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. 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

RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was quite an acrimonious RfC, with many editors criticising it on procedural grounds and extending that criticism to the proposer there being some criticism of the proposer. While the former is of course the prerogative of editors, the latter is unnecessary and counterproductive. This is an RfC, not a matter of life and death. However, of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable, with many condemning the source in (much) stronger language. As deprecation requires an RfC to be held, the previous discussion was inadequate to deprecate the source. Given that most participating editors either consider the source to be de facto deprecated or believe that it should be so, there is a consensus that it should be deprecated. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) edited 17:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [1] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [2]. I looked back to the last discussion [3] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [4]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it would do a disservice to Wikipedia if I were to withdraw this RFC. Per my reasons and those by LaundryPizza03 stated above, the reasons stated by Hemiauchenia below, and the fact that the site is used as a source on multiple WP:BLPs currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  If it's used as a source (on a BLP or otherwise) for anything that seems even slightly dodgy, you should remove it -- neither deprecation nor an RfC is necessary for that. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's already listed as unreliable at Perennial sources. There's no need to deprecate it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate I think some commenters don't understand how prominent Jihad Watch used to be, it's not just some random conspiracy blog run by a nobody, but a prominent website, associated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes the deprecated FrontPage Magazine. Jihad Watch has even drawn comment from one of Pakistan's prime ministers, and its author is described by the SPLC as "one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States". The website is currently cited 38 times in article space per jihadwatch.org  . I that stripping out the non-aboutself references to this source is something that needs doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have aborted this unnecessary RfC -- the number of possible unusable sources is infinite, they do not need to be run through RfCs one-by-one. Find something useful to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Given that the April 2020 discussion wasn't a formal RfC, can it be used to deprecate the Jihad Watch without going through another discussion, given how strong the concensus was? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  The world is not divided between "sources that are usable" and "sources that are deprecated"; there are categories such as "sources that are so clearly unsuitable for basic factual statements that to hold structured discussions about them is a pointless waste of time" and "sources that no one has ever seriously proposed to use to source anything" and "sources that are already listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP". Absent a clear need, the world is not made better by formally deprecating things in these categories -- running an RfC to confirm an existing and unchallenged consensus is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I said exactly the same thing during the Zero Hedge deprecation RfC at which time Zero Hedge had around 20 Wikipedia citations which I felt was really more about making a point rather than a useful source deprecation. The real need is to strip out non-aboutself references to Jihad Watch, which I have done to several citations already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

​By definition, deprecation does require a formal RfC (i.e. one using the {{rfc}} tag). — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate, if it isn't absolutely clear yet. I note the associated FrontpageMag is expressly deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is absolutely clear, and that's why I've removed the RfC tag, again. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, if this site is being repeatedly spammed across article and there is indisputable consensus that it is generally unreliable, shouldn't this just be referred to WT:BLIST? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, of course, this RfC is a waste of time, which is why I've removed the tag again. IHA, please notice how almost everyone is saying the same thing. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  @JBL Hi, IHA's adopter here. I have been silently watching this RFC in order to provide offwiki feedback. I was not planning on making any comment to avoid accusations of canvassing or tag teaming, etc. However, I feel the need to say, as an outside observer, that it is incredibly clear that people are not saying the same thing here. Some people are saying it shouldn't be depreciated, and other people are saying it should. Both sides agree it's a bad source, but I still see a good faith disagreement as to what to do about it.
  If you have an alternative means for IHA to get the result that they want (ie. depreciation, blacklisting, edit-filtering, or auto-reverting), then please feel free to suggest that. Until then, IHA seems to be following the only method laid out within Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to achieve their desired outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  I concur that it's a reasonable RFC to raise here, and ask that the RFC tag not be removed again. We've seen before (e.g. Mail on Sunday) when an apparently-gratuitous RFC had to be run, just because some people insisted the obviously terrible source closely associated with an already deprecated source was great actually and kept putting it in. If we have to nail this one down, we might as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  So far, there is a clear consensus among the people who have participated in this RfC that it should never have been opened, and zero people arguing that Jihad Watch is an acceptable source (which is, of course, further evidence that an RfC is not needed). The situation of the Mail on Sunday is completely incomparable in all respects. If a couple of you want to jerk yourselves off to the accomplishment of officially deprecating a source that no competent editor would ever use or defend, I guess I can't stop you, but it's an utterly idiotic waste of the time of everyone. MJL, maybe you can explain to your mentee that they should not edit war and not waste community time and also learn what the hell a personal attack is. Please no one ping me back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw this While Jihad Watch is in no way an acceptable source, we only deprecate sources that are cited enough by editors to be a problem. Compared to Newsmax or Occupy Democrats Jihad Watch is far less prominent. I would not be against blacklisting the source. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate It is currently being used in BLPs such as Hani Ramadan and we should deprecate. There's no need for it to drag this out any longer. Spudlace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Spudlace, I went to Hani Ramadan, to check whether the jihadwatch link was actually being used to mislead readers about a BLP individual. I found JW had quoted what looked like a legitimate article from swissinfo.ch. While it is less than ideal to reference a mirror, it is not a BLP violation as you implied. JW's link to the swissinfo article was 404... But it took me about fifteen seconds to find that swissinfo had merely moved that article to [5].

The simple excision of the JW reference without looking for the original legitimate article it mirrored was disruptive, in my opinion. I realize someone else followed up to your hint here. But you could have performed the same check I did. So I encourage you too to be more careful.

In my opinion, the argument you advanced here falls short, and should be ignored by the closing admin. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate per comments above and last discussion. User:JayBeeEll, instead of disruptively removing the RfC, how about getting it blacklisted if you don't think this RfC is necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller:, I have nothing more to add here. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw-- I fail to see who is actually trying to insert "Jihad Watch" into an article? It's currently listed in only about 30 articles, mostly for aboutself reasons. Unless there is widespread abuse, deprecation is clearly not needed since Jihad Watch is already listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw per Alexbrn and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Doesn't allow for context and point to disputes about diffs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate blatant propaganda site. Should be removed from wherever it is used. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Who really use it? --Shrike (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate -- not a usable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate or blacklist. Major promoter of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, as seen in https://www.jihadwatch.org/category/love-jihad. Frequently cited by other unreliable sources, including OpIndia (RSP entry), as a "Western" source for specious anti-Muslim claims. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Point of order the article Love Jihad may describe this phenomenon as a "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately, anyone who as followed the relatively rare instances of female converts to Islam who become radicalized, their trials show that it was quite common to find they were targetted by what that article called "Jihad Romeos". See Jihad Jamie. I did a lot of work on the Brides of ISIL article, so I read about many of these women.

Newslinger, thanks for directing my attention to the Love Jihad article, as it may require a bias-ectomy.

Please, no one should the Love Jihad article's characterization of the phenomenon as a conspiracy theory as a reason to deprecate jihadwatch.com. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. See below (emphasis added):

High-quality academic sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim

This chapter examines the conspiracy theory of "Love Jihad" across traditional and social media discourse in India as a way to show how affective strategies promoting Islamophobia are employed through logics of "digital governmentality" (Badouard et al., 2016). "Love Jihad" is a campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists in 2009 (Gökarıskel et al., 2019) alleging that Muslim men feign love to lure non-Muslim women to marry them in order to covert them to Islam (Rao, 2011). The exponents of this conspiracy assert that innocent Hindu women are converted to Islam in order to increase the Muslim population, thereby waging jihad or holy war against Hindus (Gupta, 2009). By evoking demographic fears and anxiety, this campaign demonizes Muslims and works to advance the patriarchal idea of saving Hindu girls from an imagined Muslim menace (Das, 2010). The case study of "Love Jihad' showcases how propaganda and emotionality have, through digital media, come into a now digital discursive configuration, one which has been ideologically named the "post truth era," dominated by online trolls and conspiracy theorists. Farokhi, Zeinab (3 September 2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books. The "love jihad" is a bizarre myth about a Muslim campaign to conquer Hindus by stealing their girls, one heart at a time. The story goes that a handsome young man appears in the community and woos away a Hindu girl with his seductive charms and promises of a better life. He has been schooled in a madrassah, but possesses the wherewithal for modern courtship, like a motorcycle and a mobile phone. Only after she has run off with him does he reveal himself as a Muslim, either forcing her to convert or selling her into slavery. Like all good propaganda, there is a molehill of fact somewhere within this mountain of fiction. Love often does blossom between young men and women whose matches are deemed unsuitable. Sheer probability dictates that most of these scandalous liaisons involve Hindu couples of different castes or classes; relatively few are interreligious. Some of the couples elope; some are forcibly, even fatally, separated—including through the infamous practice of "honor killings." George, Cherian (September 2016). Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy. MIT Press. pp. 83–109. ISBN 978-0-262-33607-9. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books. Muslims form about 15% of India’s population and have suffered severe marginalization in education and employment, since the partition of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan in 1947 (Alam, 2010). They have since faced recurrent riots (Varshney, 2003). Other hostilities include false accusations of love jihad (a conspiracy theory claiming Muslim men feign love with non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam) and attempts to convert Muslims to Hinduism by Hindu fundamentalist organizations (Gupta, 2009). After the rise of a right-wing Hindu nationalist party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, hate crimes against Muslims and Dalits have spiked for allegedly consuming or transporting cows (considered holy in Hinduism) (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Nair, Rashmi; Vollhardt, Johanna Ray (October 2019). "Intersectional Consciousness in Collective Victim Beliefs: Perceived Intragroup Differences Among Disadvantaged Groups". Political Psychology. 40 (5). Wiley: 917–934. doi:10.1111/pops.12593. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via ResearchGate. The fake claim by the Hindu right that there is a “Love Jihad” organisation which is forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam through false expressions of love is similar to a campaign in the 1920s in north India against alleged “abductions”. Whether 1920 or 2009, Hindu patriarchal notions appear deeply entrenched in such campaigns: images of passive victimised Hindu women at the hands of inscrutable Muslims abound, and any possibility of women exercising their legitimate right to love and their right to choice is ignored. Inter-religious love and marriages are a tricky terrain. They challenge various norms and customs and arouse passions of religious fundamentalists. The “threat” of such intimacies has often resulted in “constructed” campaigns, expressing the anxieties and fears of conservative forces. In India, the Hindu right particularly has been a master at creating panics around expressions of love, be it the Valentine Day, homosexual love or inter-caste and inter-religious romance, posing them as one of the biggest threats to cohesive community identities and boundaries. The latest in such constructs by the Hindu right is the alleged “Love Jihad” or “Romeo Jihad” organisation, supposed to have been launched by Muslim fundamentalists and youthful Muslim men to convert Hindu and Christian women to Islam through trickery and expressions of false love. Gupta, Charu (19 December 2009). "Hindu women, Muslim men: Love Jihad and conversions" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15 – via ResearchGate.

Additionally, you have not provided any reliable sources showing that Jamie Paulin Ramirez's marriage was an instance of "Love Jihad", which involves a Muslim feigning love with the intention of converting a non-Muslim. According to the sources in the Jamie Paulin Ramirez article (including Reuters), Ramirez had already converted to Islam prior to meeting and marrying Ali Damache. The Ramirez case is an instance of radicalization, not an instance of "Love Jihad". Jihad Watch has published 18 articles promoting the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. As a persistent publisher of false or fabricated information, Jihad Watch should absolutely be deprecated. If Jihad Watch is so obviously unreliable that an RfC is not necessary, as some editors in this discussion state, then blacklisting is the most appropriate solution. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - The website is only being used on one article where it backs up its own claim, Other than that it's used no where so as such I see no real reason to formally deprecate something that isn't being used and as far as I can see has never been a hot topic of debate. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No deprecation, no blacklisting

In 2017 Jarble started Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#Jihad_Watch with an assertion that more than 60 articles cited jihad watch. [6]

Well, currently, it seems to be cited by just one article - Islamophobia in the United States. Is that citation appropriate? Neutrally written? I don't think there is any question it neutrally written, and appropriate.

Deprecating potential cites, blacklisting potential cites, should not be done for frivolous reasons. As someone else said above, if there isn't a history of problematic citations from this site then deprecating or blacklisting is completely inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, @Geo Swan: When I filed this initially, the list of pages it was used on was much, much longer. It appears a set of editors took this filing as impetus to try to remove many uses from pages, which is I guess fine on its own, but does not change the fact that the site was used extensively in the past (as noted by @Hemiauchenia:). Given that the previous discussion while not an RFC itself was nearly unanimous in favor of deprecation, I felt that having the RFC and nailing it down would be good for prevention of future problems involving the site, especially as it is owned by the same organization that publishes another already-deprecated source. I think it's entirely unfair for people to say "well it's not used now" when it was when the RFC was filed, and unfair for people to claim there's "no problem" when it took the RFC to get them off their asses to do a cleanup. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Intelligent contributors use RS intelligently.

First, even the most highly regarded RS occasionally publish bad articles. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have had rare occasions when they trusted and promoted brilliant new writers, who turned out to be plagiarists, who unethically copied other authors, and confabulators, who just made stuff up. Intelligent contributors who use the recommended caution and neutrality when citing sources can cite a bad source in a truly neutral way, so their citation of a brilliant but dishonest journalist is not an embarrassment, because they used the neutral voice.

Second, intelligent, reliable contributors will be just as able to recognize when a particular RS might be unreliable, they can be just as careful as you think you are.

You say you had a list of problematic usages of jihadwatch? Well, if editors have since fixed all those usages, so we now can't find a single one, then doesn't that prove formal deprecation or blacklisting aren't necessary? I suggest we reserve deprecation and blacklisting for rogue sites so tricky they routinely fool even experienced contributors, and they fool contributors so often they can't be controlled through normal quality control.

I have a concern that deprecation and blacklisting can turn out to be editorializing - an attempt at censorship.

Because you didn't list a single problematic article third parties, like me, can't actually confirm the site is being used in a problematic way. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At the time, I thought linking the list of citations was sufficient. Clearly I didn't account for people who would uncivilly assume bad faith later on. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that Jihad Watch had been inappropriately inserted into articles at least 59 times, and that the use of Jihad Watch is inappropriate in nearly all cases. Domains are regularly added to the spam blacklist after being inappropriately linked in articles just a few times, so Jihad Watch exceeds the threshold for blacklisting by an order of magnitude. — Newslinger talk 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate. This is only cited in 11 articles at the present moment, but... Vive Charlie miscites it as a primary source that the author of the cited article works for Vive Charlie, Eurabia cites it as a primary source to showcase the views of its authors, it's cited in David Horowitz Freedom Center as a primary source to indicate that it's a blog run by Robert Spencer, Islamophobia in the United States cites it as a primary source to show that it is an islamophobic hate site... if it can only be cited as a primary source, and that mostly just to say it shouldn't be trusted as a reliable source, we should really deprecate it. It's abundantly obvious that it is among "highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" per the beginning of WP:DEPRECATED. Why would we want to wait until a problem occurs with content cited to this obvious hate site? FalconK (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being “unreliable for facts”, this means it has already been effectively deprecated. Are we discussing some form of further deprecation? If so, I am not sure what that would be. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: please see WP:DEPREC, the source has not been deprecated as of yet. Deprecation is a necessary requirement to place an edit filter warning anyone who tried to use the source in the future. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh... It look to me like it WAS deprecated ... is this just about getting approval to add the tag that generates an automatic warning? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RSN Archive 293 says "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page." Hemiauchenia's "concensus" [sic] note which was added on December 12 is worthless, as is the deprecation page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate* Not only should JihadWatch be deprecated, but it should also be included in WT:BLIST. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with 'It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being "unreliable for facts"'; things like this do not need to be RfCed, just proposed for RSP addition (and or blacklisting if misused often enough that they need to be prevented).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Really? Is there any evidence that there's large-scale usage of JihadWatch on Wikipedia or that people frequently seek to add it to articles? Proposing every fringe source there is will clog the deprecation editfilter. At this point let's go ahead and deprecate The Onion Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Closure

I have placed a closure request for this RFC. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that this is now at 32 days.IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

39 days. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

Valjean (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:

Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs."

Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[7] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means "expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing, I guess. That piece also clearly introduces the author as "a columnist for RealClearPolitics". For example The Guardian (at least the British one) is considered generally reliable, but some times I have to squint if I want to quickly figure out whether something is labelled as opinion. Random example, this is in "News" section and more specifically in "Business" section, though below the article it is labelled as "Coronavirus / comment". If one wants to know more about the author, they would have to link the author's name to read a profile page where the author is described as "a columnist, author and small business owner". Politrukki (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [8], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [9]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [10], Government Executive [11], Albuquerque Journal [12], CBS News [13], TIME [14], CNN [15] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [16], [17] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [18]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife...), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [19], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [20] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [21] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford with the RSOPINION restrictions feminist noted. I think I would consider much of their material analysis but absent a source directly contradicting them I would say it is usable in that capacity. Springee (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's aggregation and partisan opinion content, so should be treated accordingly. So if we're talking about their original content then no, of course we shouldn't use it for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. unreliable), but there may be uses for attributed opinions of certain authors in exceptional cases (as usual, RSOPINION does not mean that every/any opinion carries WP:WEIGHT on its own, but it's possible there are uses for them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There's been far too much of this fad for wholesale banning of sources via deprecation—it has the stench of political bias, smacks of censorship, and suggests editors are no longer able to judge reliability on a case-by-case basis. Deprecation is used to exclude purely factual, documented information. (Example: the NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake, and the only ones linking to the official police report—claims they're not "RS" was used to censor factual information.) These deprecation debates are little more than referenda asking: "Would you personally prefer if the source couldn't be used?" Saying RCP is "unreliable" because it accurately identified a "whistleblower" or linked to Russian articles is absurd. As to the claim that the same company had a "secret Facebook group sharing right-wing memes" is disqualifying, see the professor's quote about WSJ/Fox—then ask if false claims made by Amazon mean Bezos' WaPo should be deprecated. Broadly agree with User:Chetsford on this, especially that RCP has not been shown to publish false information, let alone routinely. Additionally, Lee Smith and others have done some very solid original investigative reporting for RCP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about "something something conservatives are being silenced" aren't a rational argument. "NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake" is pure lying hooey: it was fact-checked by reputable news agencies (such as USA Today [22] and Reuters[23]) that contradicted the lies the Daily Fail and NY Post were putting out. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. RealClearPolitics is described by reliable sources as "one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about (Trump's) political opponents". Specifically, RCP aggressively promoted the "stolen election" falsehood that fueled a failed attempt to overthrow the US government a week or so ago. So that's a hard no from me.

  It appears that the "serious news" staff of RCP was laid off en masse in 2017, and replaced by Republican political operatives ([24]). Separately, of course, RCP has also published defamatory falsehoods (misidentifying the author of a high-profile anonymous op-ed), recycled and laundered Russian propaganda, outed a legally protected whistleblower, and so on—all in service of partisan ends, and all detailed here and elsewhere. Defending this source as reliable, in light of all this evidence to the contrary, is quite a stretch. Arguably, one could list it as "potentially reliable before 2017, unreliable afterwards", based on the staff turnover and shift in tone and focus.

  In any case, using a source known to publish defamatory falsehoods, reckless & unfounded partisan smears, election-related falsehoods, and foreign propaganda—as RCP is documented to do—is fundamentally a behavioral and competence issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tibetan Political Review

This discussion is an offshoot of Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, where Normchou, Esiymbro, and I agreed that the Tibetan Political Review does not appear to be a reliable source. This is disputed by Pasdecomplot on the basis that it has not appeared at RSN yet.

Tibetan Political Review is self-hosted on Google Sites, has no affiliation with any academic publisher, is not listed in major journal indices, has no evidence of academic peer-review, and does not appear to be reviewed or discussed by established RSes (that we could find). It only existed for 7 years and often reads more like a blog than a research journal (e.g. the first article).

