fundamentally more reliable than report to come out of a think tank. I think the same is true of questions of weight. If CATO or Inside Climate News decide a story is important why would that have more/less weight than if a low circulation traditional news source decides to cover the same content? Also, if we decide that think tank reports/claims require 2nd party coverage to establish weight, should the same be true of other non-news sources (SPLC, Climate Feedback, Snopes etc)? I personally don't have a good answer because I can see both sides here. I don't think it's a simple answer even if the question seems simple. Springee (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, InsideClimate News is not a think tank. It is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalism outlet. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply ICN was a think tank, rather they are an organization which investigates/reports with an intent to persuade. I believe they are also funded in a way that is not unlike many some think tanks. Like CATO they are a not for profit with a specific focus. They are not a traditional new source but we often treat their reports as such. Springee (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really think "intent to persuade" is part of the InsideClimateNews mission. Intent to inform, certainly. I don't understand the analogy to Cato. Non-profit journalism is a thing (InsideClimateNews andProPublica, among others, are both very highly regarded non-profit journalism outlets), and non-profit journalism is very different from think tanks. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was with you when you were arguing that "An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper.” but you then proceeded to pitch CATO against high quality sources like Vox/Slate and not local left leaning alternative newspapers (the Portland Mercury for example). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to Ad Fontes CATO is more reliable and less biased than either Slate or Vox. However, I'm offering all of these as examples for the sake of argument and I'm picking these only as examples vs just inventing sources to make the same argument. Please don't take these to be absolute statements about any particular source. Springee (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t use Ad Fontes. Please stick to reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't use Ad Fontes as a RS for articles. I'm just pointing out that a source rating site that, unlike Media Bias Fact Check, does seem to get respect around here, does say CATO falls in the reasonably respectable camp using their ratings. My intent isn't to force a new rule rather to spark some debate about where we are and where we might go. Springee (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as long as its clear to you that your argument has shifted massively and that Vox/Slate are not local left leaning alternative newspapers. I agree with your original argument but the convoluted and tortured thing that stands before us now is anathema to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I will grant that we can dispute if VOX/Slate are appropriate examples and I absolutely agree that neither are "local left leaning alternative papers". The argument is that some sources that we would consider "news sources" may have lower editorial quality than some think tanks. I would totally allow that the specific example sourced I picked were picked quickly and may not have been the best specific examples. Springee (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also like to extend this discussion to academic research projects and papers as well as think tanks - I've seen arguments that all sources without overt editorial structure constitute WP:SPS and should preferably not be used, especially in BLP articles. For example, Georgetown University runs an academic project on Islamophobia staffed by a bevy of area studies experts such as(John Esposito, Farid Hafez,Susan_L._Douglass etc,[44] but this was repeatedly challenged as lacking the qualities of an RS. Similarly, other editors repeatedly challenged a report for a think tank called Data & Society by a professor called Vanessa Tripodi[45] was also repeatedly challenged on the grounds that it was a 'self-published source' and couldn't be used in BLP articles. I think the existing policy needs clarification as to whether think tanks, academic research projects and reports written by academics/experts can be considered RS, especially on BLP pages Noteduck (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break on NGOs

At Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, I also wonder about sentences like this: In 1970, on the other hand, Israel enacted a law to allow Jews to reclaim property which they owned in East Jerusalem, despite having already been given expropriated Palestinian-owned property in compensation.

References

So a NGO source - and thus having an advocacy mission first-and-firemost - has been used to establish this WP:BALANCE (see from ", despite" onwards). I don't think you can use NGO sources to decide what the WP:BALANCE/WP:FALSEBALANCE is. The report is paid for by donors to an organisation that explicitly has its purpose as a certain agenda. Obviously their goal, which they're legally obligated to advance, is to promote that agenda. So I don't see how this approach, irrelevant of what is factually true or not in the real world, is sustainable or can lead to consistent results or accurate determinations of correct balance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Food Safety News

• foodsafetynews.com  

Is this a RS? It's used on, for example, Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Articles with lurid titles like Monsanto Teams Up with Congress to Shred the Constitution suggest not, but some of the content seems bland. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Their HQ are literally on the same floor as a law firm specialising in food poisoning litigation [46]. JBchrch talk 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did not need to go this far : This website was created by Marler Clark, L.L.P., P.S. so that you could learn more about our law firm and legal services that we offer. [47] JBchrch talk 19:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The content Food Safety News Produces (as concerns usual reporting) is neutral and doesn't seem to be advocating for much of stuff. The article you cited concerns a person that was apparently writing editorials for the Food Safety News, but you could only guess about whether it's an editorial or the opinion of Food Safety News (and anyway she was fired/stopped contributing in 2013). Most of the content they publish is simple news; editorials appear to be all from guests and are mostly (though there are some omissions; probably they introduced signing of opinion pieces after 2013) signed as opinion pieces, contributed, or as "Guest Contributed" (see list of contributors). It is sponsored by the law firm of the owner of the publication, but they are transparent about it and it doesn't look like it is actually influencing coverage, at least after having read a dozen or two of their news pieces chosen at random from 2019 to 2021.

Basically looks like a niche but generally reliable news source for food safety matters. Should only be avoided in self-promotion articles (if they have any, because I haven't found them in the news), but other than that, the coverage seems neutral and adequate.

EDIT: The Legal Statement also says that This website, and the information it contains, is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between Marler Clark attorneys and the visitors or users of the website. And indeed the news coverage they have, from what I've seen, does not advertise the company - probably only columns made by William Marler, but even there (from the few I read) I didn't notice any explicit endorsement for their legal services. JBChrch, don't make hasty conclusions based on Legal Disclaimers alone - these more often than not reflect the legal realities of the state/country they operate in rather than the true purpose of the site (see their state disclaimers - even if Oregon, Kentucky and New Mexico oblige all law-firm affiliated sites to write something to the tune that they advertise their services doesn't mean they indeed do so - it's just done to prevent any unnecessary litigation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that we have to be careful about legal disclaimers. But the website is run by a law firm that hired a journalist. It is written in the law firm's office. So can we agree that it's a self-published source, that's (broadly speaking) not written by a subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? It might even be a great ressource for professionals. I just can't see how it fits the policy requirements. JBchrch talk 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't agree with you here. The resource admits opinions from various folks connected with food safety - lobbyists, govt officials, food technicians etc. Since only expert opinion is admitted there, there is substantial editorial oversight over the resource (I, for instance, will not be able to publish an editorial). This is one reason.

The other is that while the person who owns the site is a lawyer (actually prominent enough to has his own article on Wikipedia), he must understand the intricacies of law procedures and preferably also the scientific aspects of food safety processes, contamination, etc. No, he's not a scientist, but he has written a few papers on legal aspects of food safety. He was also recognised in food safety conferences in Florida, Alberta, Illinois (HACCP), and also he participated in Food and Drug Law Institute proceedings.

Daniel Flynn seems to be a faithful and fairly impartial reporter. I wouldn't expect him to be published in scientific/law journals, but he does his job very well (apparently for 12 years, according to his Linkedin page), as I mentioned.

Therefore, even if we assume it's SPS (and I strongly suspect it isn't, it's 100% certainty here), it is directed by a recognised professional and expert in a field and the quality of reporting is good; I'd conclude it's reliable enough to be cited on its own without much reservations in the domain the website specialises in. It's like a trade magazine, really. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection to the idea that this is self-published. The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services. It's not my opinion, it's written on the website. If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. See also self-publishing, i.e. the publication of media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher.

Accordingly, per WP:SPS subject-matter experts may be cited in their areas of expertise. So Mr. Marler himself can be cited in the area of food law. Other published experts can be cited in their domain. But the rest of the website, including the hundreds of "News Desk" article are straightforward SPS. As for Mr. Flynn, I don't know the guy. JBchrch talk 09:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services [...] it's written on the website. Errm, I haven't seen that in the coverage. Were you only to read the coverage (news) itself, you'd have no idea what was written in the legal disclaimer, on which, as we seem to agree, we shouldn't rely too much. Also, you wouldn't actually suspect that it is sponsored by a law firm.

If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. I doubt it could be possible in this case. First, he contributes to the newspaper. Secondly, an independent publication specialising in food safety owned by a food law attorney, who also happens to own a food litigation law firm (and probably funding its publication from the profits of the firm)? Funny. That's an obvious COI, so I perfectly understand him disclosing it. Fortunately, in my view, that COI does not seem to influence the quality of publication. I was suspicious, but at least from what I have read and seen, this doesn't seem to influence reliability.

I don't know Mr Flynn either, but neither do we know most of the journalists working for WaPo, LA Times, WSJ, or, dunno, Idaho Statesman, Orlando Sentinel etc. This shouldn't be a factor in deciding reliability.

Now, to the final question concerning SPS: even if it were SPS, it would actually only impact BLPs, which are not extensively covered in the resource. I can drop that opinion for the sake of ending the dispute, as being considered an SPS in this case is unlikely to severely impact its possibility to be referenced to on Wikipedia. I think we can return to that question when folks will try to use that resource for BLP claims. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Self-publication absolutely affects reliability outside of BLPs. I once again draw your attention to WP:SPS, which is a longstanding policy that has broad consensus and has even been recently upheld [48][49]. SPS sources are only acceptable when they are written by subject-matter experts, except in the context of BLPs, where they are never acceptable. On the rest, I have nothing to add to my previous comments. JBchrch talk 22:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What I only meant is that people writing there are usually subject-matter experts, and there is no indication Mr Flynn (who makes the normal news reports) misreports the information on food news matters (not opinions), which either a) means there is editorial oversight or b) he's a journalist who can be trusted because of good record, or both, which generally means that WP:SPS stops mattering that much in this particular context. Remember that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format..

I am not here to dispute current policy; I just believe you are being too conservative while interpreting it (or else you may believe I am too liberal with the policy). That dropping of my opinion was just a proposal to stop discussion, because we are unlikely here to agree (unless there is substantial 3rd-party input). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And on what part of WP:SPS is your generally means based? You seem to be making things up as you go, in order to defend your position. Besides, we have no idea who writes the News Desk reporting. It could be outsourced to god-knows-whom under god-knows-which editorial standards for all we know. In any case, unsigned reporting is poor editorial practice. JBchrch talk 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned reporting is poor editorial practice it can be, but equally it's something that is done by very clearly reliable sources at some times (e.g. BBC News) so that alone cannot be used to determine the reliability of a source. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

True. JBchrch talk 18:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is academia.edu a legitimate secondary source, or should it count as UGC?

I don't have any specific examples or context, but I'm curious to see what other editors think of Academia.edu (website), which is apparently a platform for sharing research papers. Is it categorically different from UGC? Can it be used either for the purposes of verifying information or demonstrating notability, or should it be avoided altogether?

I have very limited experience with that website, so I have no biases towards or against it. This is my first time participating in the reliable sources noticeboard, so I apologize if this thread is malformed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be considered a self-published website, in that by default, the content on it should be presumed unreviewed (as I've seen student theses and unpublished papers on it). That said, academics have published their peer-reviewed works to it. If this is such the case, verifying that the work is a peer-reviewed journal, then it is better to just source that journal, avoiding the link to academia.edu, but we're going to turn a blind eye if you happen to use the paper off academia for your own sourcing. --Masem (t) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an unreviewed repository of papers. Many are peer-reviewed, many aren't, many are from predatory journals. If you can trace the paper to a reliable journal, then it's fine. If you can't, then treat it as any other self-published source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What Headbomb says. Think of it as a library containing different sorts of sources, some reliable and some not. It should be clear what type of thing each paper is, e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article by a professor or a student essay. If it appears reliable, it would be better to find and cite an actual published version, but that might be less accessible. Note of caution: sometimes uploaded versions are pre-peer review or (more often) peer-reviewed but not copy edited, and therefore sometimes differ from the published version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think of it like YouTube: It's a repository of sources, but it is not itself a source. The reliability is attached to the writer/publisher of the specific paper being cited, not to academia.edu, which does not itself have any editorial oversight of what is posted there, anymore than YouTube has over the videos posted to its site. --Jayron32 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If the paper is peer-reviewed or a published book excerpt, I will cite the work, link to the academia.edu upload, and then put Academia.edu in the "via" parameter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the website allows anyone to post papers, each paper must be assessed separately. If the author is an expert, then SELFPUB applies and it could be reliable. Some papers may also be published in academic journals, in which case the journal articles would be reliable. If you don't have access to the journal, you could use the website if you SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, in other words cite both the website and the journal, saying that you used the website version. TFD (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If it is just on academia.edu, then it is just an upload by someone. If that someone is a credible expert, then it may be usable. If it is a copy of in a good, non-predatory journal then it is that journal that counts.--Hippeus (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth article

I can't believe I have to do this but here it is.

On the Irish slaves myth article there is content sourced to a labour historian who is not recognised as an expert in the topics we are covering (Ireland and transatlantic slavery, Irish economic and social history etc). What's even worse is that this labour historian published his work in a Marxist political magazine and none of it has been reviewed by other scholars who do have experience in this area of research. Have a look: http://www.rebelnews.ie/2020/07/13/4961/

He published the same piece again in History Ireland, which is not ipso facto reliable (but may be if credible historians publish there): https://www.academia.edu/44867788/Kelly_Empire_Inequality_and_Irish_Complicity_in_Slavery

The History Ireland piece wasn't reviewed by scholars and has no citations.

He then published the same piece in another political magazine: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/07/ireland-and-slavery-framing-irish-complicity-in-the-slave-trade/

I tried offering suggestions on how to rewrite the section but the entire discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks (one editor is accusing me of trolling, and claiming that Brian Kelly is more credentialed than I am).

Are essays published in unscholarly political magazines RS for academic history articles? I don't think so.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about this person, right? Brian Kelly (historian). I haven't really delved into the sources yet, but it would seem to me that the topic is squarely within his academic ambit. Is there reason to think this is not so? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reasons.

Brian Kelly is a labour historian who publishes on labour, racial and ethnic relations in the post-antebellum US. He's never published so much as one scholarly book or article having to do with Ireland, transatlantic slavery, or Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery (which is what this section is focused on). He writes about US history, specifically labour history, and focuses on the post-emancipation period.

Secondly, none of those articles in question were reviewed by other scholars who have formally published on the subject.

Thirdly, no scholar who's been designated as an authority on this subject has responded to any of these articles. This guy is just some obscure labour historian who has no standing in this particular field.

Finally, there is content in his article that is contradicted by the work of several subject matter experts. But I really shouldn't have to review his work myself. The fact that no one has reviewed his work should be enough to disqualify him here.

The standard simply can not be that anyone who mentions the word "slavery" in his/her research and publishes an essay in a magazine that is virtually unheard of can be used to "balance" material published by scholars who are recognised as experts within a particular subspecialty. As it stands right now, there is content on that page sourced to a scholarly book that was published by a scholarly press and reviewed by other historians, sitting next to a magazine essay by Brian Kelly that was never assessed by anyone.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent, but since this discussion might attract people with interests and knowledge related to the Brian Kelly article: that page needs a lot of attention and would greatly benefit from (among a great many other things) having at least one reliable, independent source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked out the article, and I can tell you why there's a 'promotional tone' to it. Viewing the edit history, it appears that the same editor who's using Brian Kelly in the Irish slaves myth article has been editing his bio page.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

On second glance, there is only one confirmed edit by this particular user on the BK article. But most of the BK edits were made by an IP.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the arguments made on the talk page; and a few remarks.

1. I personally found Hesperian Nguyen very disruptive in the discussion, Bastun was pretty OK. On the other hand, Bastun had a point. I also tend to write rather verbose responses, so I perfectly understand it if a person writes a dozen of lines in the answer, but he was absolutely right about WP:TEXTWALL. I have read it whole, but be reminded that excessive verbosity can be interpreted as a sign of disruptiveness and anyway few would read it; see WP:TLDR. This, however, is not to be discussed here.

2. As for Brian Kelly in general. The topic requires both knowledge of the history of Ireland and history of slavery to be able to compare each of these. Most of the researchers quoted were specialised in the history of Ireland and not that of slavery, so it's good if he's a historian of slavery; moreover, he has written on the Irish-Afroamerican relations twice (also here), even if most of his works were about labour relations (and his slavery articles are cited). In any way, I'd not dismiss the person as unqualified to write about Irish attitudes to Blacks (and comparisons of indentured servitude to slavery) and certainly the person did show in these papers to have background knowledge of the history of Ireland. We should certainly not omit him only for being a Marxist/CRT adherent. On the other hand, neither Liam Hogan should be omitted. Just WP:BALANCE contradictory opinions, but don't WP:SYNTH them. You don't know if all the researchers assessing poverty/richness were using the same indicators and the same time frame - but to exclude that opinion because other sources say otherwise is an exercise in WP:OR. The question of slavery and Irish is not settled - we are not to advocate for who is right.

3. As for History Ireland: it is a historical magazine for laymen - some really good researchers publish there, such as here, here, and here. There is strong editorial oversight over the content published, and the editorial board is composed of historians, so I have no doubts that the resource itself is reliable and the works are reviewed. Secondary research papers are more preferable in a lot of contexts, still this is a source I wouldn't hesitate to use at all.

Going to RebelNews.ie (not to be mistaken with Rebel News, which is far-right): it is a radical left organisation (with appropriately radical opinion pieces and no distinction between news and opinion), but at least, IMHO, unlike WSWS (see above), its tone is more in line with WP:RSOPINION, the language they use is less loaded, and I haven't found any dubious assertions of fact, libellous statements etc., after some scrutiny on the resource. I'd generally use it with caution because of very strong bias. The research as presented by Kelly can be cited per this guidance, point 2 at the very least, but caution should be made while doing so. On the plus side, it is rather well resourced. The CounterPunch essay is essentially a copy for RebelNews.ie coverage, so no need to duplicate the citation.

Tl;dr: I see no reason to remove citation of Brian Kelly; definitely use History Ireland; proceed with RebelNews.ie with caution, but you may cite it. Also, I agree with Firefangledfeathers in that the article on him badly needs attention. Sorry for the long post. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should provide a little background here before calling it a night. This is going to be incredibly complicated to explain to people who haven't been following this type of scholarship, so try to bear with me please.

The Irish slaves myth is a pseudohistory which asserts that Irish people were the first slaves sent to the Americas, and that they were treated worse than black Africans. This myth is used by both white supremacists in the US for racist purposes as well as Irish nationalists in Ireland as a way to galvanise Irish people into supporting Irish unification (Unite Ireland and Right Great Wrongs). Since both groups are essentially trying to hyper-inflate their victimhood, attempts are made to write Irish people out of the history of the transatlantic slave trade.

One of the problems with the ISM article is that some of the editors there are trying to do exactly that. Every historian who has published professionally on this subject -- scholars widely recognised as experts in this area, such as Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer, Liam Kennedy, Donald Akenson -- have explicitly argued that Irishmen, both Protestants and Catholics, were involved in the transatlantic slave trade and that Ireland's economy benefited from slavery in a myriad of ways. The current trend in this type of scholarship is transnational historiography, which looks at the history of the Black Atlantic World beyond national borders. In other words, these historians don't confine their focus to Ireland's borders or even the Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies.

So where does Brian Kelly come in? It's an interesting question. He's an obscure labour historian who operates strictly within American history rather than British or Irish history. The only reason he decided to publish essays on this subject (in political magazines) is to challenge the claims made by these other historians and deflect all of the blame for slavery onto the British. Here's a social media posting of a Brian Kelly excerpt,

https://www.facebook.com/groups/167806117588/permalink/10160069589647589/

"It is impossible [...] to spend more than an hour digging in to the Irish connections highlighted in the UCL database [detailing compensation to slave holders] without being knocked over the head with the obvious fact that those slaveowners ‘resident’ in Ireland who were compensated by the British government after emancipation represented, overwhelmingly, the cream of the Anglo-Irish elite, drawn from the (Protestant) landed gentry and with a large proportion of them playing prominent roles in overseeing British colonial administration in an Ireland then under fairly intensive military occupation." (emphasis mine)

In other words, those "Irish slaveowners" were really "British" and not "Irish", and we should thus "frame complicity" for slavery around this understanding.