As such, it does not qualify under academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:SOURCE) or reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and likely falls under has not been vetted by the scholarly community. This is much closer to:

journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Perhaps someone else could shed further light on the usability of Tibetan Political Review though, or draw a broader consensus on its reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC); strike-out editor who didn't comment directly on TPR 02:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Appears to be a collection of opinion pieces? Run by a poet and a couple of lawyers, so definitely not a scholarly journal. They accept unsolicited submissions. Doesn't appear to even have been discussed before. I don't think this can be used for anything other than what they themselves are saying, and since neither the Tibetan Political Review nor the writers appear to be notable, I'm not sure why we'd ever even be quoting/attributing them. At any rate, not an RS for anything other than their own opinions, attributed. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• To clarify the dispute, both the independent scholar Warren W Smith and Tibetan Political Review are being challenged at Nyingchi. I propose that the focus of this RSN be broadened to include Smith as an author, as well.
• Tibetan Political Review was founded in June 2010, and its editorial board is comprised of academics and jurists in the U.S and India. These include Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal. Their web site was [25] as listed on the Tibetan Political Review page at fr.wikipedia [26], but is presently [27]. Their Wikipedia page doesn't list the editorial board's other professional interests, even if they are published poets.
• It's cited by Courrier International[28] which is published by Le Monde; included in University of Minnesota's Human Rights Library[29] for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet; listed in Oxford University's Press Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews [30]; cited by Harvard Kennedy School Asian American Policy Review [31] and by Harvard Law School [32]; cited by Tibetan Review[33], and by World Tibet News/Canada Tibet News Network[34] as well as by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet[35]. The list could continue, but might be seen as "bludgeoning" the issue that Tibetan Political Review is effectively peer reviewed, is cited, and definitely found very reliable by both academic institutions and a governmental agency vetting reports from Tibet, MarkH21 and Esiymbro and Normchou.
• Warren W Smith has a scholarly piece in Tibetan Political Review, and it's what led to this RSN; a very knowledgeable and respectable piece covering modern history in the region [36]. Any editor with the same knowledge base would agree, regardless of its "hosted" url. That's why it was provided as RS. Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[37] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". Smith also has a page at fr.wiki[38], where it's noted that a critic Barry Sautman is himself criticized in his own page's lead for espousing PRC views[39], as in Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine.
• At Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism it's clear Smith's scholarly views of China's Tourism policies in Tibet as presented in Tibetan Political Review are an issue. And, Tibetan Political Review has also become an issue, although the author and RS's stability dates from 30october, when it was discovered while digging for RS on the Middle Way Approach. My dispute is not about a lack of RSN on these topics, but the effective silencing of a scholar's criticism of policies due to random issues, such as the URL and such as ignoring the academics on the editorial board and the academic institutions which find Tibetan Political Review reliable - including Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Minnesota. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • None of these sources seem to establish peer review, and only the Canadian Immigration Board calls it a journal. As valeree points out, the editors are distinctly lacking in qualifications in the relevant fields (between the four list on the about page only 1 has a relevant degree - a BA in Political Science). Warren W Smith may be an SME, but I personally would not call anyone a SME unless they had an English Wikipedia page. While I generally overlook this, in this case the claim is deeply controversial and the post provides no supporting evidence. The fact that it reads like a polemic, not an academic paper (tourism is aimed at turning Tibet into something like a theme park where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies about primitive Tibetan society doesn't sound like something I'd see in a serious journal) does not help me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 01:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Literally only one of the links of citations (the Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews link) is a published academic review, and even then it isn't reviewing the TPR article itself. The rest is a mix of student publications, a mention that an alum is on the editorial board in an alumni spotlight, raw links on a library page, non-academic Tibetan diaspora journalism, and a Canadian immigration board's response to an information request. If that is all that can be found for the 837 articles published by the TPR then it definitely does not qualify as being vetted by the scholarly community.

  The other editors here also bring up a valid point about the editorial board being self-described as poets, writers, and lawyers without academic affiliations. That's not the kind of editorial board that you find with scholarly journals. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The points Smith makes about Chinese tourism policies in Tibet are widely shared, by residents throughout Lhasa and visitors to its spiritual sites, at monasteries, and are found as related to the demolitions and forced displacement of nuns and monks at Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar. Other sources go further to state tourism policies in Tibet are used as a form of ongoing cultural genocide. Smith's informed and pithy statements are supported by Tsering Woeser and many others, as I've learned while editing. It's rather shocking, certainly, but the information is a proven reliable account of current conditions in Tibet, by an academic specialist. Thus, it is something you'd find in an academic journal, and it appears long overdue in being cited widely.

  Smith has a page in French Wikipedia, and is cited in several French media outlets - additional diffs can be provided. El D's opinion about English wiki pages for authors is an opinion not supported by RS. Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [40] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

  Another editor opines views, picked up by MarkH21, but those views aren't supported by diffs. My source says the board has academics. Is there a list of board members and their professional affiliations for each academic RS, or even for each RS that can be used for comparison? Probably not.

  The highly prestigious and academically stringent Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Law School citings, characterized as "student publications", indicate that current scholars and future leaders have confidence in the reliability of Tibetan Political Review. Their confidence signifies an academic standard within the student body and professorial body that Tibetan Political Review meets.

  All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  What other sources say about other issues in Tibet are irrelevant. If they back up the claims of the TPR, then use them in the article instead. If they simply claim that Tibetans are undergoing political genocide, then they are irrelevant to the claim that Nyingchi is a "fake village". My statement against it being the sort of thing that would be found in an academic journal was an issue with the wording, not the meaning.

  I doubt that student publications can be considered part of the scholarly community. Here is the editorial board of the IJCP (being used above as a source against Xinhua). This is what an editorial board of a scholarly journal should look like. (on the subject of Xinhua, I do not believe my views on Xinhua are relevant. If you would like to dispute them, take them up on the relevant RSN.)

  My request for an English language Wikipedia page is my personal interpretation of WP:SPS. I am happy to give a lot of leeway on it for non-controversial claims, but this one is clearly quite controversial. If the TPR is reliable, then it is clearly not needed. But if it isn't then I would like, on controversial issues like this, the involved source to have a Wikipedia page demonstrating their notability. ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  IJCP is a completely different source. We're not saying all academic journals need boards comparable to IJCP. The issue is reliability, as evidenced by academic usage, review, and academic credentials of those involved.

  The "personal interpretation" for pages is noted, but is not RS policy from my understanding.

  []Harvard Law#Rankings|Harvard Law]] and Harvard Kennedy School are considered part of the US, and the world's, scholarly community.Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The rankings and reputations of the schools at Harvard are not relevant here. A Harvard Law School alumni bulletin that says that someone is on the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review and a Harvard Kennedy School student publication that cites the Tibetan Political Review once do not tie the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review to the reputation of Harvard as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Pasdecomplot: Your assertion that people in Tibet share Smith's views does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that he is a subject-matter expert or a reliable source. If his view is repeated by reliable sources, then use those reliable sources. Whether someone has an article on some version of Wikipedia doesn't demonstrate that they are a subject-matter expert.

  The article you describe as from the Harvard Kennedy School describes itself as A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication. Student publications are not established RSes regardless of the home institution, just as masters theses and doctoral theses-in-progress are not considered RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article that you describe as a citation from the Harvard Law School is literally an Alumni Focus bulletin that only mentions the Tibetan Political Review once: says Tenzin Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and member of the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review. That is anything but a citation of the Tibetan Political Review and says literally nothing about its reliability.

  The Tibetan Political Review Editorial Team page describes them exactly as Valereee did, e.g. a poet, writer and translator living in New York City, a writer living in Dharamsala, India, He is admitted to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. The fact that they graduated with bachelor's degrees and law degrees from universities does not mean that they are academics.

  You're going off-topic by pointing at another editor's views on other sources and suggesting hypocrisy. You're also going off-topic about Radio Free Asia and also make vague references to editors; I did not suggest replacing the text at Nyingchi that was cited to Tibetan Political Review with a citation to Radio Free Asia, nor did anyone else here to my knowledge. I only removed the text referenced to Tibetan Political Review because it's not a reliable source, and so far five other editors have agreed with that view except you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no suggestion of hypocracy. The point on RFA is germaine as a comparison, given the current edits at Nyingchi [41] where the text via RFA (as edited by Normchou) remains after several reverts, including a revert earlier today by MarkH21. The point is this RSN demonstrates Tibetan Political Review is included as a reliable source of current accounts in Tibet as versus RFA, which is not seen as a reliable source for the same accounts, and is described as a source that should only be used as an inline source per the RSN. If it wasn't used to replace Tibetan Political Review, I agree it would be off-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There were two paragraphs; one referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and one referenced to RFA. In this edit, I deleted the paragraph referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and did not replace anything with RFA. There also isn't a single participant in this RSN discussion who said that RFA was unreliable in the archived RSN thread that you refer to. You're misrepresenting the comments of other editors with something that is totally off-topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a text quote about RFA from RSN archive 313 I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a blocked editor who has not commented at this RSN thread and cannot comment at this RSN thread. That's also not an example of your full claim that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia. Are you still standing behind it or can you just drop the false claim? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The other RSN thread is completely immaterial here; none of those sources were deemed reliable. The most common comments I can find in that thread was that the sources needed to be examined individually rather than as a group, and that the thread was trying to argue about too many sources at once. I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To make sure inaccuracies are corrected for the future archive: Here's the text from the closing at Archive 313, Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny. So, for the record, the statement above none of those sources were deemed reliable is actually not accurate as per closing, but the discussion does supply other general use guidelines. Another innaccuracy I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there was already clarified above, where the only comment on RFA by CarasdhrasAiguo has been provided here, and note the coment was not addressed by the other editors. I only requested the RSN on RFA and other sources, after repeated reverts of those sources by CaradhrasAiguo. Although that editor is not participating in this RSN, their non-summarized revert at Nyingchi of Tibetan Political Review [42]began a series of reverts which then led to this RSN. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

But, to return to the topic and comments: The Harvard Kennedy School AAPR journal cites Smith twice, and Tibetan Political Review once - the same Smith article on the Middle Way Policy previously edited into Nyingchi. The Harvard Law Bulletin quotes Tenzen Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and board member of Tibetan Political Review, in its article on Lobsang Sangay of Central Tibetan Administration and a Harvard Law alumnus. The IRB's citing of Tibetan Political Review in its background on an immigration case signifies their position on its reliability, as indicated by their absence of disagreement to the information. The Oxford Handbooks Online scholarly research reviews and peer reviewed abstract entitledTibetan Buddhist Self-Immolation by Kevin Carrico cites at least four different articles from Tibetan Political Review in its references, which are cited alongside Robert Barnett, Janet Gyatso, Tsering Woeser, Jamyang Norbu, Elliott Sperling and others. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, if you're referring to my comment as "inaccuracies" that you're correcting for future archives (it would be so much easier if you stopped playing this little game of yours and just addressed me directly, but whatever): The text you are quoting is not the closing statement in that discussion. That text is a comment from a single editor, Adoring nanny. It just happened to be the final comment made in that discussion. That does not make it the closing statement. That discussion never received a formal closing. The statement I made is correct: in that thread, which was never formally closed, none of the sources addressed were declared reliable. None were declared to be not-reliable, either. None were declared anything. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Berlin's Humboldt University's South Asia Chronicle includes an abstract by M.N.Rajesh, which cites Tibetan Political Review and Smith[43], and Reed University's Anthropology of Global Tibet appears to include Tibetan Political Review on its reading list (included on searches). Author, editor and translator Tenzin Dickie is published by Washington Post Online, edits at Treasury of Lives, and edits at Tibetan Political Review [44]. Woeser as a RS cites Smith [45]. And, here's a Courrier International's reprint of Tibetan Political Review [46]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, Again, none of these makes Tibetan Political Review a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. They may very well be informed opinions. Academics may very well put them on reading lists and even cite them. None of that creates editorial oversight. And, yes, academic journals and other reliable sources DO provide a list of their editorial hierarchy, that's one of the things we check for when we are assessing a source for reliability: some sort of masthead. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee is correct. For TPR's 837 articles, our searches has turned up two citations of TPR articles from any peer-reviewed scholarly publications. That is paltry and worse than several known predatory journals, let alone reputable peer-reviewed sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community (WP:SCHOLARSHIP again). The remaining evidence does not demonstrate much in terms of reliability:

• A Canadian immigration board (IRB) information request citation
• A student publication (AAPR) citation
• A alumni bulletin mentioning that a Harvard alum was on the TPR editorial board
• TPR appearing on reading lists
• Verification that one of the writers on the TPR editorial board (Tenzin Dickyi) is indeed a writer
• The author of a TPR article being cited in a blog post by another writer (Tsering Woeser)
• Being reprinted in a newspaper

It appears that there is no stronger evidence for reliability, and even a couple more additional genuine citations from peer-reviewed academic publications would be too few to really bring this to general RS status. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

{Replying to MarkH21's refractor}

• As WP:SOURCE states, If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..., but doesn't say they are the only reliable sources. We've established that the board provides professional oversite, and we've established that academic authors in peer reviewed journals cite Tibetan Political Review as in WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Warren Smith, the author of the article in Tibetan Political Review, is also established as a respected and notable specialist in his field. This adds further reliability to the article that's specifically contested with edits at Nyingchi [47]. He and Tibetan Political Review are properly cited inline, and the quotation's accuracy is reinforced by an excerpt added to the citation:

Historian Warren W. Smith states in his 2015 review of the model villages, included in his "Origins of the Middle Way Policy" for Tibetan Political Review, that tourism is turning Tibet into a theme park, and used Nyingchi's "fake Tibetan 'model villages'" as an example of Chinese "fantasies about primitive Tibetan society".

• To address another aspect of the importance of the author and source, related edits on Nyingchi were also reedited, but based on other RS. Possible related informational aspects with Smith's article is that those RS and sources state Tibetan nuns forced into political re-education centers/camps in Nyingchi have been documented as forced to sing and dance on a stage in Nyingchi. Which might or might not tie into "where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies" since Nyingchi is a popular tourist destination, only more RS will tell.
• For the record, the published author Woeser is cited by BBC and other first rate news agencies, and her blog is a famous record of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet, and cited by those agencies.
• Sorry for the repetition, but the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) citation is extremely notable as to the reliability of factual information in Tibetan Political Review regarding current conditions in Tibet.
• I've provided at least six individual citations of different articles from academic settings, and there are more for Smith alone, for Smith and Tibetan Political Review together, and for the journal with its other authors. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) MarkH21, I think items reprinted in RS would probably be usable as items from that reliable source (rather than from TPR), but the one PDC has linked to is published by Courrier International as an opinion piece, so again only a reliable source for Tenzin Dorjee's/TPR's opinion, with attribution. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Editor MarkH21 has stated that the edit above describing editorial "support" for RFA is "a false claim". While Esyimbro and Normchou both used RFA as an editing source, MarkH21 did not, but the edit history includes 5 reedits around the RFA source as Tibetan Political Review was being challenged as a source [48]. The interpretation of "support" stemed from WP:SILENCE in this instance where numerous edits and reverts around RFA were being made, but no deletions of RFA occurred. I don't believe a "false claim" was made, although MarkH21 has clearly restated they don't feel SILENCE is applicable. Thus, this note respectfully clarifies MarkH21's position on RFA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally not reliable. This is just WP:SPS op-ed material, not from a reputable publisher, and not from reknowed writers. I.e., it is low-quality WP:PRIMARY material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The seriously off-topic edits below should be refractored to the user's talk page. A request has already been made. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

requests re reformatting

Pasdecomplot please stop reformatting my replies. You changed the indent so that it looked like I was replying to a different post than I intended. I have changed it back. I have asked you not to do this many times before, and if you do it again I am going to have to ask someone else to please ask you to stop. Stop now. Do not reformat any of my posts ever again. Please respond. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot I've struck the section of my earlier post that I think you must have been referring to, and I apologize, I do see how that could feel like a personal attack. Now please respond to this one and assure me you understand that I am asking you to never reformat one of my posts again, even in an attempt to be helpful. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) PDC, it's not off topic. You were reformatting my replies in this discussion. That makes my request you stop reasonable to include here. If having it visible is going to bother you that much, though, I'll collapse it. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting close

• So, it's clear we don't have consensus for TPR to be considered a reliable source (other than for its own opinions, attributed, of course; it's perfectly reliable for that.) But I think we'd need a formal close to declare it not-reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed, as that's not as immediately clear. Should we request a formal close? —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Update —valereee (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Four editors have participated here, with three calling it not reliable (outside of WP:ABOUTSELF) and one calling it reliable. Another editors (plus a now-blocked editor) also called it not reliable at the original Talk:Nyingchi discussion. The consensus seems pretty clear, but a formal close doesn't hurt. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

    I've requested one. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Still hoping for eventual formal closure. —valereee (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Requests for closure has a bit of a backlog... —valereee (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Still hoping —valereee (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

I already know how this discussion's going to go, but I'd like to once again revisit Anthony Fantano's reliability as a source. At this point, given that he's been called The Only Music Critic Who Matters" by the New York Times (AKA the most reliable of reliable sources), Wikipedia's refusal to acknowledge him as an album reviewer seems to based more on respect for precedent and/or stubbornness than his actual merits as a reliable source. It is both at odds with reality and inconsistent with the way other sources are treated.

Jim Sterling is self-published and self-reviewed, yet his reliability as a source for video game reviews is not questioned. Like Fantano, Sterling's work was published under someone else's brand before he moved into self-publushing. Unlike Fantano, his current practice of self-publishing is not used as an excuse to remove his reviews from articles. Can someone please explain why Jim Sterling is an acceptable opinion to cite for video game reviews when the same is not true for Fantano and music reviews? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call NYT "the most reliable of reliable sources". We tend to rate scholarly sources higher than journalism. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this and was thinking about opening a thread about this (Its worth noting that the "The Only Music Critic Who Matters" was subtitled "If you are under 25"). This isn't really a source reliability question, but more a discussion about whether Fantano's stature is equivalent to those of mainstream media outlets like Pitchfork for album reviews, and whether his opinions are due for inclusion in the reception section, but as we are discussing a particular source this is the appropriate noticeboard. The fact that he is a self-published source is irrelevant for his opinions on albums. Fantano's status as an independent music critic is Sui generis, that is to say, totally unique, there simply aren't any other contemporary independent music critics with anywhere near his stature, which rivals that in audience and reach of mainstream music publications. I don't think that Fantano's opinion should be mass edited into every album he has ever reviewed, but I don't think he should be banned either as he effectively is now. I think his reviews should also count towards the notability of any album he covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agreed with this. The problem with his reviews that he post them on YouTube, which is a self-published website and self-published websites are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano. I'm a fan of the guy but I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia, if it supported by a third party source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, Music reviews are subjective, Fantano isn't being cited to support statements of fact, but his opinion on music, ergo this isn't a reliability issue. In the 2020 RfC there was clear concensus against adding an edit filter to YouTube links because youtube is a platform, not a publisher and has no effect on source reliability. The question is a due weight one, namely, does Fantano have the same prominence as critics in professional publications that he deserves to be placed in the reception section, and does he qualify as a subject-matter expert? Arguably, he does. "Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano" yeah but how many of those have recieved multiple profiles in high-profile publications? Fantanos status as an independent music critic is unique, and to just dismiss him as a "YouTuber" is silly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, we accept Robert Christgau's personal and private reviews on many album articles, and not just because it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. While NYT may not be a glowing endorsement, I tend to agree with the "marginal use" opinions offered here. We don't know if Fantano has an editor or makes retractions, or even if there may be payola involved in having Fantano offer a review, so I would not accept Fantano's word as final, but if an album has fewer than five reviews and Fantano has reviewed the work, it would benefit our project to include the review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, accepting Robert Christgau's self published reviews but not Fantano's is hypocritical. Fantano covers many less popular albums by smaller musicians and his views would enhance the reception sections of those articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's not the same and it's not hypocritical. The thing is Robert Christgau has written his reviews on his website in this fashion and now on Substack. That's different then posting a video on a website that can be considered as unreliable. So are you saying we should use Anthony Fantano's videos as a reliable sources instead of an article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as it's some sort of "official" YT-account or whatever, they seem about equally WP:SPS, with the possible subject-matter expert exception. See also WP:RSPYT. CNN on YT is as WP:RS as CNN elsewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fantano has his own website, which functions as direct youtube links. I don't see why there is an issue citing Fantano when theres no issue citing say a CNN report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