The problem is that his conclusion is false. Had he bothered to look at the records outside of Ireland -- Irishmen working through the empires of France and Spain, or Irish-Americans -- he'd be knocked over the head with the obvious fact that many of these slaveholders weren't in fact the "cream of the Anglo-Irish (British) elite", and many weren't even Protestants.

Historians have already done this. Liam Hogan compiled a list of slaveholding Americans with unique Irish surnames from the 1850 census and found over 8,600 slaveholders who owned almost 100,000 slaves[50]. It's a dubious practice linking surnames to ancestry, but this was Kelly's method.

Historian Nini Rodgers has also cautioned that the Irish were in no sense confined to Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies, as many had established commercial relations (and networks that often connected to Ireland) with other European empires, particularly Irish Catholics and their coreligionists in France and Spain. Jane Ohlmeyer has similarly written that, "By 1660 Irish people [Protestant and Catholic], mostly men, were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic and Asia where they joined colonial settlements, served as soldiers and clergymen, forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves." (see here [51])

In addition, Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer et al. have also explored the ways in which slavery benefitted Ireland's national economy, a topic British and American historians have explored extensively for decades (in the context of British and American economic histories). Unfortunately Kelly either downplays or completely ignores this subject, which may have something to do with his Marxist political leanings (not many Marxists are keen on acknowledging the advantages or socioeconomic benefits of free trade). You can read some of Nini Rodgers work in this area here [52].

What I am trying to argue, hopefully convincingly, is that Kelly's credentials as a US labour historian simply aren't good enough to establish him as an authority on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's relationship to the Black Atlantic World. He has an extremely narrow view of this subject, and in many places he's just way off the mark. He also has political motivations that are shared with some of the editors on the ISM article, which is why I'm in this dispute to begin with.

So what do we do here? If this were a hard science the solution would be simple. If an editor were to source content on a quantum mechanics article to the work of a mathematician, who is not recognised as an expert in quantum mechanics, we would not designate him as an expert simply because some of the work overlaps (this is probably not a good example, since quantum mechanics and mathematics overlap way more than Kelly's research and the subjects covered in the ISM article). What we would do is raise the bar for reliability and expect that he at least publish his work through conventional scholarly channels (refereed journals or, if it's a book, through a legitimate academic press) and have his research reviewed by scientists who publish on quantum mechanics. Unreviewed magazine articles wouldn't cut it and they shouldn't suffice here either.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Szmenderowiecki, but it is simply false to say that Brian Kelly publishes on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's interaction with the Black Atlantic World. He mentions slavery because he publishes about labour relations in the Reconstruction era of the US. That's not even remotely close to the topics we're covering. He talks about "Irish" and "black" relations in the context of American social history, which has almost nothing to do with the much broader topic of Ireland and transatlantic slavery.

I just don't know what else to say. I feel like I'm in a rabbit hole where US labour history is Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Ireland and transatlantic slavery is just Ireland.

Every single one of those historians I cited publish directly on this topic. Here's some of Akenson's work: [53]

That's what a scholarly book about Ireland and transatlantic slavery looks like.

Here's some of Nini Rodgers' work: [54]

These are books directly on topic, published through academic presses and reviewed in professional academic journals.

Brian Kelly has published nothing professionally on this subject and that one measly essay in that political rag is in contradiction to work that's been published as serious scholarship and vetted.

This is why editors who don't know how to review academic history shouldn't be editing articles like the ISM.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Brian Kelly is a reliable source. He may be a controversial scholar but I don't see anything wrong with the attributed use of the source. Consensus to remove this source for reliability is unlikely. Behavioral factors impeding discussion on the talk page should be reported to administrators but it's their call whether they think intervention will be helpful. The only advice I can give you here is to continue the discussion on the talk page. Spudlace (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A historian who specialises in US labour history after the Civil War, who has never published one scholarly article or book on Ireland and transatlantic slavery, and wrote an unvetted essay in a magazine, is a reliable source for an article on Ireland and transatlantic slavery? And can be used to challenge content that was sourced to a scholar who, unlike Brian Kelly, is widely recognised as an expert on the subject of the article, published her work through an academic press, and had it reviewed by other historians? If this is the consensus here, I'm done contributing to this project. Good luck.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I warn about WP:TEXTWALL once again - treatises essentially copying the talk page arguments are unlikely to be read by others and are likely to annoy folks instead.

2. Are you asking for advice or are you using WP:RSN as a WP:SOAPBOX? If the former is the case - you have my answer; you may want to wait for other opinions that might not agree with me. You needn't explain to me what Irish slaves myth is, because trust me, I've done my research before posting, I've analysed the subject matter (which I actually encountered a few times), and I've applied Wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge, taking into account all variables that I deemed necessary to get to the answer. Also, see WP:VNT. We are not here to determine truth, but we are here to determine reliability, which is why I am here, and I hope you are here too.

2a. The fact you voluntarily decide to apply higher standards (which is fine) does not mean that Wikipedia policy, by which we are bound, does not allow the sources to be cited - it's just you decide not to. Also, voluntary standards should not be imposed on others, as they then stop being voluntary. To be sure, you can always roll back to Wikipedia standards (which were created in a way they were for a reason) and find similar self-published resource written by a professional on the topic, and we will be fine with it.

3. Marxism is not something that automatically disqualifies the editor. And it's not for you to determine if the editor is off the mark or not, as this is WP:OR, which is not allowed. If you believe the other option is correct and he is wrong, the only thing available to you is to trawl through Google Scholar, Google Books and maybe some shadow libraries (which I admit are often helpful), and find more resources that have the viewpoint you contest marginalised to the point it stops being WP:DUE.

I kindly suggest to be WP:COOL while editing. If you can't, take a break. Really, it helps. :) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

When editors have almost no understanding of the subject in question it may require a lot of typing to explain a position.

I'll make this short and sweet and then wait for other editors to comment.

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Those are the standards I'm applying.

Is Brian Kelly considered authoritative on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery? No, he's a US labour historian whose area of expertise is in labour, racial and ethnic relations after the American Civil War. The scholarship that this article is dealing with is not something that historians casually dabble in. There's a large canon of research in this area and several scholars who are recognised as sources of authority, who have published directly on this subject. Can you show me one article published by Brian Kelly on this subject in a professional academic journal? One book published through a recognised academic press that was reviewed by subject matter experts? Where is Brian Kelly cited in the work of all these other historians who publish here? No one cites Brian Kelly because the full extent of what he knows about this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp (five words: it's all the Brit's fault.)

Who was the publisher of the work? Harvard University Press? Cambridge University Press? Oxford University Press? Nope, an unscholarly magazine.

Was his essay vetted? Nope.

He challenged the arguments of several scholars who are regarded as experts in this sphere. Did they respond to his magazine essay? No, they didn't. No one even wasted their time.

I'm applying RS criteria as outlined by Wiki and Brian Kelly fails on each count. It's astounding that this wasn't a quick decision.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It really is, but not for the reasons you think. Brian Kelly is a published historian and academic, and is therefore absolutely a reliable source; History Ireland is a reliable source; Liam Hogan - although "only" an amateur historian - is also a recognised expert in this field and is a reliable source. Nini Rodgers is a reliable source. You can't exclude the one you don't like because his political ideology disagrees with yours. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1: We have heard your arguments, there's really no need to repeat yourself - actually, not hearing pleas for coolness may make matters worse for you, and that's not a threat, that's actually policy on Wikipedia. I sincerely wish you don't get in trouble. I therefore ask you again to take a break, and revisit the noticeboard in a few hours' time (better in the evening UTC time) to see whether there is any new input made by other editors. I also ask you not to comment below each commenter's remarks, as it may be considered impolite by some editors. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my last edit here and then I'm done. I'm also done editing the ISM article if no competent editors weigh in.

Brian Kelly's unreliability has nothing to do with his political ideology (which I only brought up to explain why he ignores evidence or downplays certain aspects of this history). Liam Hogan shares the same Marxist/socialist ideology with Kelly but I agree he's a reliable source. And it's because he's recognised as an expert on Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Brian Kelly is not.

Here's a description of Brian Kelly's academic background [55].

As I've been saying for a day now, his specialty is in American race, labour and ethnic relations in the post-Civil War South. He only ever writes about slavery in a US context, usually to explore how certain ethnic groups (like the Irish) interacted with slavery politics in the US, or what social relations were like after the US abolished slavery. While this may seem related to you because he writes the word "slavery", this is a completely different area of history beyond what the ISM article is covering.

You (or some other editor) cited Brian Kelly to challenge (or "balance") content from Nini Rodgers who is by all hands considered the foremost expert in this area. Here's some of Rodgers' publications on the subject [56]. I won't waste time citing all the scholarly articles she's published on the topic, although they are easy to find.

Can you show me one scholarly article published by Brian Kelly directly related to Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery? One scholarly book? Don't show me some piece he wrote about how Irish immigrants in Boston were anti-abolitionists, as that's beyond the scope of the article and not related to the material you sourced. Your only argument as to why Kelly's reliable is that he's a historian. Well history is splintered into a million different subspecialties and having expertise in one doesn't mean you're authoritative in another.

Here's an article by Bryan Fanning, who is also recognised as an authority [57]. He mentions virtually every leading expert in this particular area of research and says nothing about Brian Kelly.

There's a serious problem in that article. Every leading expert who was written about the Irish slaves myth has said that it's used to obscure the interaction between Ireland, Irish people and slavery throughout transatlantic history. But in the body of the article you have content sourced to Brian Kelly that does exactly that (claiming that all profits went to the British), which contradicts Nini Rodgers' work. Rodgers never even said anything about which "class" in Ireland was the most complicit in slavery, which you would've known if you actually read her work (see for example this review: [58]). So that whole section is out of context and essentially straw-mans Rodgers.

And finally, if you had any experience reviewing articles published in History Ireland you'd know that the publication isn't by itself an RS. History Ireland is the kind of magazine that tries to make scholarship accessible to consumers, but it doesn't vet its opinion pieces the way academic journals do. It has even published Irish slaves myth content in the past. Here's one historian calling them out for it [59]. Here's a public apology the editor of HI had to issue to Liam Hogan [60].Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So a man who is an expert about American history writing about...American history... is not an expert because it also happens to be about the Irish in America? This may violate fringe or undue, but I can't see any reason why he is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am presumably the "you" in your latest wall of text above. Once again, I did not introduce anything by or about Kelly into the article, and your post is again verging on a personal attack (I'd originally written "verging on", but I reread your post before posting, and noticed you're alleging anyone who doesn't agree with you is incompetent). Do not assume what I have read or failed to read, or what experience I have or haven't. Re Fanning: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Re History Ireland: it is the sign of a good, reliable source that it can acknowledge that it sometimes gets things wrong, and when it does, it says so. You now have five editors agreeing Kelly is a reliable source. That still does not take away from the fact Hogan, Rodgers, et al, are also reliable sources used in the article. See WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE - they can all be used, and you can certainly state that Kelly has stated is a minority view or is contradicted by another source. That's how we end up with a neutral article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

But steven, this section of the article has nothing to do with American history, not even close. It has to do with Ireland and transatlantic slavery and the ways in which Irish people in and outside of Ireland and the Irish economy benefited from slavery, which necessarily covers exiled Irishmen who operated through other slave empires such as France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands in addition to England (and later Britain). This is way above Brian Kelly's paygrade.

Look, it's very simple. We have an over-abundance of sources that we all agree are reliable (and are recognised as authoritative by other historians who are reliable) and no reason whatsoever to source content to a US labour historian. This dispute started because the editor Hesperian Nguyen is from Ireland and doesn't want Irish people associated with black chattel slavery. She shares that in common with ISM proponents. Her problem was that none of all these reliable historians say what she wants the article to say (and have matter-of-factly written the opposite) so she dug up Brian Kelly, reduced the section to a few lines and sourced half of them to Kelly (and gave him the last word). I challenged her sourcing, she was completely dismissive of my suggestions, the entire discussion degenerated and here we are.

Bastun, it's my understanding that RS standards for academic history articles are quite high. They want a source that's gone through the typical process scholarship has to go through before and after it's published, or they want a source that may not be a scholarly article or monograph but is published by a historian who's published scholarship and is recognised as an expert in the specific topic we're covering. Obviously if Nini Rodgers or Donald Akenson publish an article in History Ireland we can cite that. And obviously Brian Kelly is reliable for topics having to do with US labour history during Reconstruction and can be cited up and down the page on those particular articles. But when it comes to the topic of Ireland and the Black Atlantic World, Kelly has no scholarship and his HI essay wasn't vetted. Here's an article Nini Rodgers published in HI [61]. Look at the depth, nuance and complexity with which she writes about this subject and compare it to Kelly's essay.

I'll compromise with Hesperian Nguyen right now: If she can find us just one scholarly book or article published by Brian Kelly on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery I'll concede the whole section to her and she can source whatever she wants to that HI essay.Jonathan f1 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My dear, didn’t you just declare that "This is my last edit here and then I'm done.” If you’re going to be overly dramatic, get disruptive, and then rage quit at least keep your word. No need to make a liar of yourself on top of everything else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Transatlantic" so yes American history.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in again to say that while I think I might come down on the side of the text in question being undue, this idea that "a historian of U.S. slavery can't opine on the Irish role in the slave trade" is madness to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP does not get edited on the basis of wagers and challenges. You are blowing the Kelly aspect of the article out of all proportion! He merits two sentences, total, in the article! One, in respect of who benefited from the slave trade, where the article says Kelly "cautions against indicting 'the country as a whole' as "overwhelmingly the benefits of Ireland’s involvement in transatlantic slavery went to the same class that presided over the misery that culminated in the horrors of famine and mass starvation." It is not the blanket write-off that you're claiming. And the second sentence criticises O'Callaghan's book. Should we remove that criticism?! My last word on this - you've attacked many people and wasted thousands of words that would have been much more productively spent improving the article. As to standards for article sourcing - read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's it. Don't know where you're getting all the other stuff from. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to humbly suggest closing this thread and taking things back to the article talk page. Ultimately, I agree with Bastun's assessment above of a tempest in a teapot that is now acting as a time sink. While I see things to contest here, the reliability of an academic in the area really isn't one of them, and I think I see consensus to that effect. Cheers, all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

While History Ireland is not peer reviewed, it is edited by academics and therefore is reliable in the same sense that a book written by a journalist and published by a non-fiction imprint of a reputable publisher is reliable.

Kelly is clearly an expert on slavery and labor in the United States and therefore a competent authority on the myth of Irish slavery in America. His political views are irrelevant, since reliability is based on factual accuracy rather than opinion.

TFD (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have a headache from reading this entire thread, which is made worse by the fact that I could have just looked this guy on on google scholar to arrive at the same answer.

He is absolutely a reliable source for this use. A American labor historian writing about the transatlantic slave trade and comparing it to earlier American labor institutions in a context in which he is essentially endorsed (via being published in History Ireland) by specialists in the subjects OP is denying Kelly is an expert in (specialization is usually not requisite for expertise, as one generally needs a high-level understanding of related subjects in order to make contributions in one's specialty) is, without a doubt, a reliable source, and the justification and responses from the OP only underscore that. I too, have difficulty believing this needed to be brought here, though for markedly different reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also point out that since the Irish slave myth is a conspiracy theory, not a valid academic theory, that we are unlikely to find many if any peer reviewed articles about it. In comparison, scientific journals might not would run articles debunking the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked. So our best source is probably experts writing in serious non-academic journals. TFD (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Banaphar by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Author:- Kumar Suresh Singh

Publisher:- Anthropological Survey of India

Page.no:- page 1876[62]

The article Banaphar currently includes the text

Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan of mixed Ahir and Rajput origin in India.

And I want to change it to

"Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan Rajputs origin in India.

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

According to your link, "Your search - banaphar clan of rajputs - did not match any documents". I searched for "Udal of Mahoba" and got the same result. Why should the source used in the article be ignored, it seems like a good one? It is also clearly about the topic of the article, Udal of Mahoba, that matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See also previous reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Uttar_Pradesh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to  ask for Banaphar page, not for Udal of Mahoba.

I had already tried to put the matter in before, that Alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars (alha, udal, malkhan, sulakhan) not about whole clan and he also mentioned once here[63] and that's why I want to change it. It may be a good source for Alha and Udal of Mahoba but not for Banaphar

And talking about the link i have given is correct for the article please check again. Because the book is a government published book and the author Kumar Suresh Singh is an Indian administrative service officer and PhD scholar. And the book is based on clans and caste and follows all the rules of WP:RS.Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REDACT, don't change your comments after someone has replied like you did here [64], that is quite annoying. IMO, you are still beating the same WP:DEADHORSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do this by purpose it happen mistakingly, because I had made every request for Udal of Mahoba every time, but this time I have to ask for Banaphar only and sorry for bothering you but it's important for me,please try understand. I'm just trying to find the reliable source for the changes, that's itSumit banaphar (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Page 1876 of Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles does not say that Banaphar is a Rajput clan, though. Have you actually read the source, or did you just find it in a Google Books search? Both words occur on the page, but not together; you could use the same source to "prove" that Banaphar is an Ahir clan, since on page 1710, the words "Banaphar" and "Ahir" are found – but not together. The current source, the book by Hiltebeitel, discusses the Banaphar and their ancestry in some detail. --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea:Ok I write for you,If you see properly on page no.1876:-

YADUBANSI RAJPUT Subgroups:Yadubansi ( W. Crooke )

Exogamous units / clans : Banaphar , Vanaphala ( W. Crooke )

Gotra : Kashyap [W.Crooke]

and talking about page no 1710 in which you search for Banaphar ahir, right? So it is "ahir paik" not ahir,and ahir paik which is the sub-tribe of rajputs like baghel,bais which is also given in the page. And yes talking about Alf Hiltebeitel book so, alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars (alha, udal, malkhan, sulakhan) not about whole clan and he also mentioned once here[65] and for ancestry their many books which is reliable to prove what I'm saying is correct.

I literally just said that the book can't be used to "prove" that the Banaphar are Ahir, and by the same token it (of course) cannot be used to "prove" that they are Rajput. It certainly cannot be used to "disprove" the existing source. It is just a list of clans and sub-groups, without any kind of discussion; meanwhile, Hiltebeitel devotes several pages in his scholarly publication to the Banaphar. User:Sitush/CasteSources discusses People of India (the multi-volume work that Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles is part of), and there is a long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 108#Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India which shows why it is a source to be avoided or used with extreme caution; that you now say that Singh's information about this particular claim is attributed to W. Cooke confirms that it is not a reliable source in this context.