These comparisons don’t make any sense. CNN isn’t applicable — CNN (or whatever news source of your liking) is a massive publication with editorial oversight and review. Needle Drop is a person - Fantano - a person uploading his content straight to YouTube. Entirely different. The problem is no editorial oversight, no policy, nothinh, just a guy recording his thoughts and throwing it on YouTube. That is absolutely not what happens when a news reporter uploads content to a publications YouTube channel. Completely different. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I completely agreed. Using a video review is not the same then using a text review, these comparisons are dumb and don't make any sense. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Is he an acknowledged expert (by more then one RS) ?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also against this. This has been discussed to death at the musical WikiProjects. It’s straightforward - hes a self-publishing Youtuber. It’s extremely rare that such a sourc is deemed usable on Wikipedia. If anything, we should be re-looking at why we deem someone like Jim Sterling as usable, not the other way around. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: And yet Christgau's self-published reviews are just fine eh? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Why would you put words in my mouth like that? When have I ever said that? If you’re going to respond to me, please at least address the comments I’m actually making. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You were a participant to the 2014 discussion on Wikiproject Albums on Christgau in which you stated that "I would consider [Christgau] generally reliable regardless of genre, unless a consensus at a given article deems the source not to be used" for his non-self published work. Do you agree or disagree that Christgau's self published reviews are usable? I'm not addressing your arguments because its pretty clear from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#The_Needle_Drop that your actual reasoning is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and that you think that he's "just some guy on YouTube", describing him as "mak[ing] boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation" and criticising him for making joke reviews even though Pitchfork does the exact same thing, and not addressing the evidence presented from reliable sources that Fantano is indeed a notable critic. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Apologies for me not realizing you were responding to something I said six years ago to someone else? My sentiment from 6 years ago was that Christgau was usable but not compulsory and that he should be used sparingly. I personally dont use him at all, but I’ve learned to pick my battles because older editors in the music WikiProjects appreciate his work. Believe it or not, opinions can change over the course of 6 years, and if someone put forth an effort to not use Christgau anymore, I’d probably support it. Anyways, regardless, My problem with Fantano is that he’s self-published. Please assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the attention and endorsements that Fantano has received from RS makes a strong case for his expertise and relevance on a USEBYOTHERS basis. In addition to the NYTimes coverage linked above, here's two more examples attesting his relevance: [49], [50]. His use of the video format is annoying for us since text sources are so much easier to work with, but that's not a reason to consider him unreliable or irrelevant. Concerns about a lack of editorial oversight or fact checking are less germane for assessing his relevance because ultimately he is primarily being used for his opinion, and the question is whether his opinion is relevant, not whether it is "accurate". With that in mind, I wouldn't use him for controversial factual claims, but I think it's valid to cite his opinion as part of critical reception sections for music. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think that RSes have praised Fantano's reviews enough that his opinion "matters" enough to be included in the review section of album articles --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Another note - the opening comments are also misleading. To say WP:VG full-heartedly supports Jim Sterling’s use as a source is not accurate. If you look at their source list - WP:VG/S - you’ll see Sterling listed as “situational” with caveats and restrictions on his use. As someone who also edits in music and game content areas, I can verify that we often treat Sterling the same way we do Fantano - limiting the use of his content to when it’s been published by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My comment about Christgau is based on fully recognizing his body of work in reliable sources, with editorial oversight. He has been recognized as an expert and has written several books on albums. None of these books were self-published. There are reliable, sources that believe he is a qualified music journalist. There are discussions that have reached consensus that he is a RS when he writes on his own as well as when he has been published in other sources.

I have not seen any sources that support this same standard for Fantano. I have seen editors claim that sources exist. Please provide them so we can see what the sources say about Fantano. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Needle Drop

Can Anthony Fantano (The Needle Drop) be used for his reviews of music in the reception section of articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Responses (The Needle Drop)

• Yes There is no disagreement on the fact that Anthony Fantano is a self-published source, and therefore should be not used for independent claims about living persons. However, Fantano's opinion on music is not a question about whether Fantano is a reliable source, but whether or not he is a prominent critic. Coverage by reliable sources such as a profile in the NYTimes indicates that he is, and that he has a substantial following, far more so than any other independent music critic aside from Robert Christgau. Some editors have dismissed Fantano because he uses YouTube as the medium of his content, and that because YouTube is an "unreliable source" we should exclude him. However in the 2020 RfC on YouTube, it was determined that YouTube is a platform, not a publisher, and has no effect on source reliability. I don't think Anthony Fantano is more important than more mainstream music review outlets or that his opinion should be on every album that he has ever reviewed, but I see no reason to exclude him entirely as the current WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:ALBUM does (Technically the rule is that his views must be mentioned by a separate reliable source, in practice this functions as an almost total exclusion) and his reviews of less popular albums would help flesh out coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

After having a think about this and doing some additional research, I have come to some conclusions. Fantano and Pitchfork have a lot of overlap in what they cover in terms of more obscure albums, while Fantano's reviews of lobsterfight - pink, black, and orange in the corners and Dope Body - Crack a Light are the only reviews of these particular albums I can find. I agree with other commenters that there's not much reason to use Fantano for mainstream popular music where there is likely to be extensive coverage by other sources, unless reliable sources consider his opinion on them significant. I also agree that the inclusion of Fantano's reviews should vary on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Only when no other sources can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Only when no other sources can be found. At the end of the day, he is a YouTuber. His Wikipedia page uses {{Infobox YouTuber}}, his page says "YouTuber", so he’s a YouTuber. No one can tell me otherwise, for obvious reasons. YouTube as a platform is not reliable. It has no one to review videos, no one to fact check. That is left entirely to the content creators. Even if someone is a verified creator, in my eyes, they aren’t any more reliable then a verified Twitter account as Twitter is the same amount of unreliable. Having NYT recognize their person doesn’t make their videos more reliable. The platform is still YouTube. I’ve seen all sides of the argument from reading the above discussion, and I’m suggesting he is questionable as a source and should not be used when not needed, but can be used under dire circumstances (i.e. when there are minimal (0-2) reviews other than him and it is safe to assume no other sources will review the album). D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Revote: No. After careful consideration, I have changed my vote to "No" per comments made by ImaginesTigers and Ojorojo, as well as about 60% of my original comment (arguments about Fantano being a YouTuber, the whole bit about YouTube being unreliable and the Twitter analogy). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• No (Unreliable unless published/mentioned by a separate reliable source) - per my prior comments and WP:SPS. The issue is less about YouTube being the medium, and more about how he’s just a self-publisher without the things we look for in a professional publication. (No editorial oversight, editorial policy, anything like that.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, usable for music review content per my comment above. There is evidence of multiple RS treating him as a significant voice in music criticism. The weight of his opinions obviously is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis, although like other editors I doubt there will be much of a reason to cite him on articles where there's extensive mainstream critical coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (for music reviews), after reading the comments here and the article on him, I concur with Rosguill. Clearly RS treat him as a prominent critic, so he should be considered one by us per that conference of credibility; the platform he is on shouldn't matter, though I also agree that the weight his opinions are given should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Usable for music reviews per the RSes treating him as an important voice of music criticism. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, per Hemiauchenia. As a self-published source, Fantano is not a reliable source for factual claims. But given his notability, I see no reason why his opinions cannot be cited. Obviously he should not be the sole or even primary source of a Reception article except in special cases, e.g. Angelic 2 the Core but a few sentences mentioning his review would be fine. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: While I do enjoy Fantano's reviews myself, they should not be cited directly because they either come from YouTube or his website, which is self published. However, if a non contested reliable source publishes one or more of them, then that is fine to be cited. --K. Peake 06:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: I agreed with Doggy54321 and Sergecross73. Fantano's reviews would be reliable if they published by an reliable source. We should not ignore the fact that his reviews are still self-published. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes: After thinking about it, I have change my vote from no to yes, due to what Binksternet and JG66 has said. While I still think YouTube should be avoided for obvious reasons (per WP:SELFPUB), but Anthony Fantano is a well-known music critic and his reviews should not be ignored. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes except for BLP material. WP:SELFPUB appears to be directly relevant here and the material cited in the discussion above convinces me that this person meets the criteria in that policy. ElKevbo (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, we can and should use the Needle Drop for recent releases. My opinion has changed on this; I first thought Fantano was a flash in the pan, but he has proved his staying power, and his reviews are much discussed. We are here to summarize for the Wikipedia readers all the relevant literature, and whether we like it or not, Fantano has become part of the literature of music released since 2009. It matters less that he is right or correct in his reviews (Christgau famously went against the grain many times) and more that his reviews get tons of eyeballs, and attract strong reactions. Fantano is the subject of a few in-depth pieces about his career as a music critic, and none of them say he cannot be trusted. Australian entertainment news outlet Junkee said Fantano was praised by Christgau.[51] Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

He was definitely acknowledged by Christgagu, but to call it praise is questionable, the full quote (rather than the snippet in the article) seemed pretty dismissive to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - He's popular, perhaps he's the "wave of the future," but he's also, as the NYT article mentions, as much an entertainer as a critic. The article also mentions a managing editor, without describing what this editor actually does. The comparisons with Christgau are bizarre; Christgau has written for dozens of prestigious publications for over five decades, and has served as an editor himself; he is also an acknowledged expert on popular music. Mr. Fantano worked at a college radio station, and then Connecticut Public Radio. That would seem to be about it? He can be hugely popular, and even a harbinger, without actually meeting Wikipedia's standards for integrity and oversight. But, like Pitchfork, he will most likely continue to professionalize and mainstream himself and his platform, and may yet meet these outdated notions of editorial oversight. Caro7200 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on critical opinion, No for factual claims - The New York Times piece demonstrates that Fantano's critical opinion matters in today's new wave of journalism, whether we like it or not. I think some of the "No" votes are taking a black and white approach to WP:SELFPUB when the guideline is actually a bit more grey. The purpose of the guideline is to deter editors from sourcing material that clearly has no ground to stand on, like blogs and forum posts. It offers consideration for self-published authors who are deemed "subject-matter experts". While the guideline looks to works published in reliable sources to support this, I think this Times piece is an acceptable substitute. I think everyone should read it before voting. Now, music opinions are cheap :), but facts are not. Since the inner workings of The Needle Drop and its editorial process are still an enigma to me, I can't say there is strong enough editorial oversight that he can be used for factual claims. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes for music reviews, per Rosguill and TheSandDoctor. He's treated as a significant critic in reliable sources, so while obviously his reviews shouldn't be given undue weight, they do merit inclusion. --Drevolt (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but only for music reviews, and even then sparingly; his opinion is not a must-have in any given section on critical reception. Surprises me big time that I've come around to this way of thinking, but I'm swayed by some of the arguments put forward above. Binksternet's especially. I work pretty exclusively on music articles from the 1960s and early '70s, so I'd be surprised if there was ever a need for Fantano's opinions in those articles (he'd have to get in line behind dozens of critics and journalists – several dozen perhaps – going back decades). But Fantano's standing, at least as I understand it from this RfC, reminds of what I've read about Paul Williams when he founded Crawdaddy in the mid '60s. Williams had zero in the way of professional experience and for some time his (SPS) publication was just a fanzine, but it was immediately popular and highly influential; some music historians credit the Williams–Crawdaddy combination as the start of genuine rock/pop criticism. Fantano appears to have spearheaded a similarly revolutionary approach to how we view professional music reviews. I still think inclusion via secondary sources is preferred over directly citing his YouTube pieces, but then that's the approach I generally adhere to anyway – eg, by letting artist biographies, books on music history, etc, serve as the guide to what we include from contemporaneous (1960s) album and song reviews even if the entire review is now available online. JG66 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. I don't understand why other editors are ignoring the self-published requirement. You cannot, in my view, argue that he meets the expert criteria; that's a wilful misunderstanding of what its actual purpose, which is beyond even citing journalism—it’s for academics. An article in The New York Times about him is not the publication reproducing his work or his analysis. The NYT is actually kind of disparaging about his videos, calling them long-winded (maybe that's because he's self-published, and has no editorial oversight). Neither does it imbue him with any authority; the only person calling Fantano "an authority" in the article is a musician and college student whose [TWITTER] account does bite-size criticism. The NYT saying that he is a music critic that matters to people under 25 does not make him an expert; it makes him notable. Allowing YouTubers to be cited, selectively, is absolutely buck-wild. He's a notable, self-published source, who shouldn't be cited. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No The bar for critics should be fairly high. Many viewers may like him, but his reviews don't appear to be quoted or otherwise used in artist bios, music reference works, etc.[52] He may be popular, but otherwise doesn't seem to be an established expert, as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – I agree with Ojorojo here. Even though Fantano can be considered influential on listeners of today, he's still self-published. – zmbro _(talk) 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – I've read the NYT piece and, if I had reservations from voting one way or another before, I don't now. Maybe I'm getting old :/ isento (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note – Keep in mind that self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: "A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source" Perhaps revisit this source in the future, which is what the handful of reliable sources covering Fantano claim he represents. Apparently, he studied journalism, which is a plus. But allowing him as a source right now would be too much too soon. I think we should give it some more time, allow for some more coverage to develop around him to establish his credibility as an expert source, beyond the cultists who see him as one. isento (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• No As many have identified this source as WP:SPS, I would like to add that he is not a music journalist to have enough credibility. And please don't compare him to Robert Christgau--the latter is a true journalist, and the former is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight. The NYT piece is rather disparaging than complementing his views. HĐ (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Robert Christgau ... is a true journalist, and [Fantano] is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight" is a silly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Fantanos opinions clearly do hold weight, otherwise Daughter's tour wouldn't have sold out as mentioned in the nytimes piece. The NYTimes piece is pretty even-handed, only jabbing that his album reviews are "long winded" as they can be over 10 minutes, which is't really that long and by my account many of his reviews are substantially under that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Christgau is a journalist (at least perceived to be so), but I have yet to see any source regard Fantano as a journalist. If there is any source that says otherwise, I am happy to reconsider, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Christgau is now on Substack partly--or mostly--due to ageism (he's in his mid-70s, I think). He served for a time as an editor at the Village Voice; I have no doubt that he is paying close attention to whatever factual claims he makes in his criticism. I have no problem with Fantano using YouTube as a platform; I definitely don't have a problem with whether I "agree" with him, or anyone, about an album. I read many but not all of the references in his article--if anyone has more information about what his "managing" editor actually does, I could change my opinion. And, as an aside, RSs are always going to screw up--I remember a Too Short album where three or four RSs listed different release years--not different specific release dates, but years... Caro7200 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I see no issue with adding his reviews, as multiple RS have noted him as a prominent critic. YouTube being his outlet is irrelevant. It is a publisher, not a source. SK2242 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, for music reviews in agreement with SK2242. VERSACESPACE 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - As a prominent music critic, I don't see any problem with citing his opinions on Wikipedia with attribution. Self-published sources can certainly be used to cite an author's basic opinions.Eliteplus (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • He is obviously notable, if not notorious, as demonstrated by independent news coverage. But WP:ALBUM/SOURCE currently says sources should be professional. And given he has no professional oversight of his work, he is given (practically) free reign to behave in a way even Robert Christgau -- at his most contrarian and offensive back in the day -- would probably have been fired for doing so, as in this unconstrained expletive rant just several months ago. This is why the matter of being self-published is not just a superficial rule. isento (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - WP:RS clearly states that '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 ' (emphasis mine). This has been Wikipedia policy since 2006 at least. And Fantano, contrary to Robert Christgau, does not fit this specific criteria. In my personal ideal world, Fantano scores would be cited on Wikipedia, as he is the most influential music critic in the world, but that would require amending WP:RS beforehand.--JBchrch (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Note - And I literally subscribe to his Patreon to the tune of $5 per month. Cheers --JBchrch (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, for reviews. Regardless of whether you think he's a proper music critic, he is most definitely at least a professional music reviewer. We do not have a requirement that a review be written by a trained critic, as ideal as real criticism might be. We want professionals. Fantano doesn't work for a newspaper, but he's a professional. The requirement that someone be employed by a publisher is a good guideline, but this is one of those exceptional cases. I don't think we need to change the guideline in order to see that Fantano is a better source than many of the reviewers and critics that happen to work for a newspaper/magazine/website. Some local newspaper might have a couple paid reporters with no knowledge of film or music writing superficial film and music reviews in between the politics and sports, and because they technically work for a paper, we consider them reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Should probably have posted this a few days ago, when there were a few comments about the NYT article and Christgau's opinions in the latter. There have been other articles published about Fantano's rise, of course, eg Jeremy Gordon's 2016 article for Spin. Gordon writes that "A new era of music critics has mostly given up writing about the art form to put their faces front and center on YouTube"; he says Fantano is not only the best known of this new breed but that TND "[nets] enough ad revenues to support his family". So Fantano is unquestionably a professional reviewer. Also, the scepticism in the NYT article shouldn't be a surprise, and there's mention in the Spin piece too of areas where Fantano's approach has attracted disapproval from the more traditional type of music critic. Again, to go back in time (further to comments I made above): Paul Williams at Crawdaddy! and Richard Goldstein at The Village Voice were both the subject of profiles in Newsweek in 1966 yet, so I gather from secondary sources, there was still a suspicion among the old guard that they weren't the real deal, partly because rock music wasn't yet deemed worthy of sophisticated criticism and appreciation by the culturally elite. A year later, it was, and Goldstein was lambasted by establishment sophisticates like Richard Poirier and Ned Rorem for his unfavourable response to the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album. (These middle-aged writers said that Goldstein and any other dissenting young "rock critic" lacked the ability to understand the Beatles' achievement.) ... As I say, this post's probably a day or two too late to be relevant. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• No He is not only self-published, but a NYT article about him doesn't make him reliable. I do enjoy some of his pieces and his notability is well known. However, until I see some proof there is an oversight review of his material and content I will stand my ground on this. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I tend to agree with MarioSoulTruthFan and quite a few others. He's self-published per WP:SPS, and doesn't seem to be reliable and verifiable per WP:RS and WP:VER. I don't think there's much to discuss for self-published sources.Magnus Dominus (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: no editorial oversight. I'm sure the man is more diligent, thoughtful and informative than many traditionally published critics but it's not right for Wikipedia without being published in a reliable news source. I think it takes a huge weight of information for someone to be such a significant critic that anything they say as self-published opinion is good for our reception sections—Roger Ebert springs to mind but there's not many people in this category. NYT is just a profile; if someone sees sources of this quality quoting or referencing Fantano's reviews in their music reviews or coverage then that's different. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: Rodger Ebert always published his reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times and was never an independent critic, these reviews were also republished on RodgerEbert.com. How much oversight is actually expected of review content generally? I think the comparison to an influential fanzine made above are apt. From what I understand of reviews in professional publications work, there is generally little oversight even in high-profile outlets, because the views presented are largely subjective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No per much of the above. In short, WP:SPS and interviews and such don't make him notable. Being notable isn't a sufficient standard, anyway. We only use SPS (for other than WP:ABOUTSELF purposes) for commentators who are renowned experts in their field; some vlogger kid with some opinions to share doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Needle Drop)

Pinging previous participants to the discussion:@PDMagazineCoverUploading: @TheAmazingPeanuts: @Sergecross73: @Guerillero: @Rosguill:. Sorry for the repetition, but I think this is best resolved by having a well attended RfC. Feel free to simply re-add your thoughts, as I didn't feel comfortable altering peoples text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, I've been busy updating our 1925 book covers for Public Domain Day and haven't payed as close attention to this discussion as I should. I agree with the idea that Fantano is acceptable to cite as a reviewer, but not as a reliable source for factual information. In other words: It should be acceptable to mention Fantano's review on Angelic 2 The Core, but he should not be cited on the Corey Feldman article as a source for information about Feldman. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk)

I'm disturbed at the number of editors who appear to be ignorant or completely dismissive of WP:SELFPUB, a policy that has widespread consensus. Editor who believe that a self-published source cannot be considered reliable or used under any circumstances are encouraged to raise those objections at the Talk page of that policy; it's inappropriate to ignore or undermine that policy in this RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: What part of SELFPUB do you think makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I know that they may be used about themselves, but nowhere in there does that part of the policy page suggest that it can be used about another person. The one exception I see there is if the reviewer is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Again, waiting to hear how Fantano's reviews meet the criteria listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A musical work is not a person so that doesn't seem relevant. "I don't think this person has met the bar of being a recognized expert" is a reasonable position to take but that's not what you wrote above in your !vote. What you wrote above - that this source is reliable if there aren't any other sources - doesn't actually make any sense at all. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: What I wrote above and what I am asking here are not necessarily connected. I am asking you what part of SELFPUB makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I do not see a connection and I don't think you have any justification. I suspect you're using SELFPUB in a way that it is not written to support. In short, SELFPUB does not apply to a self-published reviews—whether they be on YouTube or their own blog—and you know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is a self-published review different from any other self-published source? ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you answer his question or not? Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "YouTube exception" to WP:SELFPUB so the burden is on those who are arguing for such an exceptional situation. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter Gorlitz has already answered the question himself: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As EK observes, one can argue about whether Fantano meets the conditions of this sentence; but if he does meet the conditions, then WP:SELFPUB is an endorsement of using his reviews. (EK is making a really simple point, I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it.) --JBL (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it. The more sources that are depreciated, the more subjects that can be found non-notable, and the more articles deleted. I wish observing Wiki behavior didn't lead me to this conclusion, but it's unavoidable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Yeah, why most of the editors are ignoring the guidelines on self-published sources. I understand Anthony Fantano is well-known but why are we giving him a pass since he still published his reviews on YouTube. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What does publication on YouTube have to do with anything? ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: YouTube is a self-published source, which is unreliable. If we considering using him as a reliable source for music reviews, I suggest we use his blog instead of direct links to his videos. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is just wrong -- per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This is true regardless of the medium of publication (YouTube, blog, etc.). --JBL (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-published sources, including YouTube videos, are not inherently unreliable. If you would like to change the project-wide consensus on this, I recommend and request that you do so at the Talk page of WP:SELFPUB.

I have no opinion on whether this person's videos or blog posts are better sources except to note that blog posts are not inherently more reliable or "better" than videos nor are videos inherently unreliable or "worse" that other media. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: @JayBeeEll: I understand what the guidelines says, but it seems like almost everybody in this discussion is given Fantano's YouTube reviews an exception, which we should not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts appears to be notifying specific users about this RfC, 1 2 3 4 5 6, many others can be seen in his edit history, in violation of WP:CANVASSING rules. Canvassing rules state that making notifications on the talkpages of users are allowed if:

• They have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• They have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• They are known for expertise in the field
• They have asked to be kept informed". I don't know enough about the opinions of users in question to know if this is an attempt at votestacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I was making editors aware of this discussion, why you making a big deal about this? Let's stay on topic here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Because you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion, and thus altering the outcome of this RfC. I don't know enough about the people you have notified to know if that it is correct, but your notifications on users talk pages should be noted in this discussion for transparency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: You are wrong, I did this before with past discussions to let editors (who work on music-related articles) know there is a discussion to avoid edit wars in the future. I don't care if they agreed with my opinion or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You directly notified 16 users, including: Drevolt, Kyle Peake, JG66, Zmbro, Binksternet, Robvanvee, MarioSoulTruthFan, Jennica, SnapSnap, Sock, BawinV, HĐ, Doggy54321, BillieLiz, Holiday56 and Isento. I'm not sure that counts as excessive under current canvassing rules, but that is a lot of users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I recognize most as being editors who are or have been active in the music-related content area. And the notifications I spot checked were neutrally worded. And I don’t particularly view any of these editors as "buddies" with AnazingPeanuts who are likely to automatically side with him. (Not am I - AmazingPeanuts and I have clashed on numerous occasions.) This feels like another distraction... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's simply a case of TAP being the collaborative type and wanting to ensure as many regular or semi-regular editors as possible weigh in on each issue. That way, the outcome's a convincing one, whichever way it goes. (Looking at the list of 16 people, I wouldn't say we're all of one mind on most things, anyway.) I think it's an admirable approach. It's certainly better than when editors try to push something through before too many people become aware of the discussion, even though the outcome could well affect the whole project. Anyway ... JG66 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: @JG66: This is what I trying to do. I not telling other editors to disagree with Hemiauchenia, I just letting other editors (who work mostly on album-related articles) to know there is an discussion involving a popular reviewer. This topic is unrelated and should not even be discuss. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As an editor who was pinged, I can confidently say that it is not canvassing. TheAmazingPeanuts and I have made edits to the same pages, but as far as I can recall, we have yet to have a talk conversation just the two of us. The most we’ve interacted is in RMs. While I do appreciate him bringing this to my attention, his vote/comments did not influence my vote. We literally have opposing votes. @Hemiauchenia: I’ve never been involved in a discussion like this before, so how would TAP even come to the conclusion that I would oppose this? I’m a part of WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG, so I deserve to be part of this conversation. Music is my field of interest on Wikipedia. Besides, the more opinions the better. Side note: I don’t think saying you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion is assuming good faith. As JG66 said, it was probably just because TAP wants as many editors as possible to have a comment in this discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I regret the accusation of canvassing, its just that the notification of specific users for RfC's is something that can easily be used to alter outcomes, which makes me wary. "you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion" was not accusatory, it was just a reflection on the nature on notifying specific individuals rather than Wikiprojects. TheAmazingPeanuts is a good contributor and I have nothing against them. Some of my actions during the discussions were too hasty, and I'm feeling in a strange, reflective move, and I regret the way I handled myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah look, let's just put this thing to bed. It's quite understandable that you raised concerns re WP:CANVASS, Hemiauchenia, just as it was very welcome when you subsequently withdrew the tags you'd(?) added to the relevant editors' ivotes. There's no hard feeling, and no one's acted inappropriately. Besides, as the voting shows already, there's a wide range of opinions among TAP's supposedly favoured 16. (I'm just slightly peeved that I appear to be fairly low down on TAP's list of party invites, judging by their contribs at that time ... [I'm joking – I'm JOKING!] There was a Seinfeld episode based on that theme, I think.) JG66 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, PDMagazineCoverUploading, ElKevbo, Walter Görlitz, Sergecross73, JayBeeEll, The Bushranger, TheAmazingPeanuts, and JG66: Pinging all editors who have participated in discussion. It has been a week since anyone posted anything in the discussion part of the RfC, and votes above are slowing down. So far, it’s 16 15 Yes, 12 No and 1 Only when no other sources can be used, so we don’t have a clear consensus. Most of the yes votes have a disclaimer like No for factual claims or Only for reviews. I’m not exactly sure what to do next, since the votes are pretty close. We don’t have a clear consensus, so we can’t take any further action. Just saying Well there are four more votes for yes than no, so we can use Fantano for musical reviews won’t get us anywhere, since there’s obviously a lot of us (42% of the 28 people who voted) that would oppose this. What should we do next? (Please ping me in your replies using {{ping}} or {{reply to}}.) D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: It should be put up at WP:RFCLOSE, where an uninvolved person makes the closing decision, based on the weight of the arguments presented. I will do this now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about. We do not vote, we discuss. And for the record, I said neither yes nor no. I indicated that the subject is not generally reliable. If an editor is looking for a source but can't find a reliable one, Fantano could be used. Of course, if that's the only source, then the subject does not merit a stand-alone article and could only be used in a larger article. Since the subject has not been cited by reliable sources, we should not even be having this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yes we do, we !vote and then discuss below. I agree with you when you say that the subject hasn’t been cited by reliable sources. I included you in the Yes category, per my comment above: Most of the yes votes have a disclaimer. It doesn’t matter anyways, because the uninvolved editor at WP:RFCLOSE won’t base the closing decision solely off of !vote count, but rather the points we have made and the discussions we have had. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that you changed terms. No we do not vote, because as we both know "the use of the words 'vote' and 'voting' might not be the best choice when describing Wikipedia processes. While technically correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule. Different terminology (e.g. 'seeking views', 'polling' and 'commenting') may be preferable." If you'd like me to change my opinion to fit your narrow view, I could change it to deprecate. Until I see proof the source is recognized by RSes as compitent reviewer I will not accept that the source is reliable for anything other curiosity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: thanks for the clarification. I honestly don’t know why you’re making a big deal out of this. I was categorizing !votes into lemons and limes, you !voted an orange. I’ve changed my comments above, if that makes you feel better. As well, I wasn’t about to include every type of header everyone used, because that would take a long time. Instead, I gave a general view (for brevity’s sake) and asked for advice. As I said before, the uninvolved closing editor isn’t gonna care about !vote count, rather the comments people have made. Interestingly enough, you were the only one to not comment on your !vote. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm making a big deal about it because terminology is always key. What you have done is made it seem like each previous comment has been made with the same weight and merit, which is what "vote" implies. That's not the case. Those arguing against its use seem to have more policy-based rationale for exclusion than those arguing for its inclusion. If a new editor were to come along and simply want to be with the majority, they would bee given the wrong perception. The final judgment lies with the individual closing this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: China Daily

Link: [53]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [54]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source and should not be invoked in talk page discussions, it says pretty much nothing of value about the quality of a source. That said I do think a RfC on China Daily is warranted. chinadaily.com.cn   is currently cited in 5,762 articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the usual options. Which of the following best describes the reliability of China Daily?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

--Sunrise (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (China Daily)

• Deprecate - My first impression on looking at it is that it's probably in the same category as RT (TV network) aka "Russia Today" which is already deprecated? Being owned by the "Propaganda Department" of the Chinese government and all... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be deprecating sources so lightly based on a first impression. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: on detailed further review it is owned, operated controlled, and so forth by the same entity that owns and controls China Global Television Network, which is already deprecated for being a propaganda outlet. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation China Daily being owned by the CCP is no more a stopper for me than NBC being owned by Comcast. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that state-owned media in non-western states is somehow inherently less reliable than state- or corporate-owned media in the west (to clarify, that's a general observation I've made of others - not you, and I don't think you're doing that here). Indeed, Bennett's indexing theory - certainly the most influential theory in the last 30 years in media studies - suggests that media in the west are already more or less state-controlled on matters of importance, even if they're not state-owned, the different perception of independence only due to their need to calibrate reporting to the multiple control levers present in multi-party states. I believe China Daily is generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions where its use should be limited to WP:SELFSOURCE. Though, as with all sources, WP:DUE should be considered in every use. I draw this conclusion as follows:

-Media Bias Fact Check is unambiguously unreliable. For the purposes of RSN, I always assume it simply doesn't exist.

-The consensus of scholarship indicates that media in China can, and is, held judicially liable for defamation (e.g. this study by Benjamin L. Liebman[55], among others) and this includes state-controlled media.

-The China Daily has a gatekeeping process.

-The China Daily is sourced to RS which is, ultimately, the only standard we - as Wikipedians - can apply. Provided this is met we can't deprecate a source because we're uncomfortable with the governance or ownership structure. In just the last year its original reporting has been sourced (with attribution, but absent frightening caveats about the CCP owning it) by Science Magazine [56], the BBC [57], Barron's [58], Washington Post [59], NPR [60], and others. USA Today even used it as a corroborating source for one of their fact-checks [61]. If we deprecate China Daily while accepting sources that routinely source the China Daily for their content we're saying we know more about the China Daily than any RS. And if we know more than RS, there's no real reason to keep the WP:OR policy.

Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While I haven’t evaluated this particular source in detail, the above comment contains a number of arguments that are largely invalid or irrelevant. (I will ignore the suggestion that many of our usual RS are effectively state-controlled, as something that shouldn’t require refutation.) Starting with the bullet points, it's true that MBFC is unreliable and should not be considered. However:

• Defamation claims being permitted by a country’s laws is a minimal standard, not an argument in favor of reliability. Furthermore, the article cited is from 2006, before the more recent increases in state control. And even at the time, as acknowledged in the same article, defamation claims were also used as tools of media control.
• Having a gatekeeping process is likewise a minimal requirement. Presumably, one of the concerns in this case includes what type of reporting that gatekeeping process will allow.
• Simply being cited by RS does not make a source reliable. Instead, we want the source to be discussed in RS and to evaluate the contents of those discussions. The Daily Mail is also sometimes cited in RS; this is a common situation in which information from an unreliable source may become usable on Wikipedia because of a better source applying its own editorial processes to the information in question.

Additionally, much of the comment is about Chinese sources in general. While this can certainly inform the evaluation, any such information will be overridden by information about the specific source in question. Checking the WP article shows e.g. China Daily#Editorial control and China Daily#Disinformation allegations, which are issues that would need to be addressed.

It's true that state ownership doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, but it’s still a relevant consideration in countries that use the press for propaganda. (I think that some editors, when they mention state ownership, are using it as a shorthand for this type of argument.) The reason that ownership structure can be overlooked in some cases is not because the owners are unbiased, but because they are more likely to have credible policies about independence in reporting. This is not a “west/east” distinction, or any other system that tries to divide people by nation or culture - it’s a result of applying sourcing guidelines that ignore such things. Furthermore, introducing such distinctions (which are largely arbitrary to begin with) only serves to frame the discussion in terms of geopolitics and makes it harder to evaluate the issue neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: just FYI Liebman appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you say he says. Also making that argument in this explicit context ignores the fact that the CCP is above regular Chinese law, it literally doesn't apply to them as party is above state unlike in those multiparty systems (your argument appears to conflate state owned and party owned media). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that China Daily should be considered "generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions" leaves very little for it to report on, given the CCP's influence over every aspect of China's economy, culture and society. It should be good only for its births and obituaries. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it's generally reliable for non-political stuff (like the manhole story that BBC reported based on a China Daily story) and generally unreliable for everything related to politics, broadly defined (see China_Daily#Controversy). Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation. First, context matters and no context is discussed here, not even one example. Second, being rated as left-biased (or right-biased) by some random organization is irrelevant to deprecation discussions. Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. And finally, as much as ownership structure is now a thing for flagging content on Twitter or Facebook, that's not yet a Wikipedia policy. Ownership is part of what we look at when evaluating sources, but not the only thing at all. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I’m surprised it hasn’t been deprecated already given their explicit existence as a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party and long history of disinformation peddling. We have explicit cases of them spreading disinformation which are covered on their page. They have no respect and little credibility within the traditional media, Reporters Without Borders has condemned them etc. I strongly support deprecation. Nothing I’ve seen suggests its usable outside of about self which I will add given the immense nature of the CCP thats actually a lot of contextually appropriate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. It's a state-owned / operated / supported news service, in essence no different form the BBC or PBS. Non-political news is the product of professional reporters. Any story displaying overt political bias is stating the government's official party line — which is important to know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party not the Chinese state, it is political party-owned not state-owned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a distinction between the Communist Party and the Chinese state. I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have considered the Communist Party's Pravda a useable source for insight into Soviet thinking during the Cold War. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your point about them being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS which are entirely independent of the political parties in their respective states. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: In China's case, the Party is the government. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, since you now agree "In China's case, the Party is the government", that makes this vastly different from the BBC or PBS, which are independent of political party in their countries. It's much more a propaganda rag with little factual reliability, with the best comparisons indeed being the factually deficient Pravda, or Russia Today, or 112 Ukraine (owned by Russian proxies), or Rodong Sinmun from North Korea. There are also precedents from Wikipedia regarding papers similar in ownership structure, if not political leaning, such as An Phoblacht, Anadolu Agency, The Electronic Intifada, HispanTV, or Press TV. See their entries at WP:RSP.

It might be viewed as a source (as you proposed) for occasional insight into official talking points of the Chinese Communist Party, but I would never trust Pravda, or Rodong Sinmun, or China Global Television Network, or "China Daily" for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus, we have literature that indicate the BBC tends to adopt framing in its reporting that mirrors that used by whatever party is in power at the time. (e.g. [62], etc.) We need actual evidence of unreliability, not merely expressions of our personal discomfort with the ownership group. "They're communists" is not a policy-based argument to deprecate a source. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a better argument is conflict of interest in relation to certain topics, meaning it can be determined on a case by case basis... —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your argument about it being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS, if you’re arguing that the entire relationship between party and state is radically different than in a multiparty state like the US or UK then what do you mean by "in essence no different” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Oppose Deprecation: the arguments mentioned by Chetsford, MarioGom and Tenebrae are persuasive. Appropriate attribution should be made for statements related to China Daily's area of bias. Also, this RFC hasn’t been set up in our required neutral format. “Deprecate China Daily” isn’t a suitable heading for an RfC and the introduction is supposed to be neutral. Burrobert (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The fact that they are owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party is reason enough. Just as we treat (say) NewsBusters and CNS News together, because both are owned by the Media Research Center, so it should be with China Daily and the deprecated Global Times. For those who don't think that is sufficient reason, please consider China_Daily#Disinformation_allegations. To take one recent example, China Daily promoted tweets saying that the Hong Kong demonstrators were sponsored by Western interests. It also claimed that they were planning terrorist attacks on September 11, 2019.[63][64]. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation, however I would go with option 2 or 3, depending on the topic. Chinese state media is OK to cite as a WP:RS for non-controversial mainland news (such as China opening whatever high-speed train line or something like that), but for controversial topics such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, they should only be used with attribution to get the PRC's official opinion on such subjects. Félix An (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and treat as we treat other semi-official or official media: somewhere in between options 1 and 2, with good judgement expected from editors as usual. Thanks to Chetsford especially for their careful consideration and comments. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

{u|Darouet} can you give examples of official state media (in particular in single-party non-democratic states) that we place between options 1 and 2? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate and put it in the same category as Global Times and CGTN/CCTV. In my opinion, Xinhua News Agency should also be deprecated. Brady (2015) wrote an excellent review on those so-called "media" as part of Beijing's global propaganda campaign. Despite the subtle and stealthy nature of China's overseas influence operations, there are numerous reports by reliable sources and countries with press freedom regarding Chinese state-controled media including China Daily disseminating false or fabricated information. For example, [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. It is truly unbelievable that some editors could turn a blind eye and still promote the false equivalence of state-controlled propaganda organs and private media with editorial independence and well-established fact-checking processes. Normchou ^💬 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Deprecation The fact that they have not failed a fact check speaks strongly in their favour, even if it is obviously the state outlet of the PRC. Certainly however, on topics where the PRC feels strongly about however, it should be used only as a last resort, or in order to back up an official position of the PRC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I think it should be treated similar to CGTN where it should pretty much exclusively be used for statements made by the Chinese government but some other areas unrelated to Chinese interests seem to be okay. Flalf^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose depreciation for the same reasons already pointed out by others. The discussion below is straying far away from WP:RS. Mottezen (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 It should be treated as we treat other state-controlled media in authoritarian single-party states: reliable (typically with attribution) as a source on government/party statements (e.g. as a source for statements from state public health officials as in the most of the uses by other reliable sources cited by Chetsford above), possibly reliable for non-controversial facts (e.g. numbers of stolen manhole covers, as in another of Chestsford's examples), but generally unreliable for anything controversial in which the Chinese state has an interest. Nobody so far has put forward arguments for why it should be treated less cautiously than other such state-controlled media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per MarioGom. China Daily is reliable for various topics, though of course they won't be neutral on politics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: I don't see any convincing arguments for deprecation above. China Daily is an important source for news from inside China. Deprecating it would worsen the already worrying systemic bias with regards to China, in which we increasingly rely on sources outside China that themselves often have ideological biases and questionable accuracy. A brief tangent to illustrate this:

The Wall Street Journal published a news article about Chinese economic policy last month that severely mistranslated a statement by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. The original description of his speech is as follows:

会议要求，国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体。国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值。

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

'State-owned enterprises,' he said, 'must become the competitive core of the market.'

This has a very different meaning from what Liu He said in Chinese, and in context, it's almost a direct inversion of his meaning. This is how DeepL translates his statement into English:

The meeting called for state-owned enterprises to become core competitive market players. State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value.

The point of the statement is that state-owned enterprises must become more market-oriented - something that has typically been viewed as a pro-market policy. The WSJ's mistranslation reverses that, and turns it into a statement about how state-owned enterprises should dominate the market ("core competitive market players" turns into "the competitive core of the market").

This mistranslation was pointed out by a reporter for Xinhua, Zichen Wang. The WSJ has still not issued a correction. The WSJ is considered a highly reliable source, and in most contexts it is, but like all sources, it has biases. Especially in the increasingly nationalist climate, those biases can impact accuracy in reporting about countries that are viewed as "adversaries" (in whatever country the newspaper is operating out of - the US, in the case of the WSJ). That's how we get the WSJ mistranslating a statement by a Chinese official and then failing to issue a correction.