Note to other RSN participants: I have given Sumit Banaphar a final warning for their tendentious editing on this topic. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Nothing useful is gonna come out of this unstructured ranting. The IP user is either deliberately trolling or not familiar with the concept of prior fact-checking.
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Note: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Myself and another editor had advised TheeFactChecker to bring this to RSN, so I think that's what they meant to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC) CNN is not a reliable source Here are just a few examples https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6248938060001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFactChecker (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC) The fact that CNN issues retractions when they make a mistake is actually a sign that they are reliable. Perfection is not a realistic expectation. As for the Sky News piece, it's another video released by Project Veritas, who doctor their videos to create the narratives they want to create. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)TheeFactChecker, shouldn't this be at WP:RSN as User:Jorm pointed out to you at Talk:Gab (social network) § Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism? Before stating your case, it would be wise to familiarise yourself with past debates around this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § CNN, before restating past arguments that went nowhere and wasting everyone's time in the process. 15 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Also worth noting that Project Veritas' allegations against CNN were specifically brought up twice quite recently and consensus both times was to retain the generally reliable status: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#RfC: CNN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I am not wasting time, I'm doing exactly as I was instructed to do so by Gorillawarfare TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I find nothing to indicate in this evidence provided by TheeFactChecker that CNN either a) willfully publishes false stories or b) fails to correct good-faith mistakes when they are aware that they made mistakes. In fact, the posts above indicate that CNN has all of the hallmarks of a reliable source, especially because they retract stories where their initial descriptions of events turned out to be incorrect. That's what reliable sources are supposed to do. If nothing else, TheeFactChecker has only provided evidence that CNN is more reliable that previously thought. --Jayron32 11:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/ CNN lied about inauguration ratings https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-fox-news-inauguration-ratings-2017-1?r=US&IR=T CNN bought into Russia conspiracy theories even without a shred of evidence of Russian collusion. CNN had plenty of tabloid style articles such as “Trump uses knife fork to eat fried chicken on a plane”. The same sort of article you would get in the Sun, an unreliable news source. This article along with many others were purposely made to “joke and mock[quoting from CNN article itself]”, which clearly shows their bias gets in the way of their reporting. A lot of their articles during the Trump era were inflammatory and peddled false and misleading claims. CNN claimed that only the media could legally download content from Wikileaks. Another false statement. June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN’s own fact check about immigrants in cages proves they are lying by the skin of their teeth as the say “Conclusion: Trump is wrong that his administration inherited a policy that would lead to the separation” while their “supporting evidence” goes on to assert that “separations did occur under Obama...the chain-link enclosures at a processing facility along the border that have been labeled as cages were built by the Obama administration. Some individuals — including children — were held in those cells during processing. ” With conclusions that don’t match their own evidence, they are not a reliable source. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics This is false, as your own source shows. The "major court victory" mentioned in the headline is the judge allowing the case to move forward. It appears Carbone and CNN settled the case confidentially ([66], [67]), which unfortunately doesn't give us much to go on, though as far as I can see CNN has not published retractions. CNN lied about inauguration ratings The article you linked reports that CNN's PR team conflated two statistics in a tweet, which is certainly misleading, I agree. But when we're discussing the reliability of a source we refer to their published articles, which are subject to editorial oversight, not statements on Twitter by a PR team. You seemed to realize in your first two comments that you are expected to provide sources for claims you make here, so I'm not sure why you stopped doing that. Please add sources for the rest of your claims so they can be properly evaluated by editors here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC) So...we're left with the question as to whether tweets by CNN's PR team should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice...I'd say no. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) It's probably worth noting that TheeFactChecker's concerns about CNN are based not on someone trying to use a CNN PR team tweet as a RS, but the usage of a standard journalistic article published on CNN's website. See Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism for background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) In that article, CNN hyperlinks archives of the tweets in question. I have an additional one not included in the article here. I think the article was reliable for that claim; it's really not a stretch especially with surrounding context about the site. --Chillabit (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Unhelpful discussion at this time. There is the § CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter discussion about CNN also taking place right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) It is relevant to note that the phrasing at WP:RSP is "generally reliable". It is not "absolute reliability", and thus single issues (esp when retracted/corrected) cannot be said to make a generally reliable source anything but. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC) This is a little bit confusing. Project Veritas has been upheld twice recently. Project Veritas has a CNN technical director admitting the network was pushing propaganda with fake stories https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-technical-director-admits-the-network-was-pushing-propaganda-with-fake-stories but we see no evidence CNN purposely fakes news? 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DC42:DBDE:9306:BD1B (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Your link doesn't work, which I suppose makes it much like Project Veritas: fake news. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Veritas is not a reliable source, and has not been "upheld" by anyone in any meaningful manner. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) I believe the link was supposed to be this one. MSN of course is just aggregating other publications (as it usually does; I'm not actually sure if they publish their own reporting), and this one is originally from something called "The Annie Frey Show". I am not sure who Annie Frey is, but based on the article she appears to just be uncritically repeating Project Veritas' claims. I'm not sure what 2601* means when they say "Project Veritas has been upheld twice recently", but at least on Wikipedia, the unreliability of Project Veritas and the lack of credence our editing community generally puts in its allegations against its various targets has certainly been upheld a few times recently (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#RfC: CNN for example). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I meant upheld by the US court system. CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing. Town halls composed of supposedly random citizens asking questions that were not random citizens, They claimed the Trump campaign met Assange in person in Europe, conclusively proven false. They claimed Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed. They carried water on everything from fake Kavanaugh gang rape lies to promoting criminals such as Avenatti while peddling Steele as truth. They were all in the laptop being Giuliani Ukrainian disinformation. The virus coming from nature(lab leak is no longer fake news apparently). Sandman, Duke lacrosse Hands Up Don't Shoot, peaceful protests with burning buildings in the background. Going back to Iraq has WMD. This and days more are easily found in any cursory use of search engine. I didn't realize CNN garnered respect from hardly anyone these days. You have my apologies(I hope this is signed properly.)2601:46:C801:B1F0:DC42:DBDE:9306:BD1B (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC) This and days more are easily found in any cursory use of search engine. Well, I wonder how you used the search engine, because I came to very different conclusions. CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing. And no such thing you claim actually happened. Town halls composed of supposedly random citizens asking questions that were not random citizens. I seem to understand where such statements come from, but I'm afraid the factual accuracy of the sources who claim it will be lacking for them to be cited on WP. But maybe I'm wrong, post the sources please here for evaluation. They claimed the Trump campaign met Assange in person in Europe, conclusively proven false. Except that it wasn't. Yes, some have questioned whether the scoop was actually true, or it was faked, planted (although integrity of this assertion was questioned and Glennwald's authority has been questioned by Wikipedians, too), both parties denied participation, but no one conclusively proved it false - there are only many unknowns in it, and the story was not retracted. Btw, actually the story was from The Guardian, so it should be discussed when talking of that newspaper. They claimed Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed. Well, you're out of luck here, too. They carried water on everything from fake Kavanaugh gang rape lies Pundits on CNN, maybe (but some of them were sceptical. The news coverage as presented on CNN website wasn't skewed, either. Of course, you may provide evidence to the contrary, but cite CNN and point to flaws (not just bias, reliability) to argue the case. Not that I'm particularly supportive of CNN, but I didn't find any misdeeds here. The virus coming from nature (lab leak is no longer fake news apparently). Errm, it's never been, and I can't see CNN dismissing it as "fake news" or the like. That it has little, if any, evidence, is another thing, and they have explicitly mentioned that folks are claiming virus lab leaks without evidence. (CNN pundits are treated by WP:OPINION, which is by itself not particularly reliable for fact). They were all in the laptop being Giuliani Ukrainian disinformation. The article on the topic is named as it is for a reason, and it's not because WP is libtard. CNN indeed said it was disinformation prior to the election. Read the article. I mean, most (if not all, and I don't bother to check more) of the claims you made are either patently false or unsubstantiated by evidence. I know where these may come from, but they are likely to be purged from Wikipedia for good reasons. But maybe I'm wrong, and all the editors are so, too. (You may also want to read this discussion). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Sandman, Duke lacrosse, WMD in Iraq, hands up don't shoot, peaceful protests with billions in damages and dozens dead or the slam dunk widely disseminated fake news ones, weren't checked? The only sufficiently patently false claim based on the above is the weather one.(thank you) Sorry it was so believable given the source and plenty of real faked weather scenes in any search engine. His tax returns were illegally leaked and showed zero financial ties to Russia. CNN ran with the Guardian story and every other offshoot of the Steele, corporate elitist media complex, intelligence agencies Trump/Russia left wing conspiracy theory. The Town Halls used same "random citizens" more than once. CNN was questioning the origins of the virus last week after referring to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory until last week. From two weeks to flatten the curve, two years to a vaccine, no V stock market recovery Trump is a racist for shutting off Asian travelers et plenty al fake news. They ran death totals daily, yet CDC posted last week only 6percent died from covid and not with covid. Ratcliffe explicitly said the laptop was NOT Ukrainian disinformation. Biden himself said it could be his laptop. Trump did not disparage the military while in France. There was no water leak in Fulton county. The capital police officer did not die from anything to do with the horns head guy and the insurrectionists. They can't go a day without fake news. Last week Biden was not driving the Ford P/U, the election auditors sworn testimony re recovering deleted database explicitly and specifically said "recovered deleted database". They never said anyone purposely deleted it or that it was not deleted it at all. CNN finds GOP saying no one associated with the election deleted anything-look here it is! After it was recovered and no on ever said anyone ever deleted it. (they can be deleted periodically as a computer protocol) CNN also said that it was never deleted. Fake news. The corporate elitist media complex did not ask the Biden campaign one single contentious question nor ran one single negative Biden headline during an entire presidential campaign after running nothing but negative often fake news on Trump, his associates family and friends for years.(this should be simple to disprove and once a negative headline is found fr CNN or NYTimes, WAPO, Yahoo NBC, ABC or CBS-wikipedia gets $10,000 since that is the bounty on offer since 1/1/20 for this elusive animal). They are the modern version of Stalin's Pravda Press. I thought the material here was a parody. They lie the US into wars, foment insane divisiveness and are reliable and credible if one permanently suspends disbelief. I already accepted my error and apologized for it. The above sentiment to which I replied in the first place not being being parody but real? It is intellectual destitution.2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC) This is a fine collection of ipse dixit, but with all due respect, does not do much to convince me. Have a wonderful day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I will only refer to one point from your wall of text (and for the love of God, avoid it), that is that COVID lab leak "conspiracy theory". There is a difference between saying "SARS-CoV-2 (or Wuhan virus, if you so insist) came from a lab leak" and "SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately released by the Chinese/Americans/whoever to artificially create a crisis and plunge the whole world into crisis so that the Chinese could buy oil for negative prices/thrive while all suffer". The first is a yet unproved theory, but at least it is a) plausible, b) passes the Hanlon's razor, c) it does happen sometimes. Presupposition of malicious intent of something evil to serve an evil purpose, without WP:EXTRAORDINARY proof, is a conspiracy theory (and that is what most media refer to when speaking of "lab leak" theory). As for the rest, Dumuzid got it very well. I asked you for sources and concrete examples of CNN allegedly misinforming, you provided none (I mean linking to statements, news articles, Youtube videos featuring CNN content and dissecting it etc.), while just airing grievances from right-wing publications will convince no one if you don't provide proof. Repetition of the same arguments only harms your case, or at least it doesn't help. We have heard you. I hereby propose to close the discussion, FWIW, and simply go on. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC) So it turns out even my comment regarding the weather photo was in no way shape or form patently false and indeed true. He stood neck deep in water when a wider shot shows his camera man standing in no water and there is no neck deep water elsewhere in the photo except where he is standing. I had zero notion of any attribution. I left here assuming the photo itself was faked. It's fake news. Just like the Hirsch citation as if somehow idiot Trump moved Russian money around and team Mueller, the IRS and a big wherewithal of the US government missed it. Nothing that I posted has been proven patently false. This should be easy! Everything is a right wing conspiracy theory, conclusive proof otherwise should be abundant. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC) You stated pretty clearly CNN has fake news stuff from the weather where Anderson Cooper broadcast claiming biblical flooding neck deep in water while the wider shot showed no such thing. Reading from AP: Cooper explains to viewers that the flooding is not as deep on a nearby highway being used by emergency crews. The camera crew then pans to the roadway, where the water is only a few inches deep. Cooper then adds that he’s standing on the side of the road to show the varying depth of the floodwaters. Reading from Snopes: However, the various available clips of the program document that the waters in the immediately surrounding area were both fairly deep and quite variable. As Anderson noted during that broadcast, his taking two steps backwards from where he was standing would have caused him to sink in neck-deep water: Cooper also noted that the floodwaters had actually receded significantly before he began his report, and that although he could have stood in a higher-level adjacent roadway where he might have remained drier, he would have risked interfering with emergency vehicles and others attempting to traverse flooded roads. Therefore, the implication that he somehow misstated the true scale of flood is false. And in this respect it is patently false. As for Hirsh, the claim "Trump/Russia financial ties that never existed" can be contradicted by proof that "he has at some time had investments from Russians", which the article exactly reports on. Nothing that I posted has been proven patently false. This should be easy! Everything is a right wing conspiracy theory, conclusive proof otherwise should be abundant. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And I mean it, stop. Don't waste other users' time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC) If they were biblical floods we would see neck deep water all over the wider shot. Non fake news stands on high ground and points to where he stood(like where his camera man stood blocking nothing) and goes on about biblical floods. This is solve by inspection. He is becoming part of the news instead of reporting it. Fake news. Russia is a dead end. Any business he ever had with Russia would've been leaked from an official source by now if it ever existed. The banks are de facto police with reporting requirements and that is nothing new or novel. Lack thereof is an actual criminal offense or the leftist holy grail that doesn't exist. I see now some guy at Ford said Biden was driving. That's good enough for me. The SUV probably had an ejection seat with parachute for the passenger and some emergency stop right now switch but that is good enough for me. A non fake news press may be wondering when the last time Biden actually drove a vehicle. From a cursory look at the deprecation list, right wing sites are deprecated for hangnails. I agree with Szmen that this rfc should be closed. CNN is never getting deprecated unless like a Newsweek or one of the others I am forgetting- it changes hands and becomes remotely neutral, in which case it is immediately less credible here. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:15C6:2D37:B712:757F (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

[68] How reliable is it? I'd like to have some feedback before I can use it as a source for a potential translation for this article. Thanks in advance for every answer. Nacaru 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed in 2012 and February and May of 2019. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, known for conspiracy theories and is terrorist group's Hamas unofficial channel in English.Free1Soul (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this question, but Free1Soul's comment seems to be greatly exaggerated. MEMO has been smeared by its ideological opponents, which is presumably the basis for this user's comment, but we should look into it carefully. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Here[69], for example, we have a borderline anti-semitic cartoon, together with a quote from someone who calls the Israeli strikes in Gaza "war crimes". There is no mention of why Israel made airstrikes in Gaza. Although some degree of bias is acceptable, this strays too far. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, small website with extremist ties.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable fringe, conspiracy site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The skeptical views above appear to be all reflex lockstep 'judgments' (see Falk discussed below, vigorously opposed by the same group) against MEM, some in part based on the fact that the MEM page lines up several quotes from pro-Israeli spokesmen dismissing it as a Hamas/terrorist linked conspiracy site. Adoring nanny takes exception for example to MEM citing a quote from an Israeli pilot stating his view that bombing Gaza is a war crime. Well, the article registers that fact. The pilot in question did express that view. Stating a view that an editor dislikes cannot be used to discredit the source. If so the London Review of Books would be unreliable because the other day it noted that Gilad Sharon, Ariel Sharon's son, suggested the following as a 'solution' to the conflict with Gaza: ‘You strangle them. No water, no electricity, no food, no gas, no medical treatments. Nothing.' Likewise Il Giornale (a pro-Israel right wing newspaper) would be deemed not RS because the same Sharon is reported as saying the solution for Gaza is to raze it to the ground, as the Americans did with Hiroshima because the Japanese dragged their feet over surrendering. I don't use MEM much at all. But it runs a lot of reportage and carries translations from Middle Eastern agencies like Anadolou (Turkish) that the mainstream ignore.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Should only be used with attribution, the MEM is most certainly not an official arm of Hamas or anything along those lines, but they are very explicitly a biased organisation with regards to anything to do with politics or the Israel-Palestine conflict to a far greater degree than most organisations, so anything they say on those matters should be attributed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique

I'm interested in what you think about this source as well. The reason I'd like to know is the same one as my post above, and it seems to bear "information" about Morocco that no one else has access to and it is sometimes quoted in reliable sources such as here. Thanks in advance. Nacaru 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Le Monde, Jeune Afrique is a reputable outlet (an "institution"), although it has received some criticism for being too friendly with the powers that be [70][71][72]. It has recently interviewed French President Emmanuel Macron [73]. All in all reliable, but additional sourcing is welcome. JBchrch talk 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The French equivalent of WP:RSP (Observatoire des sources) considers it generally reliable. See this discussion.

PS. As an aside, from what I read in the discussions in the French RSP, articles that are sponsored (Contenu sponsorisé) are poorly disclosed (that is, they are, but the notice is only mentioned at the very bottom of the page), and I confirm that. Chinese state media are known to be buying media space in the outlet. That said, since Jeune Afrique discloses it, it should be a minor concern for you, and for Morocco coverage, you can easily trust it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique is a solidly above average source which provides detailed coverage of a part of the world which is sorely undercovered by the international media. They have a good reputation as well as a long history of quality journalism. Szmenderowiecki does raise a relevant point about sponsored content and we should be careful of that but it is clearly marked even if its at the end. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This year’s All Sides blind bias survey

https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-readers-rated-media-bias-ap-bbc-and-epoch-times-and-more This is an annual survey, carried out independently, I understand.

The majority of those tested, not told of the source of what they were reading, rated the NYT either left biased or lean left, ditto Bloomberg, whilst the Epoch Times was overwhelmingly rated centre, even lean right. RS’s need to be reconsidered accordingly. Boscaswell talk 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Times is straight garbage. Political leaning =/= reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bias and reliability are separate issues. Bias is an issue related to our WP:NPOV policy. Reliability is an issue related to our WP:Verifiability policy. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Echoing Blueboar and Hemiauchenia. Bias and reliability are separate issues.

Epoch Times is listed in Wikipedia as a far-right source (and this is a statement made in Wikivoice), though apparently, the bias was not strong before 2016 (though it was still a strongly anti-Chinese publication), and the coverage was arguably pretty OK before 2015-2016 (except for Falun Gong matters), when they changed their business model substantially. Epoch Times is rubbish, or at least has become rubbish.

As for why the results appear as they are - probably because of readers' overton window. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Allsides is very clear that they do not want the data to be used like this... "While our Blind Bias Surveys are a uniquely powerful and fair way to rate the bias of news sources without giving more weight to one group over another, they alone do not always capture the full picture. They are essentially snap shots of the top stories on one day. That misses the bias that may show itself in other stories, in pictures, and on other days.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely with Szmenderowiecki, this is merely a reflection of the overton window and nothing else. Not even sure what specifically about RS should be "reconsidered" (Their reliability? Our description of their political leanings?) but we certainly shouldn't be basing any such reconsideration on a survey of random people's perception of bias, when there are actual RS that consistently weigh in on this. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a new guideline?

Thinking about this further, I am beginning to think that we may need to hive WP:BIASED off from WP:RS, and use it as the start of a new (expanded) guideline that better explains WHEN biased sources should and should not be used (perhaps with examples, so editors better understand what we mean by “context matters”). More importantly, an expanded guideline could also explain HOW to use them (such as including in-text attribution). Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

My first thought is that this sounds like a good idea. We certainly need something short and clear that explains how biased and unreliable are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: 2000 people aren't representative. And political doesn't necessarily imply accuracy/reliability. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Don’t disagree at all... but ... political does not necessarily imply inaccurate/unreliable, either. The two issues (bias and reliability) can certainly overlap, but they are NOT the same issue. And we should deal with each slightly differently. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: This may only imply that in some cases political leaning should be taken into account and nothing more. Unless more reliable research is brought to light. 2k people is a joke. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, don’t disagree. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that if anything is to change, it's the WP:NPOVS essay, where we can reformulate some sentences and add a few so that it defines the boundary when bias starts to significantly influence reliability. I wouldn't make any changes to policy though, because those who aren't sure could be easily referred to the essay. Policy is only to contain rules - essays are more of a commentary to policies, and from what I understand, you are proposing to insert more commentaries. It's good, but I don't think it's enough to warrant a separate essay, let alone additional policy clauses.

As a matter of principle, yes, go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would definitely support expanding on WP:BIASED and spinning it off, although I suspect it will be a tricky thing to get right. Right now I feel like too many people read BIASED as meaning "bias doesn't matter at all", which isn't precisely right. Part of the underlying issue is that editors can reasonably claim that any source is biased in some fashion (and how biased a source is often a matter of perspective, ie. people are more likely to see a source that describes the way they think it is as neutral), so it might be to talk about things like eg. to what extent the source's bias affects their core editorial mandate. The New York Times has all sorts of biases related to it being an American paper based (somewhat) out of New York, but we can reasonably say that it strives hard to avoid letting that bias affect its reporting; whereas eg. an agenda-driven think tank is making no such effort. I would probably make a distinction between "sources that strive to be unbiased, and have a reputation backing this up as generally successful", "sources that say they strive to be unbiased but whose reputation calls that claim into question to one degree or another", and "sources that are stridently biased and make no effort to conceal it" - they should all be handled in different ways. (The middle category is the most tricky and subjective, of course, and is likely to be where editors will encounter the most arguments.) Another thing perhaps worth discussing is the intersection of bias with WP:FRINGE; a source cannot usually be described as "biased" simply as a result of strongly supporting something that is universally-accepted among high-quality sources (often a tactic of people trying to push fringe viewpoints is to try and eg. dismiss every source that accepts evolutionary biology as biased), and, conversely, fringe biases are much more alarming and usually ought to be enough to get a source generally disregarded on anything that remotely touches on their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Although it's also important to note that even heavy bias in one area does not necessarily mean it's unreliable in other areas (although it does perhaps make it more likely). Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: agreed, and I would like to add that the impact of bias is a double edged sword. For example if a paper with a strong right wing bias says a right wing politician did X, Y and Z despicable things I’d actually be more inclined to think that reliable than if a paper with strong left wing bias said that a right wing politician did X, Y and Z despicable things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar and Thryduulf that this is something that would be of great benefit to the project. — Ched (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Better guidance on what constitutes bias and what should be done about it would help with article content, and hopefully improve RSN RfCs. Biased sources are a WP:NPOV issue not a WP:V issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't completely disagree that bias is unrelated to RS. While bias alone can't render a source unreliable, when it is coupled with other signs of unreliability it is useful to consider when determining whether incidents are isolated mistakes or part of a systematic pattern; if coverage consistently describes a source's bias as introducing actual unreliability (ie. they are willing to overtly distort facts or outright lie in the service of their bias), then that becomes a RS issue, and is particularly noteworthy because it implies a systematic reliability issue, ie. any fact-checking or editorials they control are clearly secondary to their ideological goals (or whatever), rendering them moot. A source that sometimes makes errors is not as concerning as a source who is broadly described as biased and who consistently makes "errors" in the direction of their bias. (Another, somewhat related issue, which seems like it shouldn't need to be said but somehow does, is that bias alone obviously doesn't make a source usable. If a source is well-known for being biased and nothing else - that is, it has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - then it's not a WP:RS. This matters because often discussions of stridently biased sources somehow gets derailed into a bizarre place where people are like "the source is WP:BIASED!" "Yes, but that doesn't make it unreliable, so we can use it!") --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• There's a current AE request (unlikely to result in any action) but I think aspects of what's going on there tie to here, and I'll reiterate a facet I think is important relevant to BIAS. As an encyclopedia and a tertiary work we should absolutely be summarizing sources but we should be doing it from both a 60,000 ft level and from a longevity view of what information will be relevant 10-20 years from now. From a bias standpoint, this means we should absolutely be aware of bias in reliable sources. As others have said, and a repeated facet of this board, bias does not immediately make a source unreliable. But if we are on topic X, and a given RS (even a source like the NYTimes) has a well-known bias related to X, we should not be taking that RSes coverage of X with blind faith, and consider where some statements that may be contentious be written with attribution. This all requires looking at the bigger picture to see that bias and how that bias would influence how we should be working, hence why I think this is a relevant point --Masem (t) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with what you wrote there, in principle. Just for the sake of argument, though, imagine that RSN had a "bias" bit to it, a number 5 choice, let's say. I can pretty much predict that the same crowd every time will come and say "5!" (super biased) and their opposite numbers will say "0!" (not biased, not even a little bit). I'm just concerned how it would be dealt with in practice is all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Falk & Tilley (ECSWA), Israel Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Can this report, republished in the The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online via Brill, be used for the following sentence at Demographic engineering, despite the fact that the report was removed from the UNESCWA website after political pressure[74]?

A 2017 report by Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and Virginia Tilley, a political scientist from Southern Illinois University Carbondale, originally published by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA) wrote that "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority."

User Free1Soul claims that the report by these two eminent academics is "disgraced" due to the UNESCWA retraction, but I have not seen any reliable source making such a claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but as opinions of these two scholars (not UNESCWA). While UN subsequently retracted the report (EDIT: indeed under pressure of Mr Guterres, because initially it was accepted), the authors (who are both Middle East scholars) stood by it and it still constitutes valid research (political pressure is not something that renders the work unreliable/untrustworthy, only other researchers' conclusions about poor quality). Also, please shorten the sentence, so that it could harmonically merge into the paragraph. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact of its "unendorsement" by the UN has even made it into scholarly sources Eric Walberg (7 November 2017). The Canada-Israel Nexus. SCB Distributors. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-9986947-0-2. "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." In another, Seada Hussein Adem, refers the reader to pages 14 to 17 of the report.Seada Hussein Adem (5 April 2019). Palestine and the International Criminal Court. Springer. pp. 157–. ISBN 978-94-6265-291-0. so the report is out in the wild, endorsed or not.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• The report was retracted by the UN. The report is as reliable as other unpublished work by Falk like antisemitic cartoons he posted on his blog.[75][76]. Onceinawhile uploaded this entry to Wikipedia without even saying the UN retracted and rebuked.Free1Soul (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable Antisemitism renders a source WP:QUESTIONABLE in regards to Israel. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats a BLP violation, one that should have either evidence or be met with sanctions. nableezy - 23:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, apartheid accusations against Israel are not that uncommon, particularly among the American left, and they even came to organisations like B'Tselem (Israel) and Human Rights Watch, so I wouldn't call it WP:FRINGE. Exactly the same source (when reported by Reuters) has been inserted into this Wikipedia article, and that despite the article being extended protected and under active arbitrage coverage.

Also, I'd probably like some better sources than Israeli publications, because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism". It goes both ways - some critique of Israel is legitimately anti-Semitic, some critique of something being called anti-Semitic isn't anti-Semitic (which I believe is the case here), so if other RS report on it as being part of an anti-Semitic attack, I have no objections; but since Jews are party here, even Haaretz, which is known to be probably the most lenient major Israeli publication to Palestinians, doesn't help to establish claims of anti-Semitism. The case is even weaker given that the story was broken by UN Watch, which is known to have a strong pro-Israeli bias and seems to have been targeting Richard Falk specifically, see here. It is contextually unreliable for such claims (though otherwise a very respectable outlet). PS. The scandal has received no coverage of which I'm aware from non-Israeli sources and was just a short flash of interest, therefore not WP:SUSTAINED.

I also don't agree with the assertion that the work was not published, as the definition says "made available to the public in some form", and it was - it has even racked up 25 citations from Google Scholar (rather unusual, let's agree for unpublished documents); nor can it be reasonably argued it's WP:SPS, so it must be reputably published.

See also these discussions for reference.

Your statement of "Jews are very sensitive" is discriminatory and has no place here. JTA is not Israeli, nor is this 2017 source.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If the only sources you have are the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, apart from mentioned above, I rest my case.

As for possible 9/11 conspiratorial thinking, it can't be denied he is sympathetic to the conspiracy's main points, but neither can it be denied that his belief in some 9/11 conspiracies strips him from qualifications he has as a political scientist. It's like saying a scientist stops being trustworthy because he was convicted of sexual assault.

Finally, whatever happened to Virginia Tilley? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're gonna have a little problem with your "No Jews Allowed" rule, buddy: Richard Falk is Jewish. JBchrch talk 23:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Probably undue, regardless of reliability. Falk's work is not about demographic engineering, it just happens to mention it. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Buidhe, the idea that a source needs to be “about” the topic of an article for it to be usage is not policy based. But I don’t mind following it, so long as we apply it consistent across the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I just reviewed the FA Greek case, an excellent article which you wrote. Many of the sources you used in that article were not “about” the Greek case. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The removal does not make a report unreliable automatically but the cartoons published by Falk indicate his strong bias. For such a topic, I'm sure that there are dozens of other books, articles and reports which can be used, do we truly need this specific one? Alaexis_¿question? 05:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and WP:UNDUE As showed by Freesoul its not a report but one sided propaganda piece.And per Buidhe even if it was reliable it shouldn't be used --Shrike (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• undue/unreliable. The report was retracted by the publisher (UN), so it is just the personal views of Falk and Tilley. Considering Falk is known for posting antisemitic cartoons (already above) and for conspiracy theories: "in his off-hours Mr. Falk moonlights as a prolific purveyor of conspiracy theories" (Sohrab Ahmari, WSJ), this isn't reliable nor due. Falk isn't even a reliable source for what he himself said, as in the past he has denied posting 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet Reuters states: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001. “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials,” Falk wrote. Falk is very far outside mainstream, though he does have a following in Iran (Teharan Times recently quoted as " Iran as an Islamic system is the only country that is “genuinely” fighting terrorist groups such as Daesh and state terrorism exercised by Israel and the United States.").--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Attribute experts Falk and Tilley, biased or not, are experts in their areas so the report (which has been published) is usable if attributed to them. Although the report was controversial at the time for being the first to allege Israeli apartheid inclusive of Israel as well as in the occupied territories, recent reports by blue chip human rights organizations B'Tselem (Israeli) and Human Rights Watch (international) have produced similar conclusions and so it is no longer considered controversial.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• comment I have stricken User:Szmenderowiecki comments in this discussion as he didn't reach 500 edits --Shrike (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Where is it written that such users cannot opine here??? Alaexis_¿question? 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's based on an ARCA ie if this discussion is considered as being within Arbpia guideline, Israel-Palestine related, "broadly construed". It's somewhat debatable since the underlying article, Demographic engineering, is not carrying the Arbpia warnings and might only be considered incidental to IP area. I think the strikeout is not really justifed, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see, thanks. Alaexis_¿question? 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution as a source of two subject matter experts. Due weight is another question. Also most probably better to remove the clause that mentions being originally published by UNESCWA. The organization appears to want to distance itself from the report, although they have not retracted the report or stated it has errors. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as the attributed view of established experts in the field. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear on this, and the ad hominem attacks by some editors above notwithstanding, both authors clearly meet the requirements here. nableezy - 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. The two scholars are area experts, and the quote for which they are cited ( "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority.") is a commonplace. Detailed documentation of it is all over numerous relevant wiki articles, and, for example, in Jerusalem planning has long sought to ensure a 70/30 (later adjusted to 60/40 ration between Jews and Arabs. Between 1967 and 2016, 14,595 Palestinians were stripped of their right to live in East Jerusalem, and the reason was to create a Jewish majority even there. The objection appears to be dislike of the authors, particularly Falk, not for the point both authors make. The view therefore cannot even be treated as an exceptional claim.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Falk's report has pretty much been discredited and this fails WP:REDFLAG. And as others have pointed out, Falk is quite fringe. As per the ADL: "It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’...Richard Falk has given the Human Right’s Council yet another black eye and his continued affiliation with the international body only serves to undermine its credibility. His outrageous assertion that the Boston terror attack can be traced to U.S. and Israeli policy is not surprising, given his notorious record of anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda.”[77] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, by red flag, are you suggesting that it is an exceptional claim to state that Israel's government is focused on demographic engineering?! John McEnroe wrote a book relevant to that suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And I have no idea why you're bringing up some tennis player's book. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Given your incomprehensible perplexity at the allusion, I guess one will have to spell it out, that it was a gentle way of suggesting your remark cannot be taken seriously.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Red flag has nothing to do with the issue. There has been no evidence given that the report was discredited. The passage in question is not controversial. The authors are experts. A scholarly report commissioned by the UN but subsequently not endorsed as reflecting the views of that body (which in any case are mostly based on political compromises), then published in another venue, retains its validity, its status is not defined by the UN but by the expertise of its authors and the venue of its subsequent publication. Were it otherwise the UN would be recognized as exercising an authority over what can or cannot be said of the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable; the UNESCWA retraction has no significance because the paper derives its weight and reliability from its academic publishing, which remains in good standing. But I would avoid making them the only source. Partially this is because other sources exist saying the same thing (so citing it to just their opinion gives the impression that it has less support than it does.) Beyond that, I do not personally think it is an exceptional statement at all; it seems completely uncontroversial to say that Israel's policies are heavily driven by a need to engage in demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel if they want to be a Jewish state. But since so many other sources exist saying this, there is no reason to drag our heels on providing them or to get excessively caught up in a dispute over just one. Some other sources:

• [78] Bookman, Milica Z. "The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering in the Modern World". Israel is cited as one of the main examples throughout the book.
• [79] Tzfadia, Erez, and Haim Yacobi. "Identity, migration, and the City: Russian immigrants in contested urban space in Israel." Urban Geography 28.5 (2007): 436-455.: "Settling Jewish immigrants in frontier cities and regions was part of a governmental scheme termed by McGarry (1998) “demographic engineering.” The massive expropriation of Palestinian land and houses and their transformation into Jewish state property through legislation (Forman and Kedar, 2004) was one of the most effective means of implementing this program. In Lod, for instance..."
• [80] Molavi, Shourideh C. "Contemporary Israel/Palestine." The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Middle Eastern and North African History.: Has an entire section about demographic engineering in Israel that is too long to easily quote here, but which goes into extensive detail, but the key conclusion Taken together, the Jewish state begets practices of demographic engineering to ensure a Jewish majority,and simultaneously, the Jewish majority is then made a prerequisite for the consummation of the Jewish state.

There are many more sources. I would collect them, read them, and rewrite the bit in question a bit to reflect what they say. There is some room to debate how to phrase it, but I do not think that the fact that Israel practices demographic engineering is contested - in particular the bit in the lead that says In addition, numerous policies of the Israeli government have been characterized as demographic engineering is inappropriate in that it describes an established fact as an opinion; unless someone can find a source disagreeing with the ones above, it should simply say that Israel practices demographic engineering (and go into a bit more detail as to why, which the sources are fairly clear on - demographic engineering is necessary for Israel to exist as a Jewish state - it should say something like Israel practices demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority and its identity as a Jewish state or words to that effect.) I'm honestly a bit baffled that people are treating this as controversial - the controversial part is not that Israel practices demographic engineering, the controversial bit is whether it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, which (while it doesn't use the exact terms McGarry did) it effectively says justifies demographic engineering towards that end. So rather than present a well-established fact as mere opinion, I would be careful to include Israel's reasons for its policies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was indeed on the fence for a long time with this one, it's a complex matter, but Aquillion's comment (thank you Aquillion) pushed me towards a "reliable" side. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The publisher (the UN), withdrew its support for this. It was then reprinted in Electronic Intifada and an on-line yearbook of law, but with them reprinting the UN disclaimers etc. The result is a self-published work by Falk and Tilley. Falk is known for self-publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories[81][82] and other junk and his unvetted self published writings can not be considered reliable. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The “conspiracy theories” stuff looks like a smear job without substance. Per [83] he explicitly denied any belief in the position that his ideological opponents claimed he had. And your analysis of the publication history is incorrect and has been explained in more detail in comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This Reuters piece, already quoted above, analyzed the Falk's denial of the denial and rejected it, stating that "Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001". This is a reliable source on Falk. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

All government investigations include some form of cover-up. All of them. Why? Because government bureaucracies are consistently incompetent and mistake-prone, and it is not politically expedient to highlight these mistakes when people have been killed in a national tragedy. Falk’s political opponents extrapolated and speculated about the kind of cover-up Falk was referring to, but I am not aware of any substance behind the claim that he was pushing a conspiracy theory. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You might have a point if this were about 9/11. Falk however is an established expert on international law and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no when Brill publishes something in the Palestine Yearbook of International Law it is not a "self-published" work, and even if it were, as the work product of two established experts, this would still be a fine source per WP:SPS. People disliking what a reliable source says is not, and has never been, a reason to remove it from a supposed encyclopedia article. Which is what every single "not reliable" vote here is aiming to do. Maybe stop with the obvious logical fallacies and focus on what our policies say, which is that this is an obviously reliable source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. nableezy - 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Falk is thoroughly discredited, reliable sources note his conspiracy theories. As for the copy hosted at The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online, it is classified as "other", has the heading of "UN DOCUMENTS", and is a one to one copy of the retracted UN report including copyright notices and acknowledgements. There is no indication of peer review or any scientific process. The yearbook reprinting a retracted report due to relevance to the yearbook does not make the report reliable. Furthermore, the same yearbook in the same issue reprinted hundreds of pages of UN documents in the same back portion of the yearbook, such as:

1. Draft United Nations Security Council Resolution S/2017/1060 (Dec. 17, 2017)
2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/19 (Dec. 21, 2017)
3. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/13 (Dec. 6, 2017)
4. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/15 (Dec. 7, 2017)

After 300 pages or so of UN documents, it also reprinted:

1. Law for the Regularization of Settlement in Judea and Samaria, 5777–2017 (Israel)
2. Statement Issued by the Central Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
3. Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem

This portion of the yearbook (the back portion), is merely a dumping ground for primary documents relating to the topic of the yearbook. These primary documents are published as-is, without any peer review or any process. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You can keep saying he is discredited, but he isnt, and no reliable source has questioned his expertise on this topic. You can keep talking about irrelevant things like 9/11 but this isnt about 9/11 so I dont quite see the point in arguing about this. You can keep saying things about primary documents, but a report by third party academics is not a primary source. nableezy - 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is a well-respected publication. 11Fox11 should learn what "self-published" means before trying to apply an irrelevant policy. Like others here, I'm amazed at the attempt to remove "in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority" which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows to be a primary objective of Israel and Zionism before it. Zero^talk 06:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that part of the issue is that few people disagree that Israel makes maintaining a Jewish majority a central policy goal (Israeli officials are often very unambiguous about this); but people who support what Israel is doing generally object to any specific academic term for it. Partially this is because those words tend to also apply to a lot of really unequivocally awful stuff; eg. this source (while discussing the term's use in another context) mentions that demographic engineering, as an all-encompassing package of demographic policies, comprises ‘ethnic cleansing’ as one of its measures and then immediately notes that the use of the term in that conflict is predominant in the non-apologetic historiographical literature on violence against minorities, which I read as a scholarly way of saying people don't tend to describe something as demographic engineering if they think it's a good thing. Rather than trying to omit the sources that do use the term in relation to Israel, it might be worth looking for similar sources describing who uses it and who doesn't in relation to Israel - such sources probably exist. But this is probably a better discussion for the article talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Parts of the yearbook may be peer reviewed papers. The back portion of the yearbook, including this document, is a dumping ground of primary material namely hundreds of pages of UN documents, court decisions, Israeli laws, PLO statements. Look at the Table of contents of the issue and this is what is there from page 201 (after the actual articles and one book review). 11Fox11 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a very serious misunderstanding of what primary means. Falk and Tilley are not primary sources on this topic. nableezy - 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion in the primary document dump of the yearbook lends this discredited report the same weight as the Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem reprinted in the same portion of the yearbook. The original publisher, the UN, unendorsed this. So this is the same as material posted on Falk's website. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think that just repeating things like discredited makes it true. The work product of two established experts in the field is reliable even if it were on Falk's website. And you also seem to be ignoring that Virginia Tilley is likewise an established expert in the field. But good luck with the attempt at proof by repetition, maybe itll work. Doubt it, but who knows nableezy - 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The situation (per scholarly source at the top of this discussion) is "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." That does not mean discredited, not even close. Try some other argument.Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable A retracted report, written by a known conspiracy theorist (not intended as a smear, but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known). Surprised we're even discussing this. For what it's worth, I believe the claim is accurate, it seems rather uncontroversial to say Israel has attempted to engineer a Jewish majority. So no problem with stating that, but this particular source is not suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please substantiate the claim but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known. Per above, my reading is that these are distorted claims made by his ideological enemies but I can't see much evidence for them. Your statement is making him sound like he is actively pushing a conspiracy, but I believe his "activities" were a blog post suggesting that the government might not be sharing everything it knew, which he later clarified that he did not mean in a conspiracy theory way. That is not the behaviour of a "9/11 truther". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. First, it was not just blog posts. Falk wrote the preface to the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 which claims that the Bush administration was involved in the 9/11 attacks.. Second, the Secretary General of the UN condemned Falk's pushing of conspiracy theories Reuters, That is much more substantial than just ideological enemies (who??) distorted his claims in a blog. Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant, nobody is using Falk as a source on 9/11. nableezy - 20:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, IMO anyone who has pushed conspiracy theories (if that's true) in one topic is probably unreliable for any topic. The point is certainly relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, a set of users bringing up unrelated topics to dismiss an expert in this field is not something that is found in WP:RS. Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton. He is a former Special Rapporteur and has been published in a huge number of peer-reviewed journal articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict and international law. Tilley is a professor at Southern Illinois University who has likewise been published in peer-reviewed works on this topic. What, exactly, in WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for the dismissal of these scholars because of one of their views on another topic? Quote from policy please, dont just hand wave to some belief that you have that is not found anywhere in our policies. nableezy - 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty well recognised principle that if a source spreads some conspiracy theories or other similar types of nonsense, then it is considered unreliable in general. See, for example, the Daily Mail: over 95% of the material it publishes are probably uncontroversial and factually correct, the concern is that it repeatedly pushes unfounded rubbish. The principle is documented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources. Now see the definition of a source at WP:SOURCEDEF; it is not limited to publishing organisations but also includes The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and as the policy says: Any of the three can affect reliability. So yes, if an author has spread conspiracy theories in any topic, they are generally unreliable as a source for all topics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