It's important to continue using a mix of sources to cover China, including sources with a good record of factual accuracy from within China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, which may only represent minority viewpoints within the community. Moreover, "systemic ABC" is usually poorly defined and unfalsifiable (see some elaboration here), and one should not invoke it when talking about specific instances of an issue, such as "the reliability of China Daily". If factual evidence still matters—which the editor above seemed to think so given that they listed an example of a purported mistranslation to illustrate their point—then the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information should actually support Option 4: Deprecate. Normchou ^💬 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "purported" mistranslation - it's a black-and-white example of a mistranslation. Anyone who reads both English and Chinese can compare the original Chinese text with the WSJ's English rendering.

I raised this example because it illustrates an important point. All sources have biases, and those biases can affect accuracy. It's no secret that tensions between the US and China have escalated dramatically over the last few years, and that public opinion towards China in the US and a number of other allied countries has become extremely negative in a very short space of time. To think that this wouldn't affect American newspapers as well would be naive. Above, we have an example of a leading American newspaper, a solid RS, blatantly mistranslating a Chinese official, in a way that completely reverses the meaning of the official's statement. Who pointed out the mistranslation? A reporter for Chinese state media - a reporter who is likely much more familiar with the policy positions of Chinese officials than the typical WSJ reporter is. The WSJ has not yet issued a correction (it's had a month to do so), and indeed, correcting this mistranslation would probably require the WSJ to significantly revise its entire article (because the actual quote in Chinese contradicts the basic thesis of the WSJ article).

overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information: This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement. In most areas, for example, I think it's clear that Xinhua is highly reliable. Like any source, we should be aware of its biases. For the most part, it will not report on issues that reflect negatively on the Chinese government. However, it will also accurately report on many issues within China that American newspapers like the NY Times and WSJ will scarcely ever report on (and if they do, their reporting is often not particularly reliable or leaves out important context). Our articles on China will not become more reliable by systematically excluding all Chinese sources. I think editors are capable enough to understand the biases that Chinese state media have, and to use them appropriately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. False equivalence and bothsidesism neither make one's argument more convincing, nor help with reducing bias. All sources have biases by no means implies that all biases from all sources—not to mention false and fabricated information from only certain sources—should be treated in the same way when it comes to their negative effects on the Wikipedia project. Thus far, Thucydides411, the editor above, has only used a single, isolated, purported case to illustrate their point. Yet they do not bother about it while turning a blind eye and throwing out some random cliche like This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement when overwhelming evidence says otherwise: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. By the way, as a native speaker of several Chinese languages, I disagree with that Chinese state media journalist's view that the WSJ's translation is such a big deal; 国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market—where many other players can also exist—with the additional requirement that such SOEs should have core/major competitive advantages. A basic understanding of economics—a quality that most of the readers of the WSJ should have—tells me that a "market", by definition, has more than one player, so the "core" is really just the "core player", because the qualifier "of the market" is already there. Regarding the specific structure of that market, it could be in the form of perfect competition, imperfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, etc. There is no indication in Liu He's speech that he is referring to a perfectly competitive market. Normchou ^💬 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market: That's not what it means. It's absolutely clear in the Chinese original that "core" refers to "competitiveness". Just from the way the sentence is constructed, "core" cannot possibly refer to "market", and the phrase says nothing about SOEs becoming the "core player of the market". An unambiguous English translation would be, "SOEs must become market players with their own core competitiveness". The basic meaning here is that SOEs should be subject to market forces, rather than relying on subsidies. The very next sentence makes this even more explicit: 国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值 (DeepL gives, "State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value", and I agree with DeepL's translation). The reason why this is more than just an innocuous translation error is that it makes it look like Liu He is supporting nearly the exact opposite policy - state support for SOEs. I gave this as just a recent example of inaccurate reporting on China by an otherwise high-quality RS - inaccurate reporting that came to light because it was pointed out by a reporter for Chinese state media. This case isn't isolated.

their negative effects on the Wikipedia project: I haven't seen examples where use of China Daily has harmed Wikipedia. Deprecation is a sledgehammer, and if we use it too broadly, we actually do run the risk of ending up with an encyclopedia that has strong national biases. What we need, instead, is for editors to have a bit of common sense, to understand policies around bias in sources, to know when to attribute statements, and to evaluate reliability in specific contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong. 市场主体 literally means the "market's main body"(most common Chinese definition), so there is no issue with 国有企业要成为...的市场主体 being translated to "SOEs should be the core (player) of the market that ..." if one interprets the phrase this way, given the fact that there can be other "main bodies" in the market. The editor above, Thucydides411, should stop using machine translation to mislead themselves and others in this discussion. The more conducive way would be to first have a good understanding of the Chinese languages and the semantic and syntactic ambiguities specific to them. Normchou ^💬 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your confusion now. You linked to the definition of 主体, which by itself can indeed mean "main body". However, the full phrase 市场主体 is the standard way of referring to any market player, large or small, in Chinese. Even native speakers who are unfamiliar with economics can get this wrong. You can verify that what I'm saying is correct by looking at actual uses of the phrase 市场主体. For example, here's a recent usage:

“前三季度，全国共注吊销市场主体779.7万户，同比下降7.9%。其中，注吊销企业262.6万户，下降10.0%；注吊销个体工商户507.1万户，下降6.9%；注吊销农民专业合作社10.0万户，下降3.3%。”杨红灿说。

The passage refers to 7.797 million 市场主体 being written off in the first three quarters of 2020. There obviously aren't 7.797 million "main bodies" of the market in China - and this is just the number that went under in 2020! And as a second example, here's a Chinese government website with instructions on how to create a 市场主体. They're obviously giving instructions on how to create a market entity, not on how to create the "main body" of the market. For what it's worth, Baidu Baike has a page defining 市场主体, and what it describes is any sort of market player. But really, just search the internet for the exact phrase 市场主体, read what comes up, and you'll very quickly realize that this is standard terminology for any market entity.

Maybe the WSJ made the same mistake, assuming that 市场主体 means the "main body of the market", although that would be surprising, given that you'd expect WSJ to find a translator who's familiar with economics. But whatever the reason, the WSJ did mistranslate this passage and nearly inverted its meaning; the mistranslation came to light because of a Xinhua journalist who noticed it; and the WSJ has yet to issue a correction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm wait, since when have you been fluent in Mandarin? You’ve claimed the opposite in your interactions with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate what you mean by "fluent" into HSK or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages? But in all seriousness, my own exact proficiency level is not at issue here. As we've seen above, even native speakers can make mistakes when dealing with unfamiliar technical jargon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you’re trying to say that a native speaker has made a mistaken then yes your exact proficiency level does actually become an issue. Especially when you’ve never disclosed *any* Mandarin proficiency at all... Let alone the level you would need to correct a native speaker on technical jargon. Much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're venturing into ad hominem here. Do you think that 市场主体 means the market's main body, or do you think that it refers generally to any market entity? There isn't actually any real question about what the correct answer is (it's a technical term that means any sort of "market entity", regardless of size or importance), and personally attacking me does not constitute a convincing linguistic argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly dislike being mislead either by media outlets or wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

市场主体 means market entity,[81] though I think it is a term of art and not all native speakers are familiar with it. Possibly the Wall Street Journal's mistranslation is due to the word 主体, which often means "main part", but in this phrase might be better translated as "agent". See also wikt:主體. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate how poor coverage of China is in otherwise reliable sources, and how systematically deprecating Chinese sources will worsen WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. Again, I use the Wall Street Journal, a source that is generally highly reliable, to illustrate my point. In a news (not opinion) article last June about Huawei and its founder Ren Zhengfei, the WSJ wrote,

Just over a month after his daughter's arrest, Mr. Ren visited a Huawei research-and-development center in Hangzhou, commanding employees to learn from the U.S. tech giant Google and 'surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' according to a transcript confirmed by two Huawei executives.

That sounds pretty terrible, until you realize that the phrase Ren Zhengfei used (杀出一条血路) is a standard idiom in Chinese that is commonly used and not perceived as extreme. Imagine literally translating a violent English idiom ("shooting ducks in a barrel", "kill two birds with one stone", "to go in with guns blazing", "to take a stab at it", etc.) into a foreign language, and presenting it as a direct quote. Again, the person who pointed out this misleading translation was Wang Zichen, a journalist who works for Xinhua. The person who actually translated Ren Zhengfei's speech for the WSJ, Eva Dou, said that WSJ editors had not let her review the draft of the article, and that some of the "nuance & context was lost".

The Times (generally reliable, per WP:RSP) then took this translation and ran with it, in an article titled "Huawei’s founder declares 'war' on West":

Huawei's founder urged workers to crush rivals and 'blaze a trail of blood' in the Chinese telecoms giant's battle for supremacy. Ren Zhengfei ordered staff at Huawei's research and development centre in Hangzhou, eastern China, to learn from Google's unrelenting march. 'Surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' he said a month after the arrest of his daughter in Canada in 2018, according to a transcript seen by The Wall Street Journal.

By the way, the transcript was not just "seen by the Wall Street Journal". It's been online from the beginning. Nobody at Huawei apparently realized that English speakers would be disturbed by a literal translation of a common Chinese idiom. Just to sum up: a Chinese CEO uses a common Chinese idiom, the WSJ translates it too literally into English, and The Times then picks it up and presents it as a blood-curdling declaration of war on the West. Neither the WSJ nor The Times has issued a correction. This is the sort of gross misrepresentation that we deprecate sources for. If we get rid of all Chinese sources, we'll be solely relying on sources like WSJ and The Times to report on China, and that's a bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• *Oppose Deprecation and as usual CONTEXT matters. I see no compelling argument and dislike casually dismissing sources entirely. This seems a major WEIGHT source, widely used outside and in WP articles, so it would be difficult to exclude anyway. With what seems solid editorial control and generally factual content, I don’t see any reason to exclude. Context should always be considered for RS, and even in suspect cases such are potentially useable as a WP:BIASED source, just like material from advocacy groups can be used. It’s not grounds for entire deprecation. Would one use Washington Post for Amazon content ? Probably just seek another source — but that doesn’t exclude WaPo from all articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford and Thucydides411. We cannot discount the biasness of the various so-called English-language WP:RS when they describe or criticize Chinese media in the first place. NoNews! 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Thucydides411 and WP:GLOBAL. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: They have been shown to fabricate information (see previous comments and the discussion below), so we should definitely indicate that. Also, clearly state that it is affiliated with a ruling political party, which needs to be taken into account. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation, support Option 2. This source is widely used both onwiki and offwiki, and fills an important niche (see Thucydides411's comment above, and WP:GLOBAL). However, given its status as party-controlled media, it should probably be treated as a WP:SELFSOURCE for content that directly discusses (for example, and off the top of my head) the CCP, geopolitics, or international relations. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation - A blanket deprecation would not be fair. STSC (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It absolutely astounds me that so many editors feel they can trust a "news" outlet that is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. The idea that such an entity has the required editorial independence, fact-checking history, or reputation for accuracy required for WP:NEWSORG is absolutely laughable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 I'm finding it hard to see why we should treat this differently from China Global Television Network. One combats systemic bias by incorporating good information, not by relying upon propaganda. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation unless someone can come up with actual examples of them being cited for garbage claims. Propaganda is, well, fairly ubiquitous in the year 2021. Being operated by a government with a history of execrable acts doesn't seem like a cogent prima facie reason for deprecation: how many articles cite Voice of America? Heck, how many articles cite the BBC? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to cite them for "Communism kicks ass[1]", or "the Xinjiang re-education camps are awesome[6]". However, we also don't cite "Capitalism kicks ass[1]" to the United States government. Propaganda does not mean "every statement made by the organization is the opposite of true"; (RSP entry), for example, is listed in RSP as being "generally reliable for factual reporting". We can use our brains to determine if individual pieces of reporting are trash. jp×g 20:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to compare an owned-and-operated arm of the Chinese government's Propaganda Department to the BBC is so ridiculous, WP:FALSEBALANCE isn't even strong enough to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing and equating are different things. Jimmy Page and Jimmy Hoffa are different in many respects (one is a British guitarist and one was an American labor activist); a proposal to move the latter's article to "James Hoffa", however, would likely (and validly) result in the comparison being drawn. Pointing out that Jimmy Hoffa didn't know how to play the guitar, in this case, would be beside the point.

By the same token, the mere fact of a press outlet being operated by a government does not prima facie make a case for deprecation, even when the government is quite brutal: Commentarii de Bello Gallico, a long piece of brazen political propaganda written by the Emperor of Rome, detailing a litany of what would now be considered war crimes (he slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians after capturing Avaricum), is to this day the main account from which we know the deeds of Vercingetorix. jp×g 02:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI Commentarii de Bello Gallico is generally believed to have been written and published before Julius Caesar became Dictator. Also Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, the first Emperor was Augustus. Accuracy matters, which is why given China Daily’s history of publishing disinformation we should deprecate them. We don’t consider media outlets which purposefully publish false information to be reliable regardless of whether or not they’re operated by a government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, technically technically speaking both Julius Caesar and his adoptive son were both imperator in succession, Augustus was the first augustus (hence the name), neither was a monarch, the word "emperor" is an anachronism, and the Roman state remained a republic for a further fifteen centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about imperator (a concept which spans both time periods), we’re talking about the Roman emperor who was the ruler of the Roman Empire which wasn’t founded until 27 BC after the death of Julius Caesar. You are mistaken, the Roman Republic ended in 27 BC although the Empire would maintain the political trappings of the republic. If you would like to radically alter how wikipedia approaches Roman history be my guest, might I suggest starting with the opening sentence of Augustus? "Caesar Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was the first Roman emperor, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.” seems to be clear enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Wikipedia is not the place for such nuance, anchored as it is in the morass of popular historiographical tradition. Nothing changed in the Roman state's constitution in 27 BC; the heads of state remained the consuls, and Octavian was awarded the title of augustus. The Roman republic was referred to as such, including by the emperors themselves, well into the 15th century. "Emperor", as I have said, is just an anachronistic convention, as is "reign", at least for emperors like Augustus. The emperor Julian counted his distant relative Julius Caesar as an emperor, although he also listed Alexander the Great ... Nevertheless, Wikipedia bows to convention. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously using a discussion about the reliability of China Daily as a venue to push pet theories about the continuity of political structures within the Roman state which aren’t supported by modern historians? Please review WP:FORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I can tell already I know more about what modern historians support on this subject than you do. GPinkerton (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 While I'm not very familiar with China Daily specifically, I am familiar with the general issues with any mainland PRC-based news media. In short, the PRC does not have press freedom or press independence, so comparisons to Western state-owned outlets like the BBC are specious. There are situations where the political/propaganda needs of the Chinese government will cause false or misleading stories to be run. For instance this [82] China Daily story falsely claims that "people's freedom of religious belief in Xinjiang is fully protected" (which is hard to believe with the reporting on Xinjiang re-education camps) and makes claims denying mosque destruction that are directly contradicted by this [83] more convincingly sourced New York Times report. Other examples should not be hard to find by searching for material on other sensitive issues, such as Xinjiang, Tibet Taiwan, or Hong Kong. At a minimum China Daily's WP:RSP entry should have the same kind of warnings attached to it as Xinhua:

“ Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. 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; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua. ”

- GretLomborg (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 As the above editor has mentioned, the China Daily is a state-run and censored publication that has repeatedly published plainly false information, particularly with regards to the Uyghur genocide and other domestically sensitive topics. This does not impugn its abilities to report accurately on other topics, but other sources should be used whenever possible for ascertaining factual content.
• Option 3 or 4 for any content related to Chinese politics or any issue where the party control creates a conflict of interest, enough examples of lying have been presented to prove that. It is not possible to achieve NPOV by "balancing" state disinformation with independent journalism or scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[84][85]

[86]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [87][88]

In both cases, we have outrageous lies pushed by China Daily. There are more at China Daily. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These are both Facebook posts, not articles published in the China Daily. I don't think we consider any newspaper's social media accounts to be reliable sources. At least, I've never seen someone try to cite the NY Times' Twitter account on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[89]

Missing in China Daily's discussion of the "autonomy" of Uighur women is any mention of the Xinjiang re-education camps. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)7

The last of these articles gained notoriety in the past day after an excerpt from the article was shared on Twitter by the Chinese Embassy in the United States. The excerpt is reproduced below:

Chinese Embassy in US Twitter @ChineseEmbinUS

Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report

January 7, 2021

References

This tweet (and accompanying China Daily article) appears to be a defense of certain elements of the Uyghur genocide, and has received coverage in Ars Technica (RSP entry) and an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Added archive link. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As morally unacceptable as that is, "moral unacceptability" is not part of WP:RS, so I think we should judge based on factual accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at factual accuracy. From the China Daily article:

The research center's report said safe, effective and appropriate contraceptive measures are now available to couples of childbearing age in Xinjiang, and their personal decisions on whether to use those measures — which include tubal ligation and the insertion of intrauterine devices — are fully respected.

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [90][91]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just focussing on factual accuracy almost all of it is false. This is not a study that an independent source or one with basic fact checking abilities would have used. Its almost laughable, lets for instance contrast this statement with the well known second class political status of women in modern China "In the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no long baby-making machines, it said. Women have since been striving to become healthy, confident and independent.” The CCP doesn't promote female emancipation and gender equality even for Han women... Are we really expected to believe they do it for the women of a minority which by all reports they are repressing? I’ve certainly never seen a WP:RS give these sort of bullshit propaganda reports the time of day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this conversation should stick to source analysis, but just as a matter of historical interest, one of the major societal reforms that the Communist Party tried to carry out after coming to power in 1949 was to change the status of women in society (e.g., legalizing divorce, trying to stop forced/arranged marriages). The New Marriage Law was one of the first laws the PRC passed, and it was accompanied by massive propaganda campaigns to get people to accept it. The status of women, more generally, was one of the major issues of contention between the Communists and Nationalists (the latter taking a much more traditional view of women's roles in society). That is to say, while you say it's ridiculous to think that the CPC would ever promote female emancipation, it wouldn't actually be out of line with their history or ideology. This isn't a comment on the specific report that China Daily reported on - I haven't looked into it carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that post-Mao the status of women within the Party and in society in general plummeted, today there are no significant female party leaders and both within and outside the party women have second class status. If you want a better understanding of the modern history may I suggest Judd’s The Chinese Women's Movement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there you have it: government-run press outlets aren't particularly reliable on the subject of whether the government in question is perpretrating something horrific. Everyone knows that. We shouldn't be using those statements to reference statements about that issue. This would be true for any source in any country. For example, the 2021 election in Chad is almost certainly going to be rigged; the article manages to cite statements from the current president about what he said, while also citing statements from RS about whether it's true. What's this got to do with wholesale deprecation? jp×g 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: According to The Guardian (RSP entry), Twitter took down this tweet, having concluded that it breaks its rules. The Guardian highlights the discrepancies between the claims in the China Daily article and the results of the investigation by the Associated Press (RSP entry). Additionally, The Guardian confirms that the Xinjiang Development Research Center study is "unpublished", which makes China Daily the original published source of the claims. — Newslinger talk 11:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily attributes the claims to the report. Unless you're claiming that China Daily fabricated the existence of this report, what is the RS problem here? Are we going to deprecate newspapers that describe the contents of Chinese government reports that editors find objectionable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[92]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily is reporting the claims of a report written by a governmental group. China Daily repeatedly attributes those claims to the report, just as it should do. You're saying that China Daily is not reliable because it does not inject the types of editorial comments you would like it to make. Of course China Daily is going to write about reports created by the Chinese government, but as long as it properly attributes the claims, it's usable. On the other hand, a lot of the claims being made about Xinjiang come from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was created by the US government, and which could just as easily be viewed as a propaganda organization. That doesn't mean that the claims are wrong, but this connection is rarely explained in news articles (including by the AP) about Xinjiang that rely on claims that come from this organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point you’re missing is that a WP:RS would never have taken that report at face value as China Daily does, the claims made in it are absurd (as are most claims China makes about human rights issues within China, remember that according to themselves the Chinese government respects human rights more than literally any other government on earth). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing here that China Daily's article is inaccurate? All I can see is that you're arguing that they do not make an editorial comment that you would like them to make. If one were to note (with attribution, of course) the views of the Chinese government on this issue, then this China Daily article would be a good source, because it explains what the Chinese government report states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the word "research" is inaccurate. The phrase "study shows" is also false. And phrases like these frame the reader's understanding of the entire piece. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The China Daily article does not use the phrase, "study shows". The article also describes the "research report" written by Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (established by the US government). The China Daily article doesn't say that Zenz' claims are wrong, and it doesn't say that the Chinese government's claims are wrong. You're essentially demanding that the article take an editorial stand, but if we want a source that simply describes the claims made by the Chinese government report, I don't see why that's necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[93]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The tweet comes from the Chinese Embassy in the US, not from China Daily, and we're not discussing whether tweets are reliable sources, anyways (we typically wouldn't cite tweets from any news outlet). There is an actual report by a Chinese government agency. China Daily has seen the report and is reporting on its contents. Other news outlets have also reported on the contents of the report, and even interviewed the author. a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows [...]". That would be user error. A better paraphrase would be, "A report written by a Chinese government agency stated, ...". Note the attribution, which makes it clear to readers that we are reporting the views of a third party. Inclusion would be subject to the usual considerations of weight, NPOV, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Firestar464: Could you please revise the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp) to meet WP:RFCBRIEF, which requires the RfC statement to be "neutral and brief"? Specifically, "Media Bias Fact Check classifies it ... 'state propaganda.'" cannot be in the RfC statement since it advocates for a position, but you can move it into either the survey or discussion section. The link to MBFC's rating of China Daily should also be moved or removed from the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firestar464 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment regarding the above: Xinjiang and Tibet (along with HK, Taiwan, the South China Sea) are two controversial areas that we should probably refrain from using Chinese state media in, but for most non-controversial mainland news, it should be WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we can't know in advance what they are going to start lying about. In general, a rule like this would require readers to keep up with a lengthy and continually changing list of areas of concern. For example, prior to December, 2019, there was no reason to suspect their information about coronaviruses. See also Censorship in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems that out of thousands of articles in hundreds of topic areas there are some CCP-sensitive pieces of concern or POV differences. But this is not showing an issue re RS attributes with all content, most content, or even a common occurrence. Got any problem with their topics today of Covid, or Plastics, or Smartphones ? Or is it just China political content ? If there was bad info on in 2019, is that not the same info all papers had at the time and a matter outside them? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government and their media entities spreading covid related disinformation has actually been an acute problem, are you unaware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the unfounded Association fallacy accusation. We are specifically talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. NoNews! 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't talking about separated entities here, such as the Washington Post being owned by the same person that owns Amazon. We're talking about multiple arms of the same cephalopod; China Daily is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it was a wrong use of the term association fallacy. This is not about "ownership" in its usual sense of being a shareholder (which is essentially the residual claimant), but about the direct command and control from the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of editorial independence by design for all Chinese state media. Normchou ^💬 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC - Screen Rant

Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:

• Option 1 - Screen Rant is a reliable source.
• Option 2 - Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source, or should only be used under circumstances.
• Option 3 - Screen Rant is an unreliable source.
• Option 4 - Screen Rant needs to be deprecated.

Responses (Screen Rant)

• Option 1 Screen Rant is owned by the same company which owns Comic Book Resources (otherwise known as CBR). I'd also like to echo the discussions of previous editors when they weighed in on this subject a few years ago, with JOEBRO64 calling it reliable as "a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got good editorial oversight. It's also been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, and other RSs, and it's used a lot on comic/film-related GAs. I've never had a problem with using it before" and Flyer22 Reborn calling it "a reliable source for film material and some other material." While they do publish trivia, as some have pointed out, Poitrus pointed out, late last year that Screen Rant seems to be "usually reliable." I would be shocked if there is anyone who believes that Screen Rant is not reliable, marginally reliable, or should be depreciated. They call themselves the "most-visited independently owned movie/TV news site in the US." Also see:

• Christian Science Monitor: "Screen Rant had a humble start back in 2003 as a place to rant about some of the dumber stuff related to the movie industry. Since then, the site has grown to cover more and more TV and movie news (and not just the dumb stuff) along with sometimes controversial movie reviews. The goal at Screen Rant is to cover stories and review movies from a middle ground/average person perspective."- https://www.csmonitor.com/About/People/Culture-Partner-Bloggers/Screen-Rant
• Variety: "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers"- https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/film-blogs-collider-screen-rant-latino-review-1201525341/

Beyond this, they have policies for fact-checking, corrections, and ethics, among others. Perhaps some of the stuff they publish is trash, but that is true of any website like theirs. Removing Screen Rant would put a LOT of Wikipedia pages in peril, impugning their ability to have reliable sources, making Wikipedia for the worse for all of us. Historyday01 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 for coverage of pop culture and entertainment. I agree fully with Historyday01's argument. In addition to this editor’s points, Screen Rant requires an application to write for them; the application requires applicants to show that they have “expert knowledge.” In other words, the website is not a content farm. Additionally, their editors have some very impressive credentials. I will note that Screen Rant routinely gives in-depth coverage to niche and trivial topics. Editors should follow requirements such as Due Weight, What Wikipedia Is Not, and GNG's multiple source requirement when relying on Screen Rant, but this is true of all sources. Basically, I don't think we should dismiss a reliable source because its focus is considered niche or low-brow.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 1/11/2021 at 12:33 AM).

There's been a influx of 2 votes arguing that Screen Rant is only marginally reliable, and I'm legitimately confused as to why given its extensive editorial policies and positive reception by other, unquestionably reliable, sources. I've seen few arguments beyond mere assertions of unreliability and do not understand how this conclusion has been reached. Clearly, Screen Rant is a niche source to which Due Weight applies. However, this is a content issue of what information ought to be used, not a reliability issue of if the information can be used at all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option1 seem to have good editorial standards and are cited by outlets such as The New York Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is probably the best fit. It's highly questionable for any BLP info, or determination of encyclopedic value and due weight. Trivia and entertainment of this type is of questionable value in general for encyclopedia articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what Hipal is saying, but I would have to agree with others like Atlantic306 and Spirit of Eagle in their assessment of Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable starting when? It's been around since 2003 "as a place for fans to speak openly about the movies they love", was acquired by Valnet in 2015 , and its editorial polices are only as of late 2019.[94][95] The low quality of its articles were discussed by WPVG in 2017 and early 2019. They apparently still offer a contributor program. I haven't looked into its quality since before those policies were added, but at the very least, it would not be appropriate to extend a blanket reliability verdict back to its founding. Separately, I'm not sure why sharing a parent company with CBR is seen as an extension of CBR's own editorial policy (especially when they only acquired CBR in 2016, a year after acquiring Screen Rant). Valnet owns a lot of properties and their stated focus is on entertainment and clicks, not quality of journalism. Unless they share an editorial staff or procedure, there's nothing automatic/universal about reputation for accuracy that extends from the parent org. czar 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Valnet’s website states that their goal is to “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith reliable and trustworthy news stories.” While the language about entertained should raise some eyebrows, they state they desire to be reliable and trustworthy (a purported desire backed up by Screen Rant’s strong editorial policies). As for past debates, there were multiple editors vouching for Screen Rant’s reliability. I do not think either discussion had a clear-cut consensus. Regarding reliability over time, I largely agree with you. This is a website that went from a guy blogging his opinion to a reasonably respected media source. They’ve had editors for many years before the Valnet purchase [96] and reference editorial practices in a 2018 archive [97]. Personally, I think post-October 2019 articles should be counted as reliable while earlier post-Valnet purchase articles should be counted as probably reliable but use caution. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Spirit of Eagle has a valid point here and would disagree with Czar but would add that like what Armadillopteryx says, I've never encountered any errors or sloppy reporting from them when citing them in the past and often use them in articles, along with other related ones like CBR. I would say that CBR and Screen Rant are both, equally, valid sources to use. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Exercises editorial oversight and has a reputation for fact-checking. I run into this source reasonably often and have not encountered any errors or sloppy reporting. Armadillopteryx 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1; well-established and decent WP:USEBYOTHERS per the above. While higher-quality sources exist and should be used when available, I'm not seeing any reason to be skeptical of it - the fact that it primarily covers a niche area is not itself a reason to doubt its accuracy, and in some cases may mean it is the best source available. This does mean that it should sometimes be approached with caution when considering whether stuff only covered in it WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Czar, i.e. additional considerations apply. feminist (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per Hipal. Use caution when using this as a source when sourcing really matters. Otherwise, sure. If someone has a problem with this source in a specific instance, dont dig your heels in. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2—I don't know if I'd call it "marginally reliable", but I think it's one of those sources where, if the content exists somewhere else or the claim is exceptional, it really should be replaced with a stronger one. WPVG has a category of "situational sources" which I think is the category I'd throw them into. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Czar. It should not be used contentious/contraversial claims or any claims relating to WP:BLPs but perhaps can be used for less contentious statements of fact (though if more reliable sources like IGN cover the less contentious claim it should be used instead). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (yellow at RSP) per Czar and Hipal. They put it very well and I have nothing to add. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Source has good WP:USEBYOTHERS coverage and I have no concerns with its current editorial standards. To address concerns regarding the historical reliability of the source at hand, I suggest utilising the clause found in the RSP entry of the Apple Daily (RSP entry) (specifically "There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today."), but otherwise the source as it currently is fits into the "generally reliable" section, with the relevant caveat of WP:DUE per its focus on niche topics. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Historyday01. This is a solid source on entertainment. Obviously, we should observe the same healthy skepticism towards it that we would for any sort of source, but there's no reason to think its reporting is worse than any other average reliable source used on Wikipedia. Krow750 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Screen Rant)

The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Not required as per WP:RFC. Lazman321 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lazman321, I haven't found this requirement as of yet, but if it is there, it still says "all editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." In any case, hearing your opinion on the matter would make sense, as this RFC seems strange considering past discussions which have mentioned Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I simply said it was not required. The reason why I set this RfC up is that the previous discussions were inconclusive. In the last discussion, one editor thought Screen Rant was reliable, two thought it was reliable in certain circumstances, though the two disagreed on the circumstances, and one editor thought it was slightly questionable due to its clickbait headlines. My opinion on Screen Rant currently is that it is generally reliable, but to watch out for click bait articles. Lazman321 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I think we have a general agreement, from those who have contributed up to this point, that Screen Rant is "generally reliable." --Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this under discussion? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I have the same question. I don't even know why Lazman321 proposed this in the first place. It seems unnecessary as previous discussions have already established it is a reliable source. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of Screen Rant has come up in several recent AfDs including SCP Secret Laboratory's nomination and the ongoing AfD on Dream (YouTuber). A lot of editors are unaware of past discussions, so I think having an additional discussion and getting Screen Rant listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources will be to the benefit of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. It does seem at this point that the consensus will be that Screen Rant is seen (and asserted) as a reliable source, from the comments I've seen up to this point. Historyday01 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgetown University Bridge Initiative - academic research project intended to discuss Islamophobia

Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative is an extensively staffed, permanent academic project intended to discuss Islamophobia in politics and society. User:Kyohyi and User:Springee have repeatedly contended on the talk page of the political commentator Douglas Murray that Bridge is "self-published" and have repeatedly removed any references to Bridge Initiative's fact sheet on Murray[98] from the page. I maintain that the Bridge Initiative is, to all appearances, an extensively staffed academic research project led by a major university that in no way meets the criteria for "self-publication". I believe that the contentions that Bridge Initiative is "self-published" are dubious, but given that Bridge has not been directly raised on the Noticeboard I thought it was necessary to bring it up first. This is from Bridge Initiative's "about us" page:

The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University. The Bridge Initiative aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia.[99]

The Bridge team[100] to whom all the articles are credited, includes professors John Esposito Farid Hafez and Susan L. Douglass, the human rights lawyer and commentator Arsalan Iftikhar and a host of others - those are just the ones with existing Wiki pages. The project puts out publications including editorials, factsheets, interviews, reports, videos, and more.

A link to Bridge Initiative at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service - essentially their school of international relations - can be found here.[101] Here are some references to Bridge in academic literature:

• Farid Hafez, "Schools of Thought in Islamophobia Studies: Prejudice, Racism, and Decoloniality," in Islamophobia Studies Journal 4, 2 (Spring 2018): 210-225[102]

the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University, headed by John Esposito, is a permanent research project dedicated to the study of Islamophobia. The impact of the Runnymede Trust’s definition can be seen in the project called The Bridge Initiative, which was led by John Esposito at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

• Khaled A. Beydoun, "Islamophobia: Toward a Legal Definition and Framework," in Columbia Law Review Online 116 (November 2018): 108-125[103]

The Bridge Initiative is a research project, housed at Georgetown University, established to monitor, research, and analyze Islamophobia in the United States.

The Bridge Initiative is being used as a source to support a claim that is backed by several other academic sources. I personally don't understand how this could not be seen as a prima facie reliable source, even for a BLP article. If it is indeed self-published, then any university research project including something as renowned as the Innocence Project, not to mention groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and really any kind of think tank, could also be described as self-published. Any help would be appreciated Noteduck (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". I will ask again, who are the reviewers independent of the bridge project that can validate the reliability of the content. If that condition is not met it's a SPS. Also per WP: V expertise is not justification for use on a BLP "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". --Kyohyi (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant policy doesn't say anything about us having to establish that independent reviewers have explicitly reviewed the independent source. It specifically says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Based on what Noteduck wrote above, this source seems to meet those criteria.

Your second point about WP:BLP, however, does appear to be relevant. I wonder if that specific part of BLP needs to be revisited, however, as it would seem to mean that we cannot cite eminently reliable expert sources (e.g., SPLC) in BLPs when no editor would raise a reasonable objection. ElKevbo (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You missed the relevant part of the policy which is here "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] " the [9] leads to note 9 on the bottom of the page which says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. ". The subject of self published sources and blps occurs almost yearly, and almost yearly it gets re-affirmed. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many of the materials written by research projects and other groups such as the SPLC are self-published. That is does not mean that they cannot be considered reliable. Editors who object that a source is not reliable solely because it is self-published need to review our relevant policy and note that it does not support their position. ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is self published and should not be used to say disparaging things about a BLP subject without a RS giving the views weight. Springee (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per our WP:BLPSPS policy, we can "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." For better or worse, there is no carve-out for the number or level of educational degrees the author has. The initiative appears to be, more or less, a group blog. Its articles are not subject to independent peer review. It seems like a RS to me for non-BLPs, however, insofar as BLPs are concerned the policy doesn't give us much leeway. If there are other sources that say the same thing, though, I'm not sure what the issue is? Why can't those be used and this set aside? Chetsford (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP article, does that mean that all material from these kinds of sources must be removed from a BLP article?

• academic research projects, no matter how eminent (eg the Innocence Project
• think tanks, whether academic or not
• advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, no matter how well-researched

Let's take the example of the Innocence Project, which employs 88 people and claims to have had a hand in nearly 200 exonerations of prisoners in the last 30 years. If a prisoner is exonerated by the Innocence Project, can any material on the prisoner's Wiki page that is sourced to the Innocence Project be deleted on the basis that that person is still alive, leading to a contravention of WP:BLPSPS? If so, this is a serious hole in Wiki's policies related to source reliability and some kind of formal request for amendment should be made Noteduck (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally they are usable if a RS cites the material. So if a university institute says A, B and C about MrX and the NYT mentions B and C we can say B and C with attribution and a citation to the NYT article. Springee (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" I've never heard of that policy before. I have heard of our WP:BLPSPS policy which says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." But I'm not familiar with any policy that says "non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" so I'm not sure. Do you have a link to it? Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the specific excerpt from the Douglas Murray page, only one section of the body article has been removed:

Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia.

Everything else that has been removed are footnote references to Bridge Initiative. The claim that Murray is Islamophobic is one that I doubt Murray would accept but is well established in academic evidence - see these two sources listed in the article This must be understood in the content of an ongoing debate on the page in which the frequent characterization in academia and journalism of Murray as being ideology proximate to the "far-right", "alt-right", "white nationalist", linked to far-right conspiracy theories, or Islamophobic, is relentlessly contested and frequently reverted without cause. Noteduck (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

sorry Chetsford that was the point I was trying to make - I can't believe such a policy exists. However, as far as I can tell this is essentially the stance Springee is taking - Springee, please correct me if you think I'm mischaracterizing your position. If Bridge Initiative cannot be used about a BLP article because it is "self-published", I can't imagine ANY academic source that isn't in a peer-reviewed journal or published book ever meeting Wiki's WP:BLPSPS standards, notwithstanding the face that the contention Bridge makes - that Murray's work deserves to be scrutinized for Islamophobia - is extremely commonplaceNoteduck (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"is extremely commonplace" So is this just an intellectual exercise or what? Why don't you just use the other sources then? Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was worth noting that an entire academic research project with multiple noted academics was willing to lend its name to a factsheet that discussed Murray's purported Islamophobia at length, rather than a pinpoint reference in an academic paper. Furthermore, this is not just a mere intellectual exercise - Springee has contested many different edits to controversial pages on the grounds that they are "self-published", especially in relation to pages on conservative public figures and organizations (note, Springee and I have an extensive history of disagreement on edits). For example, on the PragerU page Springee had this to say about this long and extensive report by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi:

While I think the contention that every academic or think tank source that does not explicitly mention an editor or peer reviewer should be excluded Agree that a subheading may not be correct. Also, we have to be careful that we don't say/imply PragerU is working with far-right groups. Some of the views expressed in PragerU videos overlap with far-right ideas. Also, both the Bridge Initiative and Tripodi papers are self published and the Tripodi framework was challenged by another academic in a self published paper. The connection aspect of the Tripodi paper has been widely reported but the individual characterizations in the paper are simply self published opinions. I think the other sources should be reviewed before assuming they are all valid. Springee (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Springee

The report can be found at:

• Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices," Data & Society Research Institute 2018[104]

Springee may have hit on something important. Is there a lacuna in Wiki's editorial policies that essentially means that ALL academic, think tank and advocate material on a BLP or controversial topic that is not explicitly peer-reviewed or in a published book is precluded from inclusion on Wiki? Noteduck (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the topic of this thread is specifically Bridge, not the rest of the disputes on the related pages. Please WP:FOC, not other editors. Springee (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee,an entire team of academics and the name of an elite university have attached themselves to Bridge, so I'm just trying to understand what the relevant evidentiary standard is here. Surely the "publisher" in question is Georgetown University? Noteduck (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See also, just a few mainstream journalistic sources citing Bridge as an RS[105][106][107]. See also that there are FOUR references to the Southern Poverty Law Center in the footnotes of the Milo Yiannopoulos - another BLP article.[108][109][110][111] I'm not sure how the SPLC can be distinguished from Bridge Initiative in evidentiary terms, unless Wiki has gotten it wrong on Yiannopoulos' page Noteduck (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first cites them for a rather small claim (According to BI X said Y), not an analysis. The second only mentions BI to say the person being interviewed works there so that isn't even citing BI work. The final one is an opinion article but it actually does the critical thing. It reports on BI report. It says we should pay attention to the contents of the report. That is an example of a secondary source giving weight to a self published report. In this case that secondary source is an Op-Ed article but we can ignore that for this example. The problem in the Murray case is we don't have RSs saying the fact that Bridge did an assessment of Murray is significant nor that Murray should be described by the contents of that report. Springee (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

those are three solid journalistic sources that treat Bridge as an RS. Here are a few more media sources that treat Bridge as a reliable source[112][113][114][115]. Can you address my point about the Yiannopoulos article? I'd like to know how you distinguish Bridge from SPLC, or whether you contend that Wiki got it wrong in that case Noteduck (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear on the exact source your asking about but something like: Doe, Jane. "Islmaphobia." The Bridge Initiative. (2002). has an author and a publisher. The author is a person and is not the publisher, which is a thing, so generally not self-published, on its face. See also, Doe, John. 'The Article'. The New York Times. (2015); or Doe, A. "The Book" HaperCollins. (2020). or Staff, "Another Article." Assiciated Press (2010). none of which need to be peer reviewed to be an RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the disputed edit? I found, "Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia." That type of statement should not be in an article however reliable the source is. TFD (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what WP:SPS says, it is often not easy to distinguish self-published sources from non-self-published sources. In this case, it seems to me that the professors are the authors and the university the publisher of the content. Who would be liable if what the professors write is libelous? Georgetown University. So Georgetown University should be seen as the publishing entity. ImTheIP (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This does raise a question that has come up before, does SPS only apply when the author(s) and publisher(s) are ones and the same or does it apply when the organization is in effect one and the same. A news room has writers and separate editors. If Bridge is like the academic institute I was part of the heads of the institute we essentially the editors/reviewers of all that went out but they were also authors on some of the work and as a group were involved with all publications. As another example, would we consider a report issued by GM which refuted Nightline's C/K pickup report[[116]] to be something other than self published by GM? Do we think GTU has an independent review department checking what Bridge is publishing or does the review occur within Bridge? Springee (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ImtheIP Alanscottwalker. I am 100% sure the admins did not have this extremely pedantic definition of "self-published" in mind when they drafted the WP:SELFPUB page - again, I would contend that under Springee's definition, the Southern Poverty Law Center would be "self-published" despite its reputation and pedigree, which would render the page of someone like Milo Yiannopoulos in dire need of fixing (incidentally, SPLC have called Murray a "notorious Islam basher" and criticized his work before).[117][118] It may be the case that by an extremely narrow definition of "self-published", no material from any academic project or report (unless explictly peer-reviewed), think tank or advocacy group could be included in BLP pages unless it explicitly mentions an editor or publisher. However, perhaps Wiki's policy needs to be formally amended to clarify pedantic semantic arguments like this one Noteduck (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