An academic expert in this specific field who is freaking professor emeritus at Princeton cannot under any reading of WP:RS be considered unreliable in general. If Falk were writing on his blog on this topic he would meet WP:SPS which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And thanks for WP:DEPRECATED, that requires an RFC to deprecate a source, not one editor making assertions that when the policy they claim supports it does not back them up. Yes, any of the three can affect the reliability. And if you continue reading WP:RS youll see where it discusses WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Falk is a widely cited expert in the fields of international law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If youd like to try to deprecate a person with some 26000 citations to his work (a fifth of those just in the last five years) you are welcome to try. But itll take an RFC to do that. Not you making assertions not actually based on policy, and in fact directly contradicted by it. Even if he were writing on his blog Falk would be reliable on this topic per Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. His work in the relevant field is what is at issue here, and in that relevant field he was professor at Ohio State, Harvard and Princeton. His work has been published by some of the most respected publishers on the planet. You want to make an RFC to deprecate that type of source feel free. Oh, and please tell me why Virginia Tilley is being ignored here? She is likewise the author of peer-reviewed works on this topic. Why are you ignoring her entirely? This specific article has been cited by 26 times itself. And youre going to say Wikipedia should deprecate the author? Let me know when the Daily Mail is racking up citations to its work in Political Studies. nableezy - 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Should also maybe read what this effort to discredit Falk was actually about, and not just accept as gospel what people trying to disqualify an actual expert on the topic has to say because they dislike his views. He hasnt spread any conspiracy theories anyway, but his views on 9/11 are entirely irrelevant to his area of academic expertise, which this article firmly falls under. nableezy - 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, fringe. Astounding this is even discussed. As User:Jeppiz shows, Falk, the first named author, is known for 9/11 conspiracies. As User:Adoring nanny says, Falk also had an antisemitic cartoons issue. Whatever his pre-emeritus credentials, his reputation is shot in the emeritus phase. He was even condemned by his emeritus employer, the UN. As User:11Fox11 shows, the Brill yearbook reproduction is brought up here disingenuously as it appears there not as a research article but as a reproduction of a multitude of UN documents that the yearbook reproduced from the period. It is not peer reviewed. The actual publisher here, the UN, withdrew the publication. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to call a living person a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The number of users making such derogatory claims on a living person when no reliable source does so is obscene. And every single person making that claim had better start putting up rock solid sources that directly back up that contention. The Reuters source says no such thing. UN Watch is not a reliable source to disparage a living person. And calling a a journal article that already has 26 citations to it fringe is what is astounding. nableezy - 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a journal article. Not peer reviewed. Reproduction in a yearbook of a document the UN unpublished, alongside other UN documents from the period. As for 9/11, he was condemned by the UN chief: U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments, and from the discussion above there are plenty of other sources on 9/11 conspiracy theories here.--Hippeus (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The introduction to the article says Appreciation is extended to the blind reviewers for their valuable input. The UN chief condemned one part of one blog post he made. He did not call him a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Unless you provide reliable sources that substantiate what you said about a living person you should withdraw it. nableezy - 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

More than enough reliable sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist,a promoter of conspiracy theories, and he has praised conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

. ADL: "“It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’”[84] NY Times: "The authors included a former United Nations human rights investigator, Richard Falk, which particularly galled many Israel supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite and a discredited conspiracy theorist."[85] NY Times: "He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks."[86] SF Gate (written by Joel Brinkley, Pulitizer-prize-winning journalist): "9/11 conspiracy theorist should leave U.N. job"[87] Jewish Chronicle: "Richard Falk, a former UN special envoy who has supported 9/11 conspiracy theories and praised the work of notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon."[88] The Atlantic: "It turns out that "Palestine expert" on the UN Human Rights Council, the law professor Richard Falk, is something of a 9/11 Truther" [89] The New Republic: "Richard Falk, Conspiracy Theorist" [90] JTA: "Richard Falk, a former U.N. rapporteur on Palestinian rights, has earned opprobrium for likening Israel to Nazi Germany and for amplifying baseless conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States."[91] Tablet Magazine: "...Richard Falk, a known 9/11 truther and promoter of anti-Semitism...Falk is an equal opportunity advocate of conspiracy theories, not just about America, but about Jews"[92] New York Magazine Intelligencer: "The Conspiracist’s Guide to Osama bin Laden’s Bookshelf...and New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk. One thing these titles have in common is they all cast doubt on the so-called “official story” of bin Laden’s signature claim to fame"[93] Wall Street Journal: "His political lunacy has left Mr. Falk with few friends in respectable circles, but it has also helped him find a professional niche at the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.S. diplomats, time and again, have failed to remove him from his post—even after he came out as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on his blog in January 2011."[94] The Telegraph: "Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an "apparent cover up" by American authorities...And he described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called "9/11 truth" movement, as a "scholar of high integrity" whose book on the subject was "authoritative".[95] Reuters: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001."[96]

Since two blue chip human rights organizations have since not only confirmed but have expanded upon the findings of Falk and Tilley, then as far as I am concerned that fact by itself is sufficient confirmation that the report is an acceptable document.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What utter bs. A selection of sources saying that Israel supporters claim he is something and a set of opinion pieces from Israel supporters saying he is something is not anywhere close to the level of sourcing that WP:BLP requires for such a claim. Im going to open an RFC on this, it is insane that users can commit BLP violating edits to wipe away actual scholars on the level of Richard Falk in the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Insane. nableezy - 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the convincing rationale by Jeppiz; and per my above general comments on source reliability, combined with the arguments and evidence later presented by Hippeus and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. ProcSock (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously unreliable, fringe and undue. per Jeppiz and Hippeus. - Daveout(talk) 03:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Aquillon, whether it is due weight is another matter but this is clearly a well-regarded academic opinion that I see no reason to consider unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

El Rompehielos

Is elrompehielos.com.ar [The Icebreaker] a news source or blog? Is it reliable? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Best avoided. All coverage is made by anonymous people, which by itself is already a very bad sign. The company behind that only operates for 4 years, which is another warning (though not necessarily that bad). What makes me most wary is this document from the municipality of Ushuaia that more or less says they approved 15 thousand pesos ($400 at the time) for paid advertising and propaganda for February 2019. I wonder what that "propaganda" is for, but I imagine it has to do with the Falklands/Malvinas.

I think there are way better sources than that, even in local Patagonian press, or maybe National Geographic, for the information about a natural UNESCO site. It should be somewhere in the books, and probably you may find some government materials for that, but cite them and not El Rompehielos. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thank you very much for the help! That's, uh, not good. I will avoid it. I was actually looking for coverage of the Carlos J. Gradin Museum of Archaeology in Perito Moreno with this source, so the topic is not quite as resource-rich as with Cueva de las Manos.

While we're on this topic, how about this source?

• McCouat, Philip. "Art and Survival in Patagonia: How Destroyed Patagonian Indian Cultures Live On Through Their Art". Journal of ART in SOCIETY. Retrieved 2021-05-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Thanks again, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera:Unfortunately, though this is a better source, it still fails Wikipedia's set thresholds. It's not crap, but it's 100% self-published and the guy who posts there is a lawyer and not a historian of art, historian of Patagonia or the sort, therefore you can't use it. However, he provides a trove of resources on which he bases his findings - go and read them, and probably you will get a reliable article by an expert in the field that is going to state more or less the same. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

Background:
Our article at Wuhan Institute of Virology currently says:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus"

And our article at COVID-19 misinformation currently says:

"Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic... A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the lab leak theory as 'extremely unlikely' given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread... WHO researcher Peter Daszak said 'The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan'."

Recently, multiple editors have claimed that the following source...

• Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed - WSJ

...justifies changing the above articles to give more credence to the lab leak theory.

So, is the source reliable for that purpose? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Credence to the lab leak hypothesis requires MEDRS and consensus in those sources. It's been known for months (if not over a year) that there were many people (not just lab employees) who presented in Wuhan with "cold-like" symptoms that are non-specific to COVID-19 in the late months of 2019. US intelligence is not a MEDRS for claiming that people were infected with COVID-19 at any point, from any source. Note that the quote in that source doesn't say "they had COVID-19", it says with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses - i.e. it provides no new information that justifies giving more credibility than MEDRS do to the "lab leak theory". Yes, China has been... less than forthcoming (to put it mildly) with information regarding early cases. However, China is less than forthcoming with lots of information in the world, and we should not let anger at China for their isolationist policies lead to us absolving our responsibility to take scientific consensus over "sensationalist news". Obviously we should all continue to watch MEDRS and concrete data on these people (and other early cases) that comes out and then we may need to discuss changes - but not based on one report that isn't more than "well there were people sick". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The origin of COVID-19, and related historical questions about who the first patients were, is not a MEDRS domain. This falls under a WP:MEDDEF: The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS. It becomes MEDRS when you begin dealing with claims about how a disease is transmitted or could supposedly be cured, situations where quack medicine can actually harm people. There is no nexus between that and the lab leak hypothesis. Geogene (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When you look into WP:BMI, biomedical information is i.a.: Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them, and enquiries into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are obviously biomedical research. There is also a warning that Statements that could still have medical relevance [...] are still biomedical. Biomedical research must be cited using MEDRS.

What you say about history, in this case, concerns something for which you don't need medical knowledge - just go to the online catalogue, enter researcher's name, and find the patent for the drug. This doesn't require an M.Sc. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Re, enquiries into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are obviously biomedical research That's not obvious at all, because you're trying to shoehorn your own re-definition of "biomedical research" to something more expansive than the policy dictates. The policy is not that everything of or related to biomedicine is MEDRS, if that were the case, explanatory sections like MEDDEF and WP:BMI wouldn't be necessary. As for, Statements that could still have medical relevance [...] are still biomedical the lab leak hypothesis has no medical relevance, and this is the reason why MEDRS doesn't apply to it. I already covered that point above. Geogene (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It would depend on the claim. A claim that a flask was knocked over is not biomedical; a claim that the genetic characteristics of a virus have the telltale signs of human engineering, is. And there are grey areas between. Alexbrn (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree this claim does not require WP:MEDRS as it is not WP:BMI -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• It looks useful for the claim that three researchers from the lab were hospitalized. But unless it states, based on solid evidence, that they were hospitalized for covid-19, it's no good for the latter claim. I mean, the headline literally gives away all the details about the hospitalizations that the article claims, and the rest of the article is just filler about the pandemic and the conspiracy theory. In my experience, articles like that aren't to be trusted, because the only thing it's demonstrating is that the author/editors are fans of the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum because I didn't make it clear initially: The claim I said this article was good for (that three lab workers were hospitalized) is clearly not appropriate for our articles on Covid-19. It may be appropriate for our articles about the conspiracy theory, but the language would have to be very clear that there's no definitive link, and this is not clear evidence of the CS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• From my reading of the original report in WSJ, it isn't something that warrants immediate change. Evidence presented is circumstantial and inconclusive by itself, because the report says that the three became sick in autumn 2019 “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”; and since this is the only piece of evidence, it still requires much of mental stretching to establish a causal link of good enough quality.

Besides, the lab leak was a focus of conspiracy theorists (lab leak -> deliberate) and there was a lot of unfounded (irrational) speculation based on the evidence they had, that is, the lab and a lot of self-determination. Even if it later appears true, it doesn't mean people argued for the lab leak in, say, June 2020 based on that evidence, and since they weren't, it was unfounded. At least at the time.

We needn't change anything for now, as there is no deadline and we aren't supposed to be a newsfeed. Wait for WP:MEDRS, WHO, CDC and other health institutes' commentary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Independent of any details in the guidelines ruling which sources are acceptable under which circumstances, the general principle is that we should use the best sources we can find for a given subject. For the origin of SARS-CoV-2, we already have high-quality sources. They meet the MEDRS standard. We also have much-lower-quality sources about the same subject. It should be a no-brainer that we dismiss those. If we had no MEDRS sources, then it would matter whether the subject needs MEDRS. Since we do, that question is just a distraction. We use the best sources, end of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• "There’s a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still, so I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?" Fauci: "No actually [...] I am not convinced about that, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened." Fox.

According to the standards enforced by the activists on wikipedia, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases throughout the entire pandemic is saying "we should continue to investigate [this conspiracy theory]". Let that sink in for a second. 2601:602:9200:1310:1C00:1701:D1FF:B995 (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think this is contradictory. It's not. It's broadly in line with the WHO report, the WHO DG, and what we (accurately) state is the majority consensus: a lab leak is possible but unlikely, and requires further investigation. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this is saying that Fauci (as well as the govt medical experts from other countries that have expressed doubt with the WHO report) are stating that that it must be a lab leak of an engineered virus (the conspiracy theory). What I read from this Reuters story is that they do think there's more involvment of WIV to the initial cases than the WHO report and China has suggested, but they do not specifically call out a lab leak as the route. I think it's important that somewhere we talk about the countries that have have expressed doubt at the WHO report, but that doesnt give any weight to the dismissal of the lab leak theory by leading MEDRS sources at this point. --Masem (t) 13:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a big difference between possibility, and likelihood. There's pretty significant agreement between everyone that the lab leak is possible. It hasn't yet been ruled out. The problem is conflating "it hasn't been ruled out" with "is more likely than any other explanation". This is essentially the difference between the opinions of Fauci and Redfield. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If the majority consensus is "a lab leak is possible but unlikely, and requires further investigation", then explain to me why is COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis redirects to a "Misinformation" page?

The fact that 3 individuals at the WIV were ill with symptoms consistent with COVID and seasonal illnesses is hardly a smoking gun, and so I don't think that the wording should change for now, per WP:NOTNEWS. That said, we shouldn't kneejerk discount the lab leak claims should more definitive evidence emerge, but that has yet to materialise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• • And I guess Science now allows peer-reviewed publication of "conspiracy theories" by David Relman Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable [97] 2601:602:9200:1310:1C00:1701:D1FF:B995 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a letter. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory! The TRUTH is out there!! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Guy Macon WP:NPA applies to you as well. I have no time for the conspiracy that it's intentional, nor do I personally believe it originated in a lab. I happen to think that there's enough coverage to warrant mentioning. Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • There is sero evidence that I was talking about any Wikipedia editor as opposed to making a general statement. The phrase "Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory!" clearly refers to those who believe in conspiracy theories. I have a lot of evidence that such people exist elsewhere on the Internet, but of course no Wikipedia editor has ever believed any conspiracy theory. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Jeppiz: We seem to be mostly in agreement. It is worth mentioning. That's why I've made sure it gets reasonable mentions where it's WP:DUE. However, [this reverted edit] doesn't appear to be due. There's a reason we don't spend much time discussing the details of the zoonotic event on the already incredibly long COVID-19 article, and a reason why we have the entire Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article. Please don't jump to conclusions about these edits, and focus instead on where particular info is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Bakkster Man:, thanks. You're right my edit that you link to may have been too strongly worded. It was a bit provoked by the less-than-optimal revert reason ("crappy sourcing") but I should have been a bit more nuanced myself. I agree WP:DUE is relevant when discussing this hypothesis and it shouldn't be given too much coverage, no argument there. Jeppiz (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
              • @Jeppiz: The "crappy sources" comment, while brusque, was actually probably correct. I'll point out that the original revert comment citing WP:PROFRINGE was probably more appropriate, and the revert afterward returning the content cited the politically-slanted (aka, potential crappy source) National Review.

So why so snippy? Probably because this kind of WP:PROFRINGE stuff (often, but not always, from [[WP:SPA]s) has been so prevalent that maintainers are worn down. But it's all part of the process, we always get better. Next time, let's move it to the talk page and hash it out there civilly first, so the longer term maintainers can help newer editors understand why bits of the article are the way they are, and those with good ideas can present them in a way that can move consensus towards a better article. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It would seem relevant to note that this hypothesis is much better sourced than just the article in WSJ. First and foremost, an article in Science makes the same claim and Science is about as reliable a source as we can get. According to Sydney Morning Hetald this hypothesis is increasingly seen as possible . In addition, Anthony Fauci stated yesterday that this is a possibility Fox. Nothing in this justifie claiming that Covid did originate in a lab, but I see no justification in keeping it out. Experts are quite clearly not sure it can be excluded - so what makes some WP editors so sure they know better than Fauci, the editors of Science and other experts? Jeppiz (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Re "an article in Science makes the same claim and Science is about as reliable a source as we can get" that's a letter to the editor, not a peer reviewed article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any Wikipedia editor has said the idea can be "excluded", and if they did that could be safely ignored since for NPOV we follow what good sources say, not what editors think. If we just reflect what respected, on-point, peer-reviewed, scholarly, secondary sources say we will be good - while taking care not to get sidetracked by journalistic title-tattle and other lesser sources. Alexbrn (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, Hemiauchenia felt entitled to overrule Dr Fauci's cautious position by deleting with the claim "Not true" and referring to Science as "crappy sourcing". That's a rather problematic case of a WP user deciding they know more than the experts. A month ago I would have agreed as the lab leak hypothesis was roundly rejected by experts then. During May, that has changed and leading experts see it as a possibility (nobody is seriously claiming it's been proven). Again, multiple reliable sources reported this development, yet a handful of WP users appear to have assumed that they know better. It is rather concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you'd have misread the sources last month and you're misreading the sources now. The situation has not swung from "excluded" to "included" but has remained at a steady position of being a remote possibility. What seems to have changed is the kind of media coverage and levels of political agitprop (there's some news guy in the USA who's been promoting this I believe?). The actual evidence has not changed; neither have the WP:BESTSOURCES. Wikipedia shouldn't be blown around by the mood in low-quality sources when serious ones are holding firm. Alexbrn (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, claiming that Science, Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald are "low-quality sources" is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about here. It's really time for you to stop putting yourself up as the expert who decides on this (WP:OWN very much applies). Our task here is to report what reliable sources say. Again, nobody has suggested claiming that Covid did originate in a lab, merely that we stop censoring any mention of the hypothesis that it might have done. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald are poor sources for scientific claims. The popular press has a terrible record on accurately reporting scientific topics, and in this case, there's the additional geopolitical factor to consider (American and Australian attitudes towards China in general). If ever there were a subject that cried out for only using the highest-quality sources, it's the lab leak conspiracy theory. We should be sticking to what high-quality WP:MEDRS sources say. If MEDRS sources change, then our coverage will naturally change, but citing MEDPOP sources that contradict MEDRS sources is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there isn't currently no consensus on whether the lab leak hypothesis constitutes a "conspiracy theory" or whether it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". Consensus, obviously, can change in light of new coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but I don't think that the lab leak hypothesis has become less accepted since the time of that RfC. On another note, I agree that we should evaluate this in line with WP:SCHOLARSHIP and that we should strive to use the highest-quality sources available to describe a given topic. News reports that contradict peer-reviewed journal articles should not be given undue weight relating to those facts.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you are either not paying attention or abjectly lying. No one has said that Science is a "low-quality source," they've said that a letter to the editor is a low-quality source. The fact it was published in Science is irrelevant, it's just a letter and that makes it no more reliable than a blog post. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

About this letter in Science. It bemoans that the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident. Why exactly would they be given more "balanced" consideration? To my understanding, analyses over the past year such as this one have generally indicated that zoonotic origin is what the evidence is pointing to and that a lab leak or bioweapon origin is just a hypothesis without current evidence. Now, more investigation would be nice. The WHO did say this was a possible thing that happened. But I don't think they're in the business of chasing fairies, bluntly put. If previous analyses indicated it was highly unlikely, and their investigation indicated that too, they're bound to dedicate more resources to investigating the more likely. I would also like to point out that while a lab leak (as perhaps an intermediary between a zoonotic origin and an outbreak, if I worded that correctly) and a bioweapon origin (the pet conspiracy theory of some) are different, the distinction is not totally clear to much of the public and some advocates of the latter conspiracy theory seem to be promoting the former so they can get a boost for the bioweapon idea.