100% incorrect. Admins do not write nor control policy, and there is nothing pedantic the what a self-publisher is, although it is in each case a fact based inquiry, which is one of the reasons why we have this notice board. As far as I can tell, Springee has not provided a definition. They are making an argument from personal experience and it remains institutions who publish are on the line for what is published under their auspices, so it is not a matter of guesswork based on what someone personally experiences. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ImTheIP and Alanscottwalker. This is not an SPS. It is written by academic experts in their field (a relevant field for a discussion of Islamophobia) and published by a university which would be liable if the website was accused of libel. The university may not have day to day editorial control, but it will have a whole set of guidlelines and policies in place that the scholars will have signed up to. I don't see any problem with using this, particularly as one among many footnotes to show that a range of academic experts have expressed the same opinion. I can't quite see what the particular disputed claim is, but in general I think this is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, do you have any further rebuttals? I concur with BobFromBrockley and ImtheIP Noteduck (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we have not reached a cosensus and thus per NOCON we should not treat this as reliably published. Additionally I agree with the comment made by TFD. Springee (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there is much to rebut, my original statement is we need to demonstrate that there is fact checking that is independent of the bridge initiative. Neither of their responses address that, and my statement is based in policy. Further, this example in WP: V "Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee." shows that we cannot just assume that the university is overseeing what's being published. Since we can't assume independent oversight, and independent oversight has not been shown, we treat it as no independent oversight. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Springee, that's incorrect and not how consensus works. Please read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling: it's putting the cart before the horse to simply assert that consensus doesn't favor conclusion without substantive debate. User:Kyohyi this is a source drawn from multiple noteworthy academics which has the name of Georgetown University attached to it. As BobFromBrockley has noted, that means Georgetown is risking liability if someone from Bridge mischaracterizes someone as an Islamophobe (remember, the SPLC has been successfully sued for flippantly adding someone to a list of extremists before[119]. If you want to dispute Bridge as a RS, you'll have to differentiate Bridge from Southern Poverty Law Center or Innocence Project, or make the case that both of those are self-published sources. Otherwise, given how protracted this is, a RfC at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be the last resort Noteduck (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is self published has nothing to do with liability, and if you look through the archives and even at WP: RSP you can find discussions noting that the SPLC is a self-published source. Really this is becoming tendetious, and forum shopping to DRN isn't going to help. Demonstrate indpendent review as called out in WP: V or drop the stick. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, I don't think you want to go down the editorial behavior path. When half the editors here say "no", it's rather hard to claim the actual answer is "yes". Going back to an article and editing as if the answer were yes is likely to be seen as problematic. Springee (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kyohyi could you link me to said discussions? At any rate it's not the same, since Bridge is maintained by Georgetown University and is not independent like SPLC. Springee, that's no answer. Consensus isn't unanimity, and "two editors disagree with you" is not an argument. Given that the Bridge Initiative is all over Wiki[120][121][122][123] it seems your stance is quite unorthodox

Noteduck (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This was originally brought up at WP: BLPN, Springee even announced on the talk page that it was brought up at BLPN. My edit removing the information made reference to the BLPN discussion. That discussion is in the Archive here: [[124]]. Now to make a comparison about the university being the publishing agent. Forbes is a traditional publisher, however Forbes contributors, which is a part of Forbes, is considered self-published. Forbes could very well be liable for what is on their contributors section, but the forbes contributors section is still self-published. As another example, the Wikimedia foundation is liable what is posted on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is still self-published. This is because there is no review by Wikimedia prior to hitting publish. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an answer. I agree that consensus doesn't mean unanimity but experienced editors will tell you 50/50 isn't consensus nor should one of the involved parties decide consensus exists in their favor when the other half disagrees. That sort of editing historically ends up being reviewed as a user conduct issue. Perhaps we can raise this as part of the PraguerU mediation discussion since this RSN discussion applies there as well as here. Springee (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am leaning towards Bobfrombrockley that this does not seem like a self-published source and Georgetown university would be the publishing entity. But Springee is right about our vague definition of "self-published" source and how this keeps coming up. I think this RfC by Michaelbluejay may have clarified things a bit, and its too bad it didn't succeed.VR _talk 23:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee I am not saying consensus has been reached, merely that ongoing objections by certain editors are not in of themselves a barrier to consensus. In the case of Bridge Initiative there is a clear demarcation between the people who write the articles, most of whom are academics[125] and the institution that sponsors and lends its name and reputation to the Initiative, Georgetown University. Note that at Georgetown Bridge is officially housed within a research center, the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU)[126], itself located within Georgetown's School of Foreign Service - needless to say, this is an elite university with many renowned faculty members. I contend that this is no way meets the definition of a source where the writers and the publisher are the same. That said, I don't see how it can be asserted that think tanks and advocacy groups without explicit editorship can never be RS for BLP articles. This would exclude the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Innocence Project and a multitude of other sources that are used all over Wiki, including about controversial BLP subjects, note the ADL and SPLC used here[127][128] Noteduck (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks a lot like a self-published source to me. That is, it appears to be a source in which there is no editorial control or fact-checking in place. We are allowed to use such sources when the author is an expert, but not for BLP content, per WP:SPS. So it looks like this could be RS in a non-BLP context. Several editors have argued that the university is the publisher and provides oversight of some sort based on their reputation being at stake. This is a bad argument: if it were accepted, our WP:NEWSBLOG policy, which says we must exercise caution with such sources (presumably not relying on them for contentious claims about BLPs for example) would make no sense. After all, one could argue, the Newspaper's reputation would be at stake. Obviously, based on that policy, we would want to use a source like this one only with caution, which seems to me to mean it should not be used for contentious BLP content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, it would be highly unusual for university administrators to have any editorial control over faculty research publications. Faculty would scream bloody murder over that kind of perceived violation of their academic freedom. So anyone making that argument need to provide evidence that this instance is unusual in this regard. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The content is published on bridge.georgetown.edu, prominently uses Georgetown University's logotype, and has "Copyright © 2018 Georgetown University. All Rights Reserved." in its footer. This must mean that Georgetown University is the publisher of the content. The authors of the content is the individual academics. Since these entities are different, the source can't be self-published. The "editorial control" ought to be the Bridge Initiative. That academics enjoy academic freedom should, in my opinion, make them more reliable sources, not less. Otherwise we have the absurd situation where a student's bachelor thesis, which is both editorially controlled and not self-published, is seen as more reliable than what tenured professors write. ImTheIP (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, GU is the publisher of the content. Similarly, a newspaper is the publisher of a given newsblog. We don't use newsblogs for contentious claims about BLPs, though, because having a newspaper as a publisher is not enough to guarantee normal processes of editorical control and fact checking. (See WP:NEWSBLOG.) For the same reason, then, we should not use Bridge for contentious claims about BLPs. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you have just admitted that the material is not self-published, and second you are wrong about NEWSBLOG -- news blog exists to make sure that news blogs are treated as reliable sources, and not as blogs. So the transferable publishing lesson there would be, publishing by academic organizations is treated as publishing by academic organizations in the reliable non-self-published analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is similar to a newsblog. In both cases, we have a venue associated with a publisher or institution, but where there isn't (or may not be) active editorial oversight and fact checking. Thus, as with newsblogs, per WP:NEWSBLOG, we should use such sources with caution. Using with caution entails not using Bridge as a lone source for a contentious claim about a BLP. That's my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight Even if Bridge Initiative is an SPS, it is Wikipedia orthodoxy to use advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center to establish claims about controversial BLP subjects. This includes the headers of articles. See the pages for Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer and Lauren Southern for example, which reference either the SPLC, the ADL, or both. Are you prepared to make the case that these references need to be removed from Wikipedia? It may be the case that there is a lacuna in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article, and it needs to be amended for clarity Noteduck (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear about WP:NEWSBLOG, it says These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If this is analogous, then the academics are obviously professionals and experts in their field, so we exercise caution but don't exclude a priori. The project is an academic project based at a heavyweight university, following all the policies that institution will have on research integrity. The factsheets are authored collectively by "the Team", which means that there is obviously editorial oversight within the team. Here is the team: https://bridge.georgetown.edu/about-us/meet-the-team/ headed by a professor who is a leader in this field. SPS is a completely inapppropriate policy here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What makes it a self published source is lack of oversight outside the team. The team has an inherent conflict of interest with regards to it's research, and being self published is determined by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) reviewing content. If there only reviewers are the team, and the team has a conflict of interest, then the source is self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the inherent conflict of interest? Whose interests are at stake here? The Bridge writers are independent of the subjects they are writing about. ("Self-published" does not mean "primary" or "non-independent"[129]) The idea of oversight outside the team is taking SPS to an absurd length. Many BBC articles, for instance, have a team as a byline (example), but clearly the editors within the BBC have oversight - internal, not external, oversight. The Bridge Initiative is smaller, but there is clearly editorial insight within it. At any rate, Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: Acceptable use of self-published works [includes] 2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.[130] Is this an exceptional claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Any research group has a conflict of interest with regards to it's own research, it's the same as any manufacturer having a conflict of interest with regards to it's own product. The difference between an news organization (like the BBC) and a research organization is that a news organization doesn't have a specific POV to sell. In the case of the bridge initiative it has an interest in "finding" islamophobia. The BBC has no particular interest in "finding" anything in particular. Unacceptable uses for self published works are BLP content, it does not need to be an exceptional claim. --Kyohyi (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally, your claim is just false. The works of these academics is not self-published, they are published by a university.

And, no. A news organization has an interest in finding news -- what one news organization thinks should be written about is often different from what another news organization should be written about -- and partisans, of course, may call one or the other 'fake news'.

Your underlying assumption (your POV) seems to be 'Islamophobia' does not exist. But go out of your POV and assume there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia' and you will see that Bridge Initiative has every interest in not finding 'Islamophobia' as it does in finding 'Islamophobia' because the only way to have a expertise in 'Islamophobia' is to be able to identify when it is and is not (as, the only way to have an expertise in publishing news, is deciding what is an is not news). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A claim that others in the university outside of this research group exercise editorial control over the group's publications is so far outside the norms how U.S. colleges and universities typically operate that it's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever claim your making, it's still false to claim the university is not the publisher, however the university decides to exercise its publishing and its publishing rights. There is nothing extraordinary about a university publishing, including the work of academics in its employ. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbes is also a publisher, but Forbes contributers are considered self-published. That the university is hosting the content is not sufficient to believe that it has independent fact checkers verifying content, which is what we use to determine whether or not a source is considered self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

One other consideration for reliability here would be use by other RSs (WP:USEBYOTHERS). This particular factsheeet does not appear to have been cited, but we can see scholarly citations for other factsheets[131][132] and other publications by the initiative,[133][134][135][136] as well as citations from mainstream media.[137] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be a SPS as we define that here, but I’m confused... Even assuming that they are in fact what we call a SPS the members of this group seem to be highly qualified subject matter experts. In context its not an extraordinary claim either. Could those arguing against using this source maybe do a bit better of a job making clear and coherent arguments? I have a hard time following the above and there appears to be a number of contradictory arguments being made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, I think the arguments against Bridge's reliability have been pretty thoroughly rebutted. Noteduck (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Given your POV I'm not surprised you feel that way. I don't see that a consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, you've been on Wiki for ages and you know that it's not enough to simply assert that consensus hasn't been reached without substantive discussion, see Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling etc. In fact you've been instructed on the meaning of SPS since at least March 2018.[138] Please don't impede future edits without basis Noteduck (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

One admin's opinion on what SPS means does not override what is written in WP: V. Demonstrate independent reviewers as called out in WP: V and the point will be conceded. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that failure to demonstrate "independent reviewers" implies that a source is "self-published" according to Wikipedia? ImTheIP (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References (Bridge Initiative)

Sources

RfC on SCOTUSblog

Should SCOTUSblog be considered a reliable source for law-related articles? Previous discussions for context: Archive 38 and Archive 301. 15:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable There is an editorial staff at the work, and they clearly disclose any cases that the sponsoring lawfirm has any type of financial interest in (I've never seen them necessary take bias in those cases). A google search on "scotusblog -site:scotusblog.com" shows them frequently sited by other RSes. I personally try to use other RSes before using that work in the SCOTUS cases I write but they are a fine "last resort" if needed. --Masem (t) 15:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for law-related topics, although somewhat less due weight than academic journals. Probably similar to Strasbourg Observers or Verfassungsblog. (t · c) buidhe 15:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for its area of expertise (law and Supreme Court cases). Well regarded by multiple WP:RS, has an editorial structure, and the staff all appear to be recognized experts in their field. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable; contributions by experts in the field, editorial control, other reliable sources treat it as a reliable source. --Jayron32 15:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Appears to have a detailed set of editorial policies here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Depends on the author. ScotusBlog posts content by a huge variety of authors. My understanding is that their editorial control is minimal; therefore ScotusBlog articles should be treated as self-published. Many ScotusBlog authors are published subject matter experts. But many are not. R2 (bleep) 17:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a good point in that they often have an "online symposium" which is equivalent to guest talks at a conference. (For example this is the TOC to their most recent one [139]). They also do editorials but these are always labeled as such eg [140]. Everything else nearly always are meant as either factual reports on events at the court, or opinion analysis from their view as legal experts on the situation (which are labelled too when they claim this eg [141], both which are appropriate under the RS concern here. --Masem (t) 01:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

    Masem, editorials from SCOTUSblog are extremely rare: they've only done two in two decades, with both being concentrated on the 2020 election lawsuits. I doubt they'll be doing many more, to be honest. Such editorials would come under WP:RSEDITORIAL and be treated as such. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

    Sure, I'm just pointing out they label such content so it is very easy to identify. --Masem (t) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

    Absolutely: we're in agreement here. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, may require attribution for opinion/analysis pieces. As above. --Neutrality^talk 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Depends; Ahrtoodeetoo is correct, and they generally should be attributed anyway. It's important to remember that WP means by editorial content doesn't necessarily mean "opinion piece" in the sense of an op-ed in a newspaper. Anything of that nature of "punditry" would qualify, including prediction of how a decision will affect interpretation of other statutory or case law, and other personal analysis. The expertise of most of the authors is a reason we can cite their primary-source blog material at all, not a reason to consider it fact and repeat it in Wikipedia's own voice. I'm fine with saying something like "generally reliable, as attributed expert primary-source material" or whatever, but I think just "generally reliable" by itself is going too far for this source type.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
• Generally reliable. Even a guest blogger would need to have some reasonable level of expertise to be given a forum to express their opinions. BD2412 T 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per the above. Really, a better legal source than most of our RSes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable; I can't come up with any instance in which SCOTUSblog has been controversially wrong about something; all information I can find seems to think that it's both intelligent and well-curated. Like any source in the world, opinion pieces and "open mic night" output ought to be treated as what it is; there's no reason to think that SCOTUSblog is any crappier than other RSes in that regard or any other. jp×g 22:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, for the reasons many have already articulated. It should be noted that this is an area that is replete with strong sources, and ideally we should be citing to published law review articles and treatises, except when there has not yet been time for those sources to emerge. John M Baker (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, with attribution of course required for opinion statements. In my experience, SCOTUSblog has a much better grasp on legal issues than even the "mainstream media". Their content does a very good job of laying out all relevant positions in a neutral way, and they have solid policies on ethics and corrections. Their symposia are essentially equivalent to a letter-to-the-editor section, and as such should be attributed. But their news coverage is, at least, comparable to what we expect from high-level reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apple Maps and Bing Maps

Should we prohibit the use of Apple Maps and Bing Maps as a source? Both contain a lot of errors and are very unreliable.

For Bing Maps see this photo. Compare it with Google Maps and Google Street View and you'll notice that Bing Maps has screwed it all up. This isn't a one off as there are many errors like this.

For Apple Maps, I can go trying to find errors in Sydney all day and I still won't be done. I will do a website soon with some of the errors on it. I'll upload the screenshots of it here

AussieCoinCollector (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Maps probably deserves a WP:RSP entry, given that it seems to have come up numerous times [142]. Ideally I don't think we should be citing mapping software at all, including Google Maps, per WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Maps are somewhat reliable. Infact, other than OpenStreetMaps, it is the only one to not screw up this bit. As G maps say B59 (which is correct) but Apple and Bing say A40. Most of the time, google uses sources for verification while apple doesn't. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Google Maps (RSP entry) does have an entry on the list, and it's currently classified as a situational source. I would avoid citing user-generated content from these mapping platforms. Although Google Map Maker was shut down in 2017 due to moderation issues, it still accepts new user-generated data, and at least some of it appears to be user-moderated. Apple Maps accepts user-generated submissions through Apple Maps Connect, although I am not sure how these submissions are vetted. The equivalent for Bing Maps is Bing Places for Business. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely don't think Google Maps is a reliable source by our standards. I often encounter errors on it – just last week it directed me to a supermarket that turned out not to exist. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of these mapping platforms are reliable under Wikipedia's standards. They are useful resources, but it is difficult to determine where the data is coming from, and which parts of the data are user-generated. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Maps, like photos, are not sources that can be cited: the act of looking at a map and drawing some conclusion from it is an act of research and we should leave that to secondary sources. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So why not ban all these sources. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to have a formal RFC for every unreliable source out there. Are they being used in any articles? If so, please link the articles here and we can deal with them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maps are useful for many things; they are just not useful as reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, For me, the only reliable map are these UBD street directories. Google Maps might be something I use a lot but I don't fully trust it and it isn't that reliable. However, nevertheless to say, better than Bing, Apple or OpenStreetMaps. AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 06:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like kind of a stretch, to me, to say that maps aren't reliable sources in general. The major issue with Google/Bing/Apple is that they don't provide stable versions of anything. As far as I know, there is no way to reliably archive "what Google Maps put at such-and-such street corner in 2016", either on the map layer or on the image layer, so if for example a building gets demolished, or an error gets corrected (or introduced!) you are completely SOL. The issue of user-generated content is also present, i.e. I have put businesses on Google Maps which were subsequently moved or disestablished; there is also nothing that stops disgruntled schoolkids from listing "Principal Skinner's house" as a rodeo clown service and certified toilet paper depository.

That said, there are plenty of map publications that don't have these issues; a copy, for example, can be procured for any given year of a print atlas's publication. And plenty of articles can be referenced to United States Geological Survey publications. Even though they sometimes have a bit of dreck in them (GNIS is an example of a source that is generally trustworthy but is usually taken with a grain of salt; there are lots of GNIS-based articles that erroneously list former train stations etc. as populated areas, although we can still basically trust that something called "Jerkwater Junction" once existed at the coordinates in question). But it doesn't make sense to me to shitcan sources just for being maps, as long as the attribution is "this is what such-and-such map said" (for example, our article on the Toledo Strip cites them without issue, as well as plenty of secondary sources that are obviously also based on maps). If we were going to arbitrarily decide that maps (current and historical) weren't permissable as sources, I think there would be some pretty wide-ranging consequences (and lots of articles currently seen as well-referenced would have to be either rewritten or nuked). jp×g 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources that contain textual information derived from maps are potentially reliable sources, just as secondary sources that contain textual information derived from photographs are potentially reliable sources. But a map (or a photo) is not. The reference you mention at Toledo Strip is obviously inappropriate, in several ways -- it obviously does not include the information in the sentence to which it is attached, someone has performed an act of research to convert the visual information in the map into a sentence about it, in violation of WP:OR. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A 1773 map of India¹ labels Sri Lanka as "Ceylon I."

Okay, I think it might be helpful for me to come up with an example, and see if you and I agree on it. Here is a hypothetical example of a map being used as a source (let's say that we want to talk about the time period when Sri Lanka was referred to as "Ceylon", and this map from 1773 is our source for it being known under that name in the 18th century), embedded to the right -- assuming arguendo that the British Museum is a WP:RS (i.e. we have textual content from their description page confirming that the map was made in 1773 and depicts India etc), do you think the text in the image caption (i.e. the claim that it labels Sri Lanka as "Ceylon I.") would be valid content or WP:OR? jp×g 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, anyway, the only article I see with Google maps being used is List of road routes in Western Australia to measure out distances. Anyway, I'm only a minor contributor to it so idk who put them in there. AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: That map would be a wonderful illustration; the accompanying British Museum text presumably would be a RS for the information it contains; but if the British Museum text does not make the observation that Sri Lanka is labeled "Ceylon" and that that was common at the time, I personally do not think that the combination map + BM text would represent appropriate sourcing for that claim. -JBL (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Hmm. Well, since we can both agree that this is a clear example of something which [should / should not] be excluded from consideration as a source, I think that makes it as good a place as any to articulate what we don't agree on. I'll start: I think that typing out what a map says in an article (and then citing the map) is virtually the same thing as typing out what a book says in an article (and then citing the book). Sure, you have to be careful that you are being faithful to the source material (and someone can always argue that you misread it), but I don't see how a map is any less reliable for that than a book or a newspaper. Poking around to find policies/guidelines specifically about maps, I wasn't able to come up with anything; there is WP:MAPCITE, which seems (to me) to generally say things which are smart and correct. Thoughts? jp×g 01:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Grit Daily

Is Grit Daily reliable? It was (until recently) being used for the following text on Signal (software) (see also Talk:Signal_(software)#RfC:_Mention_of_app's_use_by_far_right_-_include_or_disinclude?). Looks vaguely like a WP:NEWSORG to me; describes itself as "the top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands — from fashion, tech, influencers, entrepreneurship, and life". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signal Foundation has not provided information about how or if it moderates messages being exchanged by the far right and QAnon conspiracists.

References

• I'm not familiar with Grit Daily, but looking through a few pages my first impression is that it's not a source we should rely on. It seems to lean towards sensationalism, and this looks like an advertisement masquerading as a news article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the specific statement being cited strikes me as very strange and possibly also a red flag for Grit Daily's quality as a source. Signal is end-to-end encrypted – as I understand it, it's impossible for them to moderate the content of messages.[143] —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for Reporting on Technology The editorial staff are, themselves, considered reliable by sources we consider reliable: the managing editor was most recently a reporter with VentureBeat ([144] + [145]); a staff writer was most recently a reporter with KNSD-TV ([146] + [147]); a staff writer was most recently a reporter with AdWeek ([148] + [149]); etc. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. "Signal is end-to-end encrypted – as I understand it, it's impossible for them to moderate the content of messages." There is nothing in that fact inconsistent with "Signal and Telegram have not said if or how they would moderate content relating to QAnon or other extremist groups". Regardless, however, the personal analysis of individual editors as to whether we agree or disagree with their articles is not a criteria for determination of a source's reliability consistent with our ethos. Reliability is not determined by gut instinct but by whether or not reliable sources consider it reliable. In this case, they do. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Signal Foundation, has, in fact, said they can not monitor or moderate messages, which is why this statement is so nonsensical. The mere existence of that statement shows that the writer does not understand the core purpose of an encrypted message system, which brings into question her reliability as a Wikipedia source.Dabluecaboose (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC

• They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption. The fact that this would be a business decision not supported by the product's consumers does not make that impossible by the laws of physics. There is nothing inconsistent or incorrect with the outlet's assertion. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• The outlet asserts that they have not announced if or how they would monitor or moderate: This is false, they have announced that they do not plan to monitor or moderate. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The one thing we know about it is that it made a very serious mistake. Despite Chetsford's claims to the contrary, Signal's E2E encryption does in fact make it impossible for them to moderate the content of messages. Furthermore, even narrowly this is false since the Signal Foundation has in fact offered this clarification before. In their privacy policy, on their website, they say quite clearly: Signal cannot decrypt or otherwise access the content of your messages or calls. Because of this basic mistake that could have been discovered by checking the organization's own public website, I'm strongly inclined to say that Grit Daily is unreliable. Loki (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No mistake. They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption. The fact that this would be a business decision not supported by the product's consumers does not make that a "mistake". We don't evaluate a source's reliability because its reporting suggests an application preference we don't like. A newspaper could report that McDonald's could make Quarter Pounders healthier by switching to Gardenburgers. The fact you don't think that would taste as good doesn't mean the newspaper made a "mistake." Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "No mistake. They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption." Yet the mistake still stands that they claim Signal has not announced whether or not they will moderate, while they have actually announced that they will not on several occasions, including on their own website. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "they have actually announced that they will not on several occasions, including on their own website" So, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for determining if a source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Since we don't conduct WP:OR on WP, we're not generally able to pass judgment on individual sentences, phrases, or words in a single story. Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• One would think that reporting blatantly incorrect information is relevant to whether or not the source is reliable. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• In general, I would want stronger evidence of reliability than the fact that some of their staff previously worked for publications that may be reliable. I'm not seeing any evidence of a gatekeeping process. I am seeing evidence that some reporters for Grit previously worked for other outlets. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "I'm not seeing any evidence of a gatekeeping process." Really? That's strange. They have an editor and they have writers. There's the gate and there's the keeper. Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it? Hiring reporters from other outlets isn't an editorial policy. It's a hiring policy. Their editorial policy says "[e]ach news story requires at least one (1) link to another reputable news source with respect to any research", suggesting that they don't even regard themselves as reliable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, and they also say "Staff writers at Grit Daily conduct their own fact checking and adhere to our ethics policy", and that "We may do additional fact checking from time to time" (emphasis added). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hate to break it to you, but that's the case with almost all local media in the United States. Very few still employ editorial factcheckers (very few even still employ copyeditors). Pre-publication factchecking almost never occurs except on landmark stories. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, maybe that (which may or may not be true; I have no idea) means we shouldn't rely on local media. Certainly doesn't mean we should rely on Grit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"means we shouldn't rely on local media" If you want to deprecate all local media from WP you may need to bring that up at the Village Pump. There are a few million articles we'll need to update if that suggestion gets a consensus. Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This thread is about Grit Daily, not every local media organization in the US. I happen to think an organization that specifically disclaims checking facts is not an organization we can consider generally reliable. Moreover, I have no sense of whether your blanket assertion that local media (a rather vague category, I might add) don't check facts is, in fact, true. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Gatekeeping simply means content does not go out unfiltered as with a blog, that a second key needs to be turned. The presence of two or more staff persons, one person identified as managing editor, and the specific clause in their editorial guidelines identifying pre-publication review ("it must be approved by an editor beforehand" [150]) demonstrates the presence of this standard. Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am not inclined to rely on this site as a source for facts if it explicitly tells us it doesn't always fact check articles before publishing them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly your right. You may find that there are very few sources you will be able to rely upon, however, since routine pre-publication fact-checking is only customary in long-lead media. But, obviously, individual editors can choose to action or ignore whatever sources they like in their individual editing. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• The idea that having an editor makes a site reliable, absent any other indication of reliability, confuses me. I mean, the Weekly World News had editors. Heck, they could even have printed "fact checker" on their business cards, that wouldn't have made WWN a reliable source. The mere fact that a website isn't an anonymous textboard doesn't seem to demonstrate reliability; if they are routinely saying stuff that's total dreck, that would seem to be a more important indicator one way or the other. jp×g 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The idea that having an editor makes a site reliable, absent any other indication of reliability, confuses me. " Hmmm ... that's not an argument I made. Perhaps you mean to address this to someone else? Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Headline Planet

headlineplanet.com  

There is a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Headline Planet that points to an earlier consensus that headlineplanet.com is not a reliable source for music or other entertainment "news". Because its use occurs in multiple articles, we were hoping to either have it black-listed or "deprecated" (although I hate that term, but for different reasons than I dislike the former term). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dropping by to voice my support for this as per above-linked discussion about the source in question and the initial discourse some months ago of which I was a part. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Same, I support blacklisting/deprecation. Considering there is a lengthy list   of pages that use this source, it can’t be ignored, especially since some of the pages in that list are BLPs. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I’ve been vocal about how terrible this source is in every discussion we've had about it as of late. Not only is the whole site written by one man (Brian Cantor), but it’s also pretty much only used as a source to peddle fancruft into pop music articles. The "reporting" on it is about non-notable radio chart movement and single-vendor chart "records" that no reputable source would bother to cover. Please blacklist it, music articles will be much better without it.--NØ 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem as though there is overwhelming support, but there are no dissenting voices either. Can we move forward with making it so that it cannot be saves as a source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to Walter Görlitz: per WP:DEPREC/WP:DEPS, deprecation can only be done through RfCs. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Then we should open an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

GlobalVoices.org

Does anyone have any experience with globalvoices.org? I am trying to figure out whether it is a reliable sources to write a few sentences about fake news in the War of Afghanistan [151] in relation with this AFP release and this NYT article. Given their editorial policies, does it qualify as WP:SPS?--JBchrch (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable I can't find any evidence that it's been cited or quoted by RS and it appears to be only one step up from user-generated content [152]. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Global Voices (about) is an advocacy group. There seems to be some degree of editorial oversight of submissions (no WP:UGC), but I'm not sure it would qualify as WP:RS. --MarioGom (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable. It's a well-respected, if unconventional journalism organization which began in Harvard's Berkman Center. It's all about citizen journalism, but it's not just a citizen journalism site where anyone can post whatever they want. They seek out writers in parts of the world where citizen journalists play an outsized role in the information ecosystem (due to infrastructure, government control of media, etc.) and translate and amplify their reporting. The writers may be volunteer citizen journalists, but GV has their own paid editorial staff. It's an important resource for us, too, because it's exactly the kind of service we need (finding the writings or writers, translating, evaluating, and republishing them) to write about regions of the world underrepresented on enwp. GV also publishes its own material about citizen journalism, including a project which it calls "advocacy" -- advocating for citizen journalists who face censorship or worse from oppressive governments. It is considered an authority on the subject. To be clear, I'm not saying all of the citizen journalism material should be used in every instance. It should be taken case by case like most other sources. But if we're looking at a determination of reliable/unreliable, I'd go with the former, and especially true for the organization's research and associated people's books (Ethan Zuckerman, Rebecca MacKinnon, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable. I agree with Rhododendrites. It has a good reputation and brings journalism on topics that might be neglected in the media of the global North. Obviously, it's not as strong as legacy media or scholarly content and each use needs to be assessed case by case, but it should not be dismissed wholesale. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RSP listing for Vice Media

Informal question: is it possible the listing of all Vice Media segments together at WP:RSP is too broad? The umbrella organization owns Vice (magazine), the Vice News imprints (Vice News, Vice News Tonight, and Vice (TV series)), and then multiple spinoffs or acquisitions such as Garage Magazine, Refinery29, i-D, and Motherboard (though the old url Motherboard.TV now redirects to https://www.vice.com/en/section/tech). Right now the entirety is listed at WP:RSP under "no consensus". IHateAccounts (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that the current RSP categorization of Vice Media is too broad. We have three listings for Fox News, a single organization, based on topic, and more for its subsidiaries. We have several separate listings for ABC subsidiaries. Surely we don't need to lump every cutout and spinoff of Vice into a single line on RSP. Loki (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we don't list Vox Media collectively, neither should we do for Vice Media. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:, @Hemiauchenia: thank you both for replying. Would either of you have ideas on a good way to split them up? I feel like the Vice News imprints should be separate from the rest of the Vice Magazine parts at minimum. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not that familiar with the Vice ecosystem, but I would say Vice the Magazine, Vice News, and anything with a completely distinct name should all be separate categories. Loki (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, but then what should it say? Which one did the previous discussions apply to? If it said "reliable" or "not reliable" or "depreciated" I could understand this concern, but it says "no consensus" - should it just say that the other categories haven't been discussed at all? We have three categories for Fox News because extensive discussions among it resulted in a lot of split decisions that revealed editors judged different versions differently - we haven't (yet) had a discussion about Vice that split the same way, so we don't really have anything to say if we split it beyond "no consensus" or "hasn't been discussed." I suppose technically "no consensus" is stronger than "hasn't been discussed" in that there's a general presumption of reliability for stuff that seems generally respectable-ish and hasn't been discussed, while "no consensus" is usually taken as a warning to try and avoid using a source, but I suspect that now that there has been discussion of Vice where the issue wasn't raised, we're going to need to have discussions for any parts we want to peel off and judge separately, or at least have a more formal-ish discussion specifically considering which parts to peel off and in which directions. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice Media (RSP entry) currently has a combined listing because there is no consensus on the organization as a whole, or on any of its subsidiary publications. If one of Vice's publications would be classified differently, it can be split into a separate listing, similar to BuzzFeed (RSP entry) and its subsidiary BuzzFeed News (RSP entry). If one of Vice's publications is a "no consensus" source, but has a substantially different entry description, it can also be split into a separate listing, just as Dotdash (RSP entry) is separate from its subsidiary Investopedia (RSP entry). All listings still need to meet the inclusion criteria after any splits, or splitting would not be possible.

On a related note, I find Motherboard (now part of Vice News, but originally located at motherboard.vice.com) to be a generally reliable source for technology topics. Motherboard has published excellent in-depth investigations on high-profile information security controversies, such as its 2020 exposé of Avast Antivirus's data mining (researched in collaboration with PCMag) and its ongoing reporting on Amazon Ring's police partnerships. I have no opinion on other parts of Vice Media at this time. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: In your opinion, would a larger RFC about this topic be warranted? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

​I don't think so, since there are too many publications under Vice Media, and some of them (including i-D, Refinery29, and Garage Magazine) are acquisitions that have distinct histories. An RfC would likely result in "no consensus", which is the same as the current classification. An RfC that examines all of Vice Media's properties separately would also be difficult to manage, since each of them specializes in a different area. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab?

Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant agitation by SPA's and some long time users over at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic talk pages that the idea the virus escaped from a Chinese lab is credible and should be treated as such, despite there being absolutely no evidence for this postulation. People have differed over whether the "lab leak theory" comes under WP:MEDRS or not. One of the major sources of the recent agitation is an article entitled "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis" in New York Magazine by Nicholson Baker from January 4th. I and several others on the talk page don't think it is a reliable source, as Nicholson Baker is a writer who his best known for his experimental novels and has no expertise in virology or medicine, and his inclusion would be undue. Arcturus has proclaimed on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology that Infection Control Today is reliable source that the claims that SARS COV 2 leaked from a Chinese lab are credible, citing an article entitled Idea That COVID-19 Began as a Lab Leak Spreads, which reports favourably on the NYM story. Because Infection Control Today has been cited 33 times according to www.infectioncontroltoday.com   Arcturus stated:

If you search Wikipedia for "Infection Control Today" (using the quotes) you'll see that it is used in many articles as a source. So how is not a RS? It's certainly not included in the list of deprecated sources. Given the articles in which it's used, maybe it's also MEDRS.

I honestly don't know what to say other than this shows Arcturus has serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to our reliable sources policy. Aside from that "Infection Control Today" looks like a marginal source. It's owned by MJH Life Sciences, an obscure company which I can find little about, and all their other websites like Cancer Network look exactly the same, which doesn't inspire confidence. I can't find out anything about the author of the article and most others on the site "Frank Diamond" other than that he is the managing editor, and there is no evidence of editorial control. Their twitter account only has around 5,000 followers, suggesting that they are not a prominent source among medical professionals. Definitely not a WP:MEDRS, and probably not due for claims about the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither is a reliable source for this topic. Claims about the fundamental plausibility of the "lab leak hypothesis" (rather generous phrasing) require WP:MEDRS-level sourcing because, well, they're biomedical claims. More peripheral statements, along the lines of "the conspiracy theory about a lab leak spread on social-media platform X" might in principle be sourced to the Washington Post and its ilk, but that's not what's in contention here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  So far, every page I've looked at that's cited "Infection Control Today" did so to point at a press release or the equivalent. I'd hazard a guess that the encyclopedia would benefit if each of those ~30 citations were overhauled. (It's also been cited in conjunction with bioRxiv, which is a preprint server and very definitely does not meet WP:MEDRS.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  In one form or another, we keep seeing the argument that the risks of scientific research and the topic of laboratory safety are not a part of science. This argument leaves me completely baffled. But the entire case for treating a non-expert's writing in a general-interest magazine as reliable rests upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  In a way it's too bad that Twitter threads aren't the kind of sources we look for, even when from a bioethicist and a virologist, as they are ... colorful. But they do illustrate that the failure of the New York story involves adaptive mutation and how BSL-3/4 work is regulated and codon usage analysis done in silico, to name only a few points. When reliability turns on matters like these, the topic requires specialist knowledge, and the way we as a community that includes a lot of generalists handles that is by requiring the highest standard of sourcing possible. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither for the reasons articulated by XOR. (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• ICT is RS, almost certainly Why would it NOT be a RS? The suggestion that the lab leak theory should be supported by MEDRS is bunkum. One might equally argue that a forensic science source is required. I agree, it probably doesn't meet MEDRS, but as I say, it doesn't need to. If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Here are some links, some or all, of which may help with an assessment: [153][154][155][156][157] Arcturus (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my reading of WP:MEDRS, questions about the origins of COVID-19 do require medrs-sourcing, because specialized knowledge of epidemiology and medical science is required to determine the answers to those questions. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for some background, the debate on this page is only taking place because at the moment we have the subject of the possible Wuhan lab leak branded as "conspiracy" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. However, none of the references in the Conspiracy theories section of that article are WP:MEDRS compliant. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So I started looking at those links - the first one was one of ICT's own press releases that had been reprinted by another website, and the second was in a marketing magazine, estimating the cost of advertising in ICT (although "this might be completely incorrect"). I stopped looking at this point; demonstrating the efficacy of sources requires more than simply copy-pasting every result from Google. So, anyway, Neither is also my comment, both for that and the reason articulated by XOR. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Provided only for background info. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not trying to justify anything by linking to them. Just trying to be helpful, that's all. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You raise the point, If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Shockingly, not all Wikipedia pages are up to standard. Sometimes, bad sources slip through. An editor might see a "citation needed", Google it and paste in whatever site comes up. An editor might not be familiar enough with churnalism to tell recycled press releases apart from actual reporting. Conflict-of-interest edits can evade detection. That this happened thirty-odd times with the "Infection Control Today" website is regrettable, but unsurprising. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The NY Magazine article is written by novelist who is maybe best known for his erotic novels. It's unclear what expertise, if any, he has in virology. This is important, because the basic thesis of his article rests on detailed claims about virology (e.g., about the genetics of SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses). But because the author has no expertise in the subject, he is not in a position to judge the plausibility of the ideas he's writing on. One of the virologists whom NY Magazine asked to verify some claims in the article, Vincent Racaniello, said (on his podcast, TWiV, episode 703) that he told NY Magazine that the article was "science fiction" and "nonsense", but that NY Magazine wasn't interested in his overall assessment of the article. They only wanted to know whether specific claims (e.g., did this person do this experiment in this year?) were correct. This article is a perfect example of why WP:MEDRS exists: the popular press often does a very poor job of reporting on biomedical topics. WP:MEDRS sources are written by people who have extensive scientific training, and are reviewed by relevant experts. Why on Earth did NY Magazine choose someone with no scientific background to write their cover story on the origins of SARS-CoV