Anyhow, this is all to say: I think this letter in Science, aside from not being an actual scientific paper, fundamentally has misread the situation. Previous scientific analyses are to my understanding why the WHO has given one theory more weight. --Chillabit (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• This Reuters article is unreliable for medical claims. Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS standards. It's just more circumstantial evidence. The WSJ used as their source a U.S. government intelligence report. The U.S. government has a history of lying about COVID-19 issues (Trump and Pompeo in particular, but at this point I don't trust the U.S. government at all on this issue). Interestingly, Fauci has been more open to the lab leak idea lately. But even with Fauci changing his mind, him making unofficial statements and giving his personal opinion is not MEDRS. I think that sticking to MEDRS has been great for keeping conspiracy theories out of the encyclopedia, and I would not be comfortable speaking more positively about the lab leak idea in Wikivoice until we get a review article from a MEDLINE-indexed journal that speaks about it credibly. So far, no such article exists that I am aware of. Of course, this issue is complicated because this is a case of there being a massive disagreement between what medical journals are saying, and what WP:NEWSORGS are saying. But I feel that we should stick to MEDRS to the letter here. MEDRS is our best and most accurate way to evaluate scientific consensus, and I trust scientists way more than non-scientists on this highly-politicized issue that has government manipulation fingerprints all over it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• To mirror the above simply: it may be a reliable source that several people from a particular workplace were hospitalized at a particular time, but the source does not link this illness to COVID-19 and therefor is almost certainly inappropriate WP:SYNTH to include in the locations people want to include it. I'll also note, the WSJ is citing an intelligence report, which those most skeptical of the Joint WHO-China study's findings should take with an equally large grain of salt. Best to independently verify such an illness, as the source the WSJ reported on could itself be WP:DISINFO. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not even a reliable source for that. Anonymous intelligence sources making vague claims are not reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• First of all: this is not a biomedical claim per WP:BMI and therefore WP:MEDRS should not be required to source such a statement (otherwise we would need a review to publish anything on this subject). In this case we just need reliable sources per WP:RS. Secondly: it is important to distinguish the conspiracy theory that the virus was created purposefully in a laboratory from the very realistic and plausible theory that the virus is of natural origin but accidentally escaped from a lab that was studying it. This second theory is a possible origin for the virus and is being investigated by the WHO as a possible origin for the virus [98] The WHO considers this a possible although "extremely unlikely" origin for the pandemic (this would also be a WP:MEDRS source by the way). Also, this estimation has been heavily criticised in this recently published letter on science which states: [99] As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. The mentioned sources are accusing the WHO of not investigating sufficiently the accidental lab leak hypothesis and believe China is not being sufficiently transparent. Therefore: the accidental lab leak hypothesis is scientifically sound and considered possible by the WHO, the scientific community and several major world governments. There is substantial consensus that it should be thoroughly investigated further and may very well be the origin of the pandemic (which is currently unknown). Wikipedia's articles should reflect this consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I've been aiming to make sure that the relevant articles do reflect that the scientific theory gets its due credibility (particularly, that it is possible, albeit unlikely) on the pages it's WP:DUE. Where do you think this isn't done?

More to the point, you've indicated a lot of significantly better sources directly related to the topic. Why do you think this source, which comes from an intel agency and doesn't directly reference COVID, is a more WP:RS than those others? That's the questions here, not whether the lab leak happened or not, just what sources are reliable regarding the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I think it isn't clear exactly what claim that source is being attached to. It is a WP:RS however. If we want to use it to claim that Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report. this is appropriate. Only where such detail would be WP:DUE obviously. I think we should add the overall assessment about the virus origin to the COVID-19 consensus notice to avoid such discussions repeating forever: the virus that causes COVID-19 is believed to have zoonotic origins. How the virus was first transmitted to humans (spillover) is currently unknown. Accidental lab release is one of the possible hypotheses being investigated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The original post here referred specifically to whether it's a reliable source for the purposes of changing the above articles to give more credence to the lab leak theory. So far I haven't seen anyone present them accurately for this purpose either: "WSJ shared information from a US intelligence report that researchers were hospitalized in November" is reliable sourcing (questions of DUE depending on the location), but "the lab leak hypothesis is increasingly compelling" is not reliable sourcing (let alone DUE or NPOV).

I agree that consensus would be good, but where that discussion starts and whether we reach an actual consensus seems less certain to me. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: In that sense I think no, this source does not add anything as we have better sources. We can source the accidental lab leak using the better sources that exist (WHO, Science, etc.). We should use those. But this discussion has derailed at this point. I think it would be helpful to collect some consensus into the COVID-19 consensus notice to avoid repeating discussions such as this one ad nauseam. We can wait the end of this discussion or maybe table it on the COVID-19 Wikiproject talk page? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Agreed, this discussion isn't going to change anything. Regarding an RfC, I'd participate but don't have high hopes. The previous RfC (on the misinfo page, which prob didn't help) didn't get anywhere, and we now have the WHO report and current status quo (zoonosis is mainstream, inadvertant leak is fringe, intentional release is conspiracy) that I can't imagine would change given an RfC that hasn't already been hashed out across multiple Talk pages. Maybe worth trying, in order to hope we could point to consensus for later conversations, I just doubt it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Statements about China emanating from the US government (including Fauci) that are not supported by hard evidence are completely unreliable. Someone (I forget who) said that in war the first casualty is truth. That's also true of cold wars, such as currently between the US and China, with both political parties in the US competing to establish their anti-China bona fides. China similarly circulates conspiracy theories about the US that are properly discounted on Wikipedia. Neither government is reliable for such matters. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A bit beside the point, but I fear it would a rather strong false equivalence to claim that US officials, even non-politicale experts, should be treated as no more reliable than the Chinese government. I'm certainly not saying the US are always right, but there's a considerable difference between a democracy with a free press and a one-party dictatorship with state-censored media. Jeppiz (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no historical basis for claiming that US officials are more reliable for extraordinary, politically charged accusations such as this than officials of any other country. See Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When both major parties in the US unite in demonizing a rival government, normally the "independent" press largely falls in line, free press notwithstanding. In such cases one can often find reliable coverage in Western (such as Canadian or British) media, but rarely in the mainstream US media, no matter how reliable those US media sources are for other matters. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable for MEDRS claims, which this is. The point raised above about WP:SYNTH is also appropriate. And no, letters to the editor of Science are not the same as peer-reviewed journal articles published in Science, let alone review articles. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - there's people here linking to WP:BMI as "proof" that this isn't a biomedical claim that requires MEDRS. Maybe we should quote the longstanding consensus text of that page here: Population data and epidemiology. If we include this information, we are by necessity implying that it's connected to COVID-19 - meaning we are implying a connection to the population data and epidemiology of the beginning of the pandemic. That's not allowed. If we don't make that connection, then it's not due weight to include in any of our articles about COVID-19 because it's not connected in any way (at least not that we can MEDRS). That's why this is a MEDRS issue - because if we assume it's not a MEDRS issue, then we cannot make any BMI claims with it, and then we arrive at a due weight issue that is impossible to repair, thus the only feasible way this content could be included is if it is MEDRS sourced and related to the epidemiology of the disease. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Some people caught a disease last year" isn't epidemiological data any more than the statements Based on remarks by Plutarch, Caesar is sometimes thought to have suffered from epilepsy. [100], or In October 2017 the deadliest outbreak of the plague in modern times hit Madagascar, killing 170 people and infecting thousands. [101], the latter is sourced to the Wall Street Journal. The statement On 7 July 2020, Bolsonaro said that he had tested positive for COVID-19. [102] is sourced to CNN. Geogene (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Until we have a MEDRS source that these people were actually sick with COVID-19 (let alone that they were exposed due to an escape of lab-culture viruses), then it doesn't matter how strong the source is for claims that three people went to the hospital. It doesn't belong on the COVID articles without a better source indicating the link (that would be WP:SYNTH and WP:PROFRINGE). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There are SYNTH, WEIGHT, and overall source quality issues with it, and that's sufficient without trying to misapply MEDRS as a cudgel. Geogene (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of playing out the hypothetical, what kind of situation would you envision where such a claim could be sourced without MEDRS while discussing the origin of the outbreak? Because on the one hand, I agree that for the purpose of identifying early cases (generally confirmed via PCR test) we have appropriately used general purpose (non-MEDRS) sources. It's the use for "see, the virus did leak from the WIV" claims that I feel should be held to the higher MEDRS standard. Because then it's no longer just a historical retelling of the pandemic (not MEDRS), it's a specific claim about the epidemiological source of the outbreak (MEDRS). But I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Geogene. This isn't BMI. The origin of the pandemic will not be discovered through "science" at this point. If it was accidentally released from a lab we would find out through a newspaper/authority investigation more likely. Not though published reviews in medical journals. This is an historical event at this point. Not a medical event. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, um, what? No. You have that backwards - the origin hasn't been determined through science yet, but it will be determined through science, and after it is determined through science it will then within a couple years be historical. To say that a pandemic that is still ongoing is a "historical event" is laughable, at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been the PR:PROFRINGE POV-pushers gambit of late, certainly. I recall some (now banned?) editor pushing the view that COVID-19 was rampant in California in 2019 as sourcable by anything because it was "history"! Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: If the spillover event happened in a lab you will need an investigation. Not peer-reviewed papers. You'll probably discover it by interrogating people and examining (obfuscated) records at this point. The history of the pandemic is not WP:BMI. How the virus originated has no impact on human health. The virus exists no matter how it originated and its impacts on human health are unchanged. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, BMI is not limited to things that have some "direct impact on human health". And yes, investigations into the origin of a disease (when ongoing and not cemented) do have a direct impact - if a lab leak is discovered or believed, it is going to lead to changes/re-certifications/updates in medical and laboratory practices around the world. So even that argument falls flat. But no, something that isn't fully decided yet is not "historical" by any means. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto:, I have to tell you, this is a favorite gambit for the conspiracy-friendly in my experience. Push the goal posts so that even if a credible investigation is done and clears the Wuhan lab, some can continue to say "Well China just destroyed the evidence!" That's why I would tell you instead, that any useful or credibly investigation would state its goals ahead of time, and what evidence it would find convincing in either direction. And it would also include sampling in the wild, to actually find progenitor viruses. If we eventually develop a fully fleshed out parsimonious phylogeny that connects known bat viruses to SARS-CoV-2, that will be enough to settle the science and the consensus will show through. That will be published in a scientific journal. But it probably won't be enough for politicians and POV-pushers. We've seen this game before in the story of evolution v. intelligent design. For some people, there will likely never be enough evidence. Doesn't mean that the dust won't eventually settle for 99% of society, though. The truth will likely be published in an evolutionary virology journal, which details the exact path of viral evolution that led to this spillover. It's how it happened with Ebola, it's how it happened with SARS. It will likely be the same for SARS-CoV-2.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BMI: Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health.. The whole point of WP:MEDRS is to raise the standard for sourcing of BMI to ensure we don't use single papers but reviews and avoid inaccurate information that might be dangerous for human health. Are you saying that if a peer reviewed article was published on Science tomorrow with conclusive evidence of the origin of the virus it would not be sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is not a systematic review? That's what WP:MEDRS says. There is no direct risk for human health here if the virus is a bioweapon as the conspiracies say or if the virus was caught by someone eating a pangolin. WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCE are sufficient. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS does not preclude the use of non-review articles for medical topics, it simply establishes a hierarchy of evidence, like we have for all other RS. Especially when primary articles are secondarily reviewing content such as in introductions and discussions. It's a lot muddier than you're making it sound. MEDRS also, by the way, includes position statements from national or international expert bodies, which almost certainly would follow any such publication, and be the best possible source to establish the consensus of scientists on scientific questions. You go with the RSes you have, until you have better. Regarding the specific nature of the viral origin (sequence similarity to a sample found in a lab, biochemical aspects of the viral spike protein, contact tracing, identifying similar viruses in an animal, etc. basically all of epidemiology and epidemiological investigations), clearly the best source would be secondary comments published in scientific journals, which occur at the same time as primary source publication. Example: New finding. Comment on that finding. Secondary commentary and follow-up reviews in scientific journals make sense for these questions, because they are questions of science. And the reviews/position statements that follow shortly thereafter would trump both. You also say There is no direct risk for human health here, and that may be true. But the direct in that sentence is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. There are a number of studies directly linking these conspiracy theories to vaccine distrust and overall devaluation of experts, which both result in demonstrable negative health outcomes. What we say matters in things like this. Using the highest quality RS, and for questions of science, MEDRS, makes sense.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: While reasonable minds might differ, given the prevalence of conspiracy and misinformation around the topic, I think this can reasonably be perceived as relating to human health. From the American Academy of Family Physicians: Many members of the public, including HCWs, have been exposed to conspiracy theories (especially on social media) such as the claims that novel coronavirus was intentionally created by the government or that health organizations have exaggerated COVID-19’s lethality for pharmaceutical and political gain. Such misinformation calls into question authorities’ integrity and undermines efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.[103] At least in an instance where MEDRS sources are at odds with news media sources, this seems reasonable to prefer the MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

{re|Bakkster Man}}@Shibbolethink: I agree with both. Of course we should always strive for the WP:BESTSOURCE available. This is an example. We already have the WHO (which is WP:MEDRS) and a letter to Science (which while not peer-reviewed is a pretty good source) stating that the accidental lab leak hypothesis is possible (the WHO specifically thinks it is "possible but extremely unlikely"). We don't need lesser sources (such as this one). We already have pretty strong and solid scientific consensus. However my point is: I wouldn't stretch WP:MEDRS to cover such a topic. It is unnecessary and a bad precedent. We just need good WP:RS (as always) and should just pick the best ones available of course. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, "some people caught a disease last year" isn't due weight for any article on Wikipedia. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• This remains a simple question of truth versus WP:V. The WP:V answer is that it was not a lab leak, for reasons explained here. Logic and reason say that it was a lab leak, for reasons explained here. By adopting the policies that we have chosen to adopt, we are putting false info into our articles. That's on us. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  We operate on scientific consensus for WP:V - which is why the answer is it was not a lab leak. Regardless of the flimsy science with many holes that you believe (and a few scientists believe), the vast majority of scientists agree that it isn't likely to be a lab leak. It's not "logic and reason" - it's "flimsy logic, and logical fallacies". But yes, it is Wikipedia's policy that Verifiability over "truth" - and it's not appropriate to use individual discussions about application of those policies to attempt to change them just because you think it's "false info" (hint: it's not). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. We don't get to throw out bedrock policies whenever we feel like it. Invoking "logic and reason" like this is no better than "wake up sheeple!". XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have, never once, in my entire life, ever seen an argument of the form "logic and reason say X" in which the actual logic and reason to which the arguer is referring isn't just complete and total crap, hence why they insist upon making such generic pronouncements as "logic and reason say X". And yes, that includes literally every time Ben Shapiro has used the phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about specific changes on the page, but the source per se (and other sources that say the same, i.e. CNN, etc.) are strong RS. Whatever they say about it should be included per WP:NPOV. This is NOT a medical claim and not a scientific claim. This is merely a question if a lab worked with the certain bats or certain zoonotic virus during certain period of time. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Let's not forget the spirit and the meaning of WP:MEDRS. What if someone is using our articles as a medical advice, will be misinformed and will damage his health. But whatever had happen in the lab has no any practical health implications whatsoever. People should vaccinate just the same, etc. This is merely a political controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, claims about the origin of a disease are considered biomedical information per the explanatory WP:BMI that has consensus. Epidemiological information for active or recent epidemics is certainly MEDRS required. MEDRS isn't about individuals necessarily reading, but it's about presenting the best possible information about medically relevant topics. It's not historical yet by any means. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to WP:MEDRS WP:BMI (What is biomedical information?), it does include "Population data and epidemiology", i.e. (explanation) "Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc." Yes, this is certainly a biomedical information, no questions. It also tells "What is not biomedical information?", and in that part it includes such things as "Beliefs", "History", "Society", etc. As it stands right now, the "lab origin hypothesis" does not belong to science (including epidemiology). This is just a claim by spies, an urban legend, personal beliefs, a hypothetical possibility, etc. This is not biomedical information, and it has no implication on epidemiology (mortality rates, transmission rates). Speaking, on the origin of disease (also a biomedical information), this is a zoonotic disease. If it was studied in a lab does not affect this conclusion at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  You may have meant to link to WP:BMI, as you are quoting extensively from it. It's hard to tell, but it seems you might be arguing that studying the origin and transmission of a disease is not the purview of epidemiology. It is. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. In addition, WP:BMI is an explanatory supplement that hasn't necessarily had every single turn of phrase exhaustively vetted (though its advice is generally sensible). XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, I just said (see above): "Speaking, on the origin of disease (also a biomedical information), this is a zoonotic disease. If it was studied in a lab does not affect this conculsion at all.". So whatever was published in the scientific literature on the origin of the virus can be used for sourcing scientific aspects of this. But whatever was published in WSJ or CNN on political aspect of the contoversy (this is neither science nor medicine) can be use for covering the political aspects (and such aspects are defined as "What is not biomedical information?" in WP:BMI). My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: This is merely a question if a lab worked with the certain bats or certain zoonotic virus during certain period of time. This is the issue, the actual source (that is, the US Intelligence report) doesn't seem to state anything about COVID-19, making the connection WP:SYNTH. Even if the source is reliable, it can't be used if the topic is UNDUE or attempting to SYNTH a connection the source doesn't make.

What if someone is using our articles as a medical advice, will be misinformed and will damage his health. But whatever had happen in the lab has no any practical health implications whatsoever. People should vaccinate just the same, etc. Given that one of the conspiracy theories regards intentional engineering and release of the virus in order to sell vaccines (including variants where the vaccine is more nefarious than just profiteering), we should be careful not to dismiss the potential harm here. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with My very best wishes here. If I'm not mistaken the reason why we have strict MEDRS policy is the concern that readers may decide to use medical information they read on Wikipedia to make medical choices for themselves that could result in harm. Misinformation claiming a number of harmful, mercury related, effects of thiomersal might lead some readers to decide to avoid vaccines that use thiomersal as a preservative. However, in a case like the lab leak conspiracy, I'm having trouble seeing how readers would be harmed if we said, 100% true, 100% false or anywhere in between. Certainly scholarly works and opinions of experts (with attribution) are our best sources in a case like this but I don't see how the stated (and very sound) reason for having a MEDRS standard vs our standard RS policies apply in this case. Springee (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The potential harm that Bakkster Man outlined seems entirely plausible to me. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That people might think this was a scam to raise money? In that case should we apply the same standard to any article about finance and investing? I mean there is a possibility that someone will consult Wikipedia for the beam stiffness equation, get it wrong and over estimate the strength of a bridge they are designing for personal use. I think that example crosses out of the legitimate concern over bad medical information in our articles. That is far different than if our article on poison ivy were to suggest concentrated bleach is an effective itch relief. Springee (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that we do, in fact, have elevated standards that come into play regarding finance and investing, like stringent notability rules that apply to financial organizations and general sanctions regarding cryptocurrencies, largely because the hazards of Wikipedia promoting a scam would be high. But, more to the point, conspiracy theories about medicine erode trust in medical expertise, which leads to people making bad health decisions. (Why get a vaccine if you think the disease is caused by 5G radio emissions?) MEDRS is about playing it safe, and I don't see a reason to be less cautious with one aspect of epidemiology than another. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've been following closely the information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 on Wikipedia since March 2020, and the switch in editors' reaction on US Intelligence information is incredible. I remember vividly that last year US Intelligence was disregarded as unreliable, and many editors called out their reports as a "push to cover their own failures". It was unreliable when Trump was in power, what has changed since then? Are we, as wikipedia editors, changing our degree of confidence of sources based on whether we like the politics of the person in charge? It seems like, if Trump runs office, we don't trust US Intelligence. If Tedros is in office we trust WHO no matter what. If Biden gets in office, we suddenly trust US Intelligence again, and if tomorrow Redfield gets appointed as head of the WHO, we will begin to find them unreliable. I feel we need to be more honest about our own biases when discussing sources. For example, the abrupt closing of this discussion about WHO's credibility was a clear sign of editors judging sources by their personal compass, instead of what is an objective objection raised by reliable sources. Forich (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Forich, I agree - but I'll note that I've always said we should wait for scientific consensus statements, not political intelligence statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Who's trusting US intelligence? To quote the WSJ story: Current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed differing views about the strength of the supporting evidence for the assessment. One person said that it was provided by an international partner and was potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and additional corroboration. With the provenance of this "intel" up in the air, questions about the relative trustworthiness or lack thereof between administrations seem beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @XOR'easter:, let me break it down with an analogy: US Intelligence says in 2020: The sky is blue -> most WP editors dismiss the information as a push from Trump to cover his failures. Then, US Intelligence says in 2021: The sky is blue -> WP editors accept the quote as representative of what the US Intelligence believes, and proceeds to discuss whether the sky is indeed blue. This means that we discontinued our distrust on the source, without any change in the written guidelines on the RS Noticeboard, which suggest we had hidden considerations in the first place. Either admit editors were wrong in 2020 distrusting US Intelligence outright, or concede that we should continue to distrust US Intelligence, so that their new report should be invalid even for the claim that 3 people were found sick. Forich (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable, but only for what the source is actually saying: that according to a US intelligence report some people in Wuhan had covid-like symptoms. Since the source mentions it in the context of the covid epidemic, it's not an improper synthesis and can be mentioned in the relevant articles. However it needs to be given due weight, considering that anonymous US intelligence reports turned out to be wrong more than once in the last few years. (The part in cursive has been added later to the response) Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not reliable for that claim. It's only reliable for the claim that anonymous US officials claim that they have intelligence suggesting that WIV researchers went to the hospital. Whether those officials actually have that intelligence, what the intelligence might actually be, whether this is disinformation, etc. is completely unknown. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. We can't even say "covid-like symptoms" - we could at most say that they had non-specific symptoms that could've been COVID but just as likely have been some other seasonal illness such as influenza. And we don't even have access to the primary source used to verify if even that's okay! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't know if any element of the officials' claims is true. Unsubstantiated claims by anonymous officials have a poor track record of turning out to be true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing with each other here - the point of my last sentence is that this is source laundering at its best. We are taking what nobody would consider reliable for any reason (an anonymous report that three people were hospitalized) and treating it as potentially reliable just because reliable sources have repeated it. It shouldn't be used for anything at this point - but certainly not to suggest 3 people had COVID. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's a good point, I agree with it and I've edited my original response (see the cursive part). Alaexis_¿question? 05:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that part of the difficulty here is that it is important to understand why we have MEDRS. There is an excellent essay WP:WMEDRS and probably a few others. Biology is difficult. Medicine, especially human medicine, is at least an order of magnitude more difficult. But when you scale it up to the level of big-picture public health, which is where epidemiology belongs, the complexity increases even further. No one individual is really capable of properly synthesizing things at this level, intuition can be even worse than random guessing, even among experts. So for this sort of thing, you need to gather virologists, epidemiologists, public health administrators and policy/regulatory analysts, pulmonologists, emergency physicians, data analysts, and I know I'm leaving some people out.

  What does this mean and what is my point? Taking a few quotes from an interview, or a journalist's report, or even a letter from a few experts, is not very helpful. We need to be relying on systematic reviews and government agency reports. MEDRS says we need to do this, and I could just keep wikilawyering that point, but I'm trying to explain to non-specialist editors why this is so important, because those are the only sources that are going to be considering all of these angles together and synthesize them for us. Consider the parable of the five blind men and the elephant, that is the problem of relying on primary sources when no single source is really capable of seeing the entire elephant on its own. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• reliable per Alaexis( somethings got to give, this should be ok...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable News Corp (the owners of WSJ) has continuously pushed unreliable content regarding China and COVID-19: [104] [105]. It is also important to note that in China, the hospital is used as primary care, and it is commonplace to go there for minor illnesses such as cold & flu. This fact is also mentioned in the WSJ article. Because of these two reasons, I would say the WP:SYNTH that WSJ claims that the hospitalizations have links to COVID is not reliable and should not be used. Jumpytoo Talk 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ article is commenting on the report from the US [106] and not directly on the China situation. It is improper to question the WSJ on reliability in this specific area related to US politics, but we do have to recognize that the statements made by the report or the people the WSJ spoke to related to the virus outbreak should clearly not be treated as MEDRS to alter the perception of the lab leak story. --Masem (t) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ is one of the most highly-regarded newspapers in the world and has won 37 Pulitzer prizes as of 2019. Its editorial board is independent from that of other News Corp Publications, and we allow for different levels of reliability for different sources published by the same corporation. The question of general reliability (which this response points towards) is whether a source has a reputation for editorial independence, strong fact checking, and accuracy in reporting. The WSJ cearly does. The question of whether or not it has specific issues with general reliability as it pertains to COVID-19 would need to point to evidence that it lacks editorial independence, strong fact checking, or accuracy in reporting. I don't see evidence of that here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as a news source (not a MEDRS), unusable due to other issues in this specific context The real problem isn't that WSJ isn't reliable or biased in matters regarding US politics or whatever. Even if we ignore everything about MEDRS, the issue is that the only thing the WSJ has which could be usable basically boils down to "based on a US intelligence report (with many question marks about said report attached), some people in Wuhan were sick with some undetermined illness in late 2019". Placing this in any article about COVID would be misrepresenting the source (unless we spent a couple sentences explaining the many issues with the alleged intelligence report, which would be UNDUE and quite frankly NOTNEWS-level of excessive) and would lead the readers to make the improper synthesis that the sickness was COVID (a claim not supported by the source). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• For those who might have a distaste for Science publications, here is what they have on letters: Letters (up to 300 words) discuss material published in Science in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal (https://cts.sciencemag.org). Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply. Letter submissions are acknowledged upon receipt by Science’s automatic system, but letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters rejected for print publication may be posted as eLetters. And considering the controversial nature of the topic, I am sure the 13-author letter was not peer reviewed before publication into Science. Seems like some wikiactivists think they have more expertise than editors there. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  We're not discussing the Science letter. "May be reviewed" does not mean "was reviewed" and certainly does not imply peer-review. Re. "activists": let's not even get started about the Twitter activists who've found their way over here, shall we? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment seems like a lot of the "unreliable" commenters here are ignoring the current status quo: "the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus" and "unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology". Meanwhile, US intelligence, Fauci, and a few tenured professors argue for investigations into the "unfounded speculation". The current versions do not allude at all that "mainstream" entities/individuals think that the "conspiracy theories and unfounded speculations" should be investigated further, and instead, imply a close and shut case. Very wp:NPOV. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Arguing for further investigations does not change what MEDRS say, which is that current evidence does not support the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. Asking a scientist whether there should be further investigations is a lot like asking a realtor whether this is a good time to buy a house. The answer is always "yes, please spend lots of money on this, preferably into my pocket". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — I'd like to note that this incident about researchers at this lab falling ill actually isn't terribly hot-off-the-presses new information. Here is brief March 2021 report in NBC News where Marion Koopmans (part of the WHO team) alludes to such a thing, but also says evidence does not indicate a lab leak (among other things said). The main distinction I notice is that the WSJ says three researchers were ill and Koopmans says "one or two". I think this is probably pertinent to the discussion. At the very least, the amount of people fallen ill appears to be in dispute; even in this NBC report you have the State Department seemingly (?) disagreeing and their language implies they place the number a bit higher than Koopmans' estimate. --Chillabit (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for its news reporting on this issue. The WSJ is one of the world's most reputable news publications, and while it's not a WP:MEDRS, it's certainly reliable to source the claim that U.S. intelligence reports said X. It's not clear to me that origins of a particular virus actually fall under WP:MEDRS; this would lead to an odd situation where the origin of biological species that do not cause human disease (i.e. tobacco mosaic virus) would have different reliable sourcing requirements regarding its origins as a virus species than would E. Coli regarding its origins as a species of bacteria. The motivation for WP:MEDRS is described within the guideline, which says that Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. In this framework, it doesn't seem to me that origin is itself biomedical information; it certainly intersects with biology, but origin itself doesn't appear to be related to human health per se. The study of the origin of E. Coli as a unique species, for example, doesn't describe any information pertaining to human health, whereas the symptoms of and treatments for infections of E. Coli. The same logic should apply to SARS-CoV-2; the biomedical information is the information that pertains to human health, not the information that pertains to the virus origin per se. It's certainly better to use peer-reviewed journals and academic scholarship on the topic than secondary-source analyses published in reliable newspapers (and certainly more than primary-source pieces published in reliable newspapers), so weight should be reflected in a manner consistent with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But, I don't think that applying WP:MEDRS here is warranted, as the origin of the disease itself doesn't appear to fall within that guideline's scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: I agree with you that the news report is a reliable source (for its content). The issue is that the information provided could not be included without either A) putting excessive weight on the report by also having to include all the doubts with it [along with explaining to our readers that there is absolutely no concrete evidence the illness in question was actually COVID] or B) being misleading to our readers by not explaining the doubts and leaving them with the false impression the illness was actually COVID [because the sentence would be in an article about COVID...]. Hence, as I said, "Reliable, but unusable due to other concerns". As for applying MEDRS, I'm going to shamelessly copy from myself (here) and say that the existing guidelines about using the best sources available (especially in topics where there is some controversy about a scientific topic) naturally lead to the use of WP:MEDRS (or at least, topic relevant academic literature: one wouldn't use a paper about engineering to source a random historical fact; neither should we use papers about (for ex.) cancer research to source claims about virology). Ignoring the fact that analysing a virus' genome, comparing it with existing ones, studying possible spillover events, ... is clearly something which requires scientific expertise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: I'd agree that it would be odd to use the particular WSJ article as evidence in a discussion to move the lab leak hypothesis's classification, but the most recent RfC on this found no consensus on whether a lab leak was WP:FRINGE. I also don't think that WP:MEDRS are always the best potential sources here; if it were to emerge, through investigative reporting, that lab safety records had indicated a lab leak or that there were internal local government documents indicating a lab leak, I think it would be perfectly fine to use the reporting. Investigative reporting by news agencies obviously fail to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. But, I do think that there could exist the sorts of situations where this distinction between it being a good practice to use medical journals and it being the only acceptable practice could manifest.

That being said, this WSJ piece does not provide any sort of detailed investigative reporting along those lines. I agree that we should use caution here, given that extent of the sourcing is a U.S. government report whose confidence is internally unclear. It's probably reliable for a statement that U.S. intelligence indicated that there were some hospitalizations of researchers at the lab with COVID-19-like symptoms in the month of November 2019 and for the statement that The Wuhan Institute hasn’t shared raw data, safety logs and lab records on its extensive work with coronaviruses in bats, which many consider the most likely source of the virus. I'd also note that there appears to be some recent reporting from The Washington Post on the timeline of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis that's different and more recent from what we have in our COVID-19 misinformation article. We probably want to review that section a little more in-depth to better reflect public reporting (especially in existing areas in the section that already rely heavily upon public reporting), though that's a topic for a different discussion altogether. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Despite the people insisting otherwise, the Wall Street Journal story does not actually grant any more credence to the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. There is not a single word in that article that does. Anyone attempting to use it as such is engaging in the sort of novel synthesis that we discourage at Wikipedia. This discussion is pointless because, while the WSJ is a perfectly reliable source, the story in question is entirely irrelevant as a source for the information people are proposing we use it for. --Jayron32 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This conversation is frustratingly out-of-date. First: It is far from novel synthesis to cite WSJ reporting on the lab leak theory. Consider this article, which is more recent and in-depth than the one currently under discussion. It reads, with emphasis added:

Extended quotes

"Now, unanswered questions about the miners’ illness, the viruses found at the site and the research done with them have elevated into the mainstream an idea once dismissed as a conspiracy theory: that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, the city where the first cases were found in December 2019. The lab researchers thus far haven’t provided full and prompt answers, and there have been discrepancies in some information they have released. That has led to demands by leading scientists for a deeper investigation into the Wuhan institute and whether the pandemic virus could have been in its labs and escaped. Even some senior public-health officials who consider that possibility improbable now back the idea of a fuller probe. They say a World Health Organization-led team had insufficient access in Wuhan earlier this year to reach its conclusion that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely.” Most of those calling for a fuller examination of the lab hypothesis say they aren’t backing it over the main alternative—that the virus spread from animals to humans outside a lab, in the kind of natural spillover that has become more frequent in recent decades. There isn’t yet enough evidence for either idea, they say, nor are the two incompatible. The virus could have been one of natural origin that was brought back to a laboratory in Wuhan—intentionally or accidentally—and escaped." and later: Last year, 27 scientists signed an open letter condemning “conspiracy theories” suggesting that Covid-19 didn’t have a natural origin. Now, three of them since contacted by the Journal say that on further reflection a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration. Others continue to deem it too unlikely to justify investigation.

Also note the Fauci and Gottlieb statements, as well as the letter from Science, which was signed by several leading virologists. Who, exactly, is engaged in synthesis here? Editors noting a clear, marked turn both in RS and among scientific experts, both of whom are beginning to allow that the lab-leak theory is indeed plausible enough to merit investigation? Or those clinging to the state of affairs circa Spring 2020, however unverifiable and out-of-date, and flinging every WP rule in the book at those seeking to introduce obviously relevant evidence? 67.245.37.188 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a prime example of why we don't use WP:MEDPOP. "Elevated into the mainstream" is just plain wrong. Maybe in some newspapers and in the realm of political grandstanding. In scientific matters, quite clearly no. At least, I've done a thorough search through MEDRS sources and if anything the origin of the virus is unanimously considered to be zoonotic (with some details still requiring further investigation). See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling; and then you can also make a search at Pubmed to look for relevant papers (example query). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To add, keeping to even the reliable mainstream sources, all we can get out of this is not a new take on the lab leak theory, but only that some subset of scientists and politicians would like a second review of the research/study that was done to back the original WHO report that made the assessment that it was very much likely not a lab leak. Or more shortly, they're just saying these groups want a second opinion. That doesn't negate how WP should handle the WHO report per RS/MEDRS, simply how we wrap up the governmental and respect to the report. --Masem (t) 13:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

67.245's quotes above are evidence that the bullshit lab leak story exists. They, however, have little effect on changing the stance that it is bullshit. There is the key difference. There is an attempt to equate "a lot of people are commenting on a bullshit story" with "actually, it isn't bullshit". Nothing in any of their quotes has ANY clear conclusion on the second point. Noting that some people have been taken in by the bullshit is not, in itself, a refutation that it is bullshit. The WSJ knows this, which is why its reporting on this is not "There is evidence that the lab leak theory is true". Their reporting on this is "Some people believe that the lab leak theory is true". You can't use the second idea as proof of the first. THAT is novel synthesis. --Jayron32 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• clinging to the state of affairs circa Spring 2020 is not what's happening. The lab leak hypothesis wasn't even mentioned on most of these pages beyond as a conspiracy theory until earlier this year. So the pages already reflect the shift in mainstream weight, these sources don't change that evaluation IMO. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lends no more credence to the theory - There's actually a great deal of evidence that the WSJ story is based on rehashed and repackaged disinformation spread by third parties with no connection to Wuhan. Overall, there is very little *actual evidence* to back up the unsubstantiated claims. See this twitter thread and this surprisingly on point NY Post piece. Psaki is saying this is not a CIA report, or official intelligence. It's the inter-governmental equivalent of a rumor. I think until we have an RS quoting a primary source that has evidence of multiple covid-19-like illnesses in a reasonable proximity to the outbreak, it doesn't belong in any article except as a passing note in Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per the Washington Post, the lab leak hypothesis is no longer a conspiracy theory or unfounded, it's now credible. [107] Geogene (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article this morning. Among the highly reliable sources they cite are the Daily Mail, Mike Pompeo's Twitter feed, and random essays published on Medium. I cancelled my subscription an hour after reading it (not joking). Hyperion35 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which has any bearing on whether WaPo is a reliable source (it is). Why does the WP:MED clique even use noticeboards, when all you do here is argue and bludgeon everyone that disagrees with you? Geogene (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment media sources labeling this a conspiracy theory a year ago is adding editor's notes into those 1-year old articles Example: Editor’s note, May 24, 2021: Since this piece was originally published in March 2020, scientific consensus has shifted. Now some experts say the “lab leak” theory warrants an investigation, along with the natural origin theory. Some language in this article was updated in April 2020 to reflect scientific thinking, but it has not been updated since then. For our most up-to-date coverage, visit Vox’s coronavirus hub. Even wikiactivists' preferred biased news sources are telling said wikiactivists that it's ok to label this as something else than a "conspiracy theory". 2601:602:9200:1310:4065:8EBB:AD8:41E6 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for there being a hypothesis. This isn't a medical claim, this possibility is given serious weight by news organizations. All these serious sources, however, just keep it as a possibility, and that's really all that can be said about this possibility at this time. Whether something came from a lab handling wild animals, a seafood market handling wild animals, or cave bats is not a medical claim affecting human health. Whereever this came from, it doesn't affect the medical diagnosis of those afflicted.--Hippeus (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hippeus, affecting a diagnosis is not the only potential harm that can come from medical information. This is quite clearly covered under "epidemiology" of WP:BMI, an explanatory page that nobody has provided any reason for violating. As others have pointed out, vaccine uptake has been hampered by these conspiracy theories - which is clearly harmful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  User:Berchanhimez, to the contrary, read What_is_not_biomedical_information? where you link. The origin of this disease falls within histoy, legal, regulations, and ethics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the disease itself. It is not "Attributes of a disease or condition", "Attributes of a treatment or drug", "Medical decisions", "Health effects", "Population data and epidemiology", or "Biomedical research". Specifically "Population data and epidemiology" states: "Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc.", it does not refer to historical data and specifically not pre-human history. The origins of COVID have nothing to do with treatment or diagnosis - treatment and prognosis are the same where ever this came from.--Hippeus (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Something can't be historical before it's even known. That's inane to suggest that current investigations are "historical" somehow. And again, BMI does not only cover things that affect "treatment and prognosis" directly. But even if you think it is, there are many people who have vaccine hesitancy or make other choices based on their belief as to the origin - so it clearly does affect those things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Origin shouldn't affect the beliefs of people on treatment and vaccines, if people were rational. People aren't rational. However, What_is_not_biomedical_information? specifically excludes Beliefs, including "why people choose or reject a particular treatment". I personally would take a vaccine whether this came from Mars, a seafood market, a lab, or a bat cave. Other people maybe aren't so rational. But rationality of people isn't biomedical, beliefs aren't biomedical.--Hippeus (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  But we aren't talking about beliefs, nor historical information. Something can't be historical when it isn't even known with certainty yet - nor when it's ongoing! You keep pointing at all of the "what it's not" things - but it's none of those. Every time I point out that you're wrong to say that it's "x" or "y" you move the goalposts to say "well it can still be z". The origin at this time is not historical information and is not exempt from MEDRS sourcing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable as journalistic reporting, not MEDRS two reliable sources from completely different ends of the ideological spectrum, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have reported on this (disclaimer: I subscribe to both.) The purpose of MEDRS is not to censor RS reporting on information related to medicine. The Post and Journal are not making biomedical claims. They are reporting on factual events. When two highly respected publications begin reporting on it, not reporting on it becomes a WP:NPOV violation.
  Now, that does not mean we endorse the lab leak theory. That does not mean we say that the people had COVID-19. That does not mean we report anything other than what the reliable sources say. In fact, I would personally note both sources in any text so it is clear we are not reporting as fact, but instead doing our job as a tertiary source and summarizing the reliable secondary sources.
  But lets not kid ourselves here, both WSJ and WaPo are reliable sources for the facts they report. If we really are going to say that we have to exclude major medical stories from them that are not reporting on the science behind the medicine because of MEDRS, then MEDRS is coming dangerously close to violating WP:NOTCENSORED. These aren't fringe blogs. These are two of the most respected journalistic publications in the United States. I'm not sure how Wikipedia should report on them, but when they both run a story, it does become a question of how rather than if. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, they aren't reporting facts here - they're reporting unconfirmed, and unidentified reports from anonymous sources on an unpublished "US intelligence" reporting. This is why I wrote User:Berchanhimez/Laundering - I wrote it primarily because of times when reliable sources re-print information from sources that are otherwise not reliable in the medical field, but it applies here too. And if you read both articles, they both make very clear that they are reporting on unconfirmed, unpublished reports from anonymous sources - and we should not give those more credibility just because they're repeated by an otherwise reliable source. We shouldn't accept this sort of "laundering" where something that's unreliable as a whole is considered reliable just because a "reliable source" republishes it. Note that single articles by reliable sources can include unreliable parts - I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) trying to say that the WSJ or WaPo are reliable source for facts. But they can't be used to "launder" unreliable information to somehow make it reliable when they themselves make clear how unreliable the information is in their reporting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  The three most important newspapers in the United States are: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. When 2 of 3 are running essentially the same story, there's really not a policy-based argument not to include it in some fashion. If you want to argue that those sources aren't reliable, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone who is familiar with journalism in the United States. We don't take the word of anonymous contributors on the internet on the reliability of the information professionals collect. We assess the overall editorial policy and journalistic reputation among other things. WaPo and WSJ are unquestionably reliable for what they report, which in this case is not science but claims and hypothesis.

  You can argue how to present this. That's fine. You can make it extremely clear in the text exactly what they are reporting on. That's fine. You cannot, however, exclude a story run by two newspapers that for any other story would be considered the gold standard of reliable sourcing. That becomes a major WP:NPOV violation. Yes, the early reporting on the lab leak theory was run by fringe people and many who were racists. Now we have serious mainstream reporting on it specifically arguing that it is not fringe. We can't ignore that per our policies.

  For the record, I don't have an opinion on this myself and don't really care which origin theory of COVID-19 is true. I do know Wikipedia policies fairly well, however, and there is no policy that justifies completely excluding stories run by papers of record on significant geopolitical events. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with TonyBallioni, and I find their arguments to be compelling. That much coverage cannot be simply ignored, as if it never happened. To willfully do so would be to ignore balance and NPOV. As Tony said, they are newspapers of record. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• "You cannot, however, exclude a story run by two newspapers that for any other story would be considered the gold standard of reliable sourcing."

Well, @TonyBallioni:, then we should be immediately be questioning them as the gold standard of anything, because these articles are trash. They don't even present any evidence, the WSJ reporting is literally trying to make a conspiracy about 3 people getting sick with seasonal illness symptoms and having nothing else to discuss, literally not a single piece of evidence beyond that. It is literally the exact sort of trash we'd expect from the Daily Mail. And the Washington Post "Timeline" article manages to be even fsrther below the line, using Medium articles, tweets from the likes of conspiracists like Tom Cotton, and worse. Both of these articles are so bottom of the barrel that we should immediately be questioning their reliable source status if their articles are going to be literally making up conspiracies and using known conspiracy pushers as their primary sources of evidence. Silverseren^C 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, the basis of Wikiepdia's policy on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view is that we rely on the expertise of the editors of reliable sourcing to make judgement calls as to what information is credible enough to publish. We typically do not assess whether or not individual articles are reliable, but whether or not the publications as a whole are, as we as editors do not have the competence to make the judgement calls on individual articles since the overwhelming majority of us are not professional journalists who are aware of professional ethics and publishing standards.

Both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are papers of record with editorial policies we consider stringent enough to make them reliable. We don't simply get to throw one article away because we disagree with the choice to publish. When multiple papers of record publishes something, it isn't just something we ignore. Contextualize, sure. Give it due weight, sure. Name the source in the text of the article, sure. If there's reliably sourced criticism of them running the articles, but it in there. These are all valid ways to deal with the concerns you have. Simply ignoring them and pretending like the publications are not reliable for what they report is not a valid response, though.

We have to deal with the publication in some way. I don't know how to do that, and don't particularly want to be involved with that, but I very much disagree with completely throwing out coverage by WSJ and WaPo because we disagree with a choice made by their editorial teams. That's very much against the intent of the RS and NPOV policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question. This is just a matter of context, but what do we know about the alleged program of biological weapons in China, reardless to COVID? I am not familiar with publications about it. Yes, China signed agreements, but it means little. One recent CNN article [108] say this: "The Chinese government is party to the major international agreements regulating biological weapons which prohibit developing, producing, transferring or stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons. The US government has said that it believes China maintained an offensive biological weapons program even after joining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1984.". OK. But what exactly US government (and other sources) say about the offensive biological weapons program of China? My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I think this paper might give you the answer. It mostly concentrates on facilities rather than types of biowarfare products maintained, but it might be a good source for you (at least I haven't found anything better than that). PS. Apparently another leak (now cable leak) published by Josh Rogin said that the lab was understaffed for level 4 biohazard protection (as mentioned in the article).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable because the sources don't even say that The article in question doesn't even present any evidence or claim toward anything regarding the lab leak conspiracy theory. It tries to wave its arms in the air with wiggling fingers because less than a handful of people (ie 3 out of hundreds at the lab) got a standard seasonal illness sickness. There is no connection to COVID even given and the following Washington Post article is even worse, not even having any sources whatsoever for any claims even being made. Honestly, the trash level of both of those pieces makes me question the general reliability of both newspapers, because this is Breitbart and Daily Mail level crap. Silverseren^C 04:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  You say there were hundreds of people working in the lab. Do you have a source you read that from? I was curious myself about how many people work(ed?) there, but turned up little information. --Chillabit (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Chillabit: The latest figure I was able to find was from 2014: As of 2014, WIV has 295 faculty and staff members, including 34 principal investigators and specialists, I'd expect the number to be far over 300 at this point. Silverseren^C 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable as journalistic reporting, not MEDRS per TonyBallioni above. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• This piece should not be used to give further credence to the lab leak conspiracy theory, but it might be used to show that anonymous US intelligence officials are apparently pushing that narrative. -Darouet (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The number of WP:SPAs showing up to try and push the pseudoscience conspiracy claim is pretty interesting. They're all over the place here and in every related thread to the Covid topic. Is there brigading going on from somewhere else on the internet for them to be finding their way here to this thread in particular? Silverseren^C 05:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Can we please clarify whether this discussion is about the very unlikely "lab-leak" of a deliberately-engineered biological weapon or the more plausible "lab-leak" of a natural, non-bioengineered virus? 09:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Biden administration has renewed US calls for a fuller investigation into the [conspiracy theory]"

According to plenty people above, seems like the entire world outside of Wikipedia is pushing for [what is described herein] "a conspiracy theory". I took the time to just list a few of the headlines posted in the past 24 hours or so. I am really curious how are wikiactivists going to try to dismiss these many news outlets discussing what wikipedia still rates as a conspiracy theory:

• Financial Times: US renews calls for investigation into origins of Covid-19
• CNN: Why scientists are suddenly more interested in the lab-leak theory of Covid's origin
• FoxNews: Ted Cruz mocks Washington Post as 'clowns' after fact-check declares Wuhan lab leak theory 'suddenly' credible
• NYMagazine: Latest Developments in the COVID Lab-Leak-Hypothesis Debate
• WaPo: Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible
• WSJ: Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin
• Reuters: Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed
• CNBC: Gottlieb says there's growing circumstantial evidence that Covid may have originated in a lab
• WSJ: The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage
• Reuters: U.S. agencies examine reports of early COVID-19 infections in Wuhan lab
• RCP: Will Media Get Away With U-Turning on Lab Leak Theory?
• Seattle Times: Fact check: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory for pandemic origin suddenly became credible
• Fortune: Why the ‘Wuhan lab leak theory’ is getting a second look
• EconomicTimes.in: Theory that COVID emerged from a lab leak in Wuhan gains traction in United States
• ABC.au: WHO member nations, including Australia, call for fresh probe into origin of COVID-19
• National Review: ‘The Suddenly Popular Lab-Leak Theory’
• The Hill: The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab
• France24: Covid lab origin theory gains traction in United States
• Toronto Sun: We need an open investigation into the Wuhan lab leak theory

71.197.184.205 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's always somewhat amusing when someone logs out to complain about how "the entire world outside of Wikipedia is pushing for" something. If this were actually the case, it would be very, very easy to get Wikipedia community consensus on one's side. It's quite clear that the above editor either (a) hasn't actually read the 19 sources he links or (b) has read them and knows that he is misrepresenting their context. Most of them explicitly clarify that the "Chinese laboratory" thing is still a far-out conspiracy theory with very little chance of holding water and zero chance of being completely true in its original Trumpist form (which was, without a doubt, a baseless hoax, regardless of subsequent evidence that may emerge of something superficially similar). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

G'day all, can I get some views on the reliability of the European Journal of Social Sciences Studies? See [109]. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's crap.[110] Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it we don't maintain a list of such journals? I suppose there are plenty? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two very good reasons why we don't maintain any lists. 1) There are far too many sources for us to make a canonical list of either all reliable sources or all unreliable sources and 2) The existence of a list implies that things not on the list are on their own list of opposite quality. For example, if we created a list of "unreliable sources", then any source not on the list must be reliable, right? And if we maintained a list of reliable sources, than any source not on the list must be unreliable, right? Even the list we do have, despite all of the giant walls of text warning people against this, are treated as such, as though WP:RSNP is some kind of endorsement of reliability and unreliability. Instead, we expect editors to use good judgement and apply the standards of reliability before they try to use a source. --Jayron32 12:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we do have some lists. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the main one. There's also the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.

Also see User:Headbomb/unreliable, for a script that automatically highlights in red or yellow known unreliable or dubious sources. It uses a hard-coded list which seems to be taken from our main list, and is pretty regularly updated by Headbomb.

Note that the main list is of perennial sources; sources who's reliable is is regularly questioned, for good or spurious reasons, questions which get consistent answers. The point of that list is not to list out who's reliable and unreliable (though it serves that purpose), but to serve as a repository for answers to questions that are repeatedly asked.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning here: It's impeccable. We should not be relying on lists of reliable/unreliable sources to make our determinations of reliability. They're useful as a starting point, but that's about it. And their usefulness declines as the are updated less and less frequently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I linked to it. Please try to keep up. As I said, we do have a list. And it causes all of the problems that such lists create. Which I did also note. --Jayron32 14:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'll note that your comment started with "There are two very good reasons why we don't maintain any lists.". It's easier to keep up when I don't have to watch out for a direct contradiction, a few sentences later. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have been better had I written "shouldn't". Still, five lines of text is not usually WP:TLDR territory, but for you, I'll keep it briefer. --Jayron32 02:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

[111]. For long-standing predatory journels, an archived version of Beall's list is online. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD are two such lists, and they are actively maintained. Neither are comprehensive however, and the big disclaimers on top of each lists are there for a reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personalities Inked

Would this be considered a good source to reference to as its written by a Military expert himself. The source is being considered to be referenced to the article Battle of Saragarhi. Like I said before, the source is written by the military expert which makes the source credible enough to be referenced to I believe. [112] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.98 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Being an officer does not make you an expert on military history, but I think it might be OK to use this with attribution. As long as what it claims is not too fringy, so what do you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Thank you for responding. I plan to use this in the article Battle of Saragarhi as the information for the casualties.

It appears to be a self-published source (the publisher advertises itself as a self-publisher). I also can’t find much on the author with a Google search. Do you have more info on the author (a biography article published in a reliable source or the like)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Here is the information on the author, [113]. There are two images, front page and End Page. The End page give the description on the author. I know its a self publisher but the fact that the writer is a military expert from Indian Army with the knowledge on Indian Military is what takes the upper hand here.

If the officer has no relevant expertise other than being a member of the military, then I'm not sure his self-published work is acceptable (self-published sources are not usually acceptable unless they come from a relevant expert). It certainly doesn't have the usual trappings of the kind of academic, methodological, serious sources (there are no footnotes! not even a list of [primary or secondary] sources used! and there are even some writing mistakes which indicate poor copy-editing and lack of rigour) that are preferred, per WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:RS (see the first sub-section at WP:SOURCETYPES). If you want an example of what an acceptable source would look like, I'd say you could try looking through resources like JSTOR or the like. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid Sources?

Can you please take a look at following sources and let me know which can be considered valid? The sources are being considered to be referenced to the article Battle of Saragarhi.

Tribune India [114]. The Vintage News [115] Business Insider [116] The Statesman[117] Times of India [118] Google Book [119] Page 35 Google book [120] Page 48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.81.206.173 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Myself I would not use newspapers for articles about history (not that these are unreliable, but there are higher quality sources), I have no access to the last two books/articles to judge them. So, these sources may be fine for uncontroversial facts (eg. that statue), but certainly not for disputed informations (eg. causalties). Pavlor (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. I would suggest avoiding it. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are certainly better sources than these for the topic, I would recommend replacing them with peer reviewed academic journals or books. It's usually considered better to avoid newspapers for historical topics even if they are otherwise reliable.

The Tribune is generally reliable as a newspaper and its article is about a performance and memorials for the battle. Since none of this concern the events in the battle itself and are essentially uncontroversial mundane reporting, it appears usable for its content. The Business Insider (RSP entry) and Vintage News articles appear like blog posts, the former has no byline and I would recommend removing these. The Statesman is a high quality newspaper and might be usable for this topic, although scholarly sources are still preferable over it. The Times of India (RSP entry) is at best marginally reliable and should not be used for any historical topics.

Regarding the two books, I don't have access to either of them but going by their publishers they are not high quality sources either. The first one is published by Vision Books, a company which generally focuses on financial and business publications and has some editorial oversight but is inadequate for this topic area. The second book is published by the Sikh Cultural Society of Great Britain which is not an academic publisher and is likely to eulogise the Sikh combatants of the battle. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Yamato Dynasty

I found this book called The Yamato Dynasty: The Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family.

I wanted to use this book as a source for articles relating to history on the Japanese Imperial family.

It’s written by a historian so it seemed promising. But it had some interesting claims. A claim that was interesting to me was the claim about Himiko founding the Japanese imperial family.

I have done some research on this and I have seen historians make similar arguments, like claiming the imperial family originated from her so it wasn’t unique claim.(Some even argue Himiko may have been Empress Jingu.)

But, what was interesting was the claim she founded it in the first century. That was weird because Himikos Wikipedia page says she lived from 175AD to 248AD. And the first century lasted from 1AD to 100AD.

Yeah that’s a century off.(Or maybe when he was talking about first century he was talking about 100 AD to 200 AD.)

So I’m not entirely sure I can trust this source what do y’all think?CycoMa (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry misread Himiko Wikipedia page she lived from 170 to 248AD.CycoMa (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Yamato Dynasty: The Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family is, if I recall correctly (I read it, or a reasonable portion of it, in the late 2000s), pop history, and nothing in Seagrave's history implies he has credentials in pre-20th-century Japanese history. There are a number of theories as to the origins and early history of the Japanese imperial family, and it is quite politically controversial in Japan (although it seems to be a rare occurrence for an academic to be sacked or otherwise sanctioned for expressing "politically incorrect" views in post-1945 Japan, meaning that any theory that is uniformly rejected by virtually all of Japanese academia should be treated as WP:FRINGE). That Pimikku (whom modern Japanese pop culture calls Himiko) may be connected to said origins is, AFAIK, seen as reasonably likely, and the association (though not necessarily conflation) of Pimikku with Her Augustness Princess Okinagatarashi (whom Japanese works since the late Nara period call Empress Jingū) is, again AFAIK, also noteworthy enough to be mentioned in both the Nipponica and Britannica Kokusai entries on Empress Jingū.[121] I would say that in general Seagrave should be cited very sparingly, and preferably checked against at least one scholarly/specialist source for any claims; on the specific claim that "Himiko founded the Yamato dynasty" that is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and if Seagrave gives dates that a century off, without comment, then he definitely cannot be used for such a claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RE the century thing, its not that it is 'off' its that there is speculation involving the association with a number of people (Not just Jingū) who range from the first to the third centuries. Its essentially two different claims, one involving the founding of the imperial family, the other involving exactly who in Japanese recorded history she was associated with. Both of these, as Hijiri points out, are actually fairly mainstream theories. Because its not a deep dive into at the level of history research cited paper, its glossing over the specifics. I have also read it (probably around a similar time as Hijiri I think), and nothing in the book (as I recall) is controversial or out of line with the more indepth research on the Imperial family (or more generally Japanese history). Its a good primer/overview, but I wouldnt use it directly as a source for an encyclopedia, I would use it to identify something interesting, then go look for more detailed works on that issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for (partial?) non-hereditariness of "samurai" status?

This source has been cited for the claim that samurai/bushi/buké/shi status was only "largely" hereditary in pre-modern Japan. As far as I can tell from this edit summary and this talk page comment, the editor who has been adding the word "largely" has not actually read the source in question, so I believe this is a case of WP:CITEWIKI, but the Wikipedia page in question (Edo society#Samurai) actually says Positions within the samurai class were largely hereditary and talented individuals could not rise above a few social steps beyond their birth., which I read as not referring to "samurai status" itself but rather specific jobs/ranks within the social class in question.

Input from someone with access to the original source or with knowledge of this topic area (of which I admit I am relatively ignorant—I'm mostly interested in the literature of Nara through Kamakura periods and am just a "casual reader" when it comes to the military aristocracy of Japan in the late medieval / early modern period) would be especially helpful, but any third-party opinions would be appreciated.

The user is also arguing that "samurai status" was not hereditary at all,[122][123] so any additional sources on that front, one way or the other, would be helpful: everything I've ever read has stated, implied, or "assumed" the hereditary status of the social class in question; I would consider these sources to be generally reliable for the content in question (all are published by either Continuum International Publishing Group or university presses, and the authors include a Japanese literature specialist, a historian on the editorial board of the journal Sino-Japanese Studies, a "Sinologist and East Asian literary scholar who was a professor and administrator at Columbia University for nearly 70 years", and a historian of early modern Japan), but third-party opinions would be most welcome.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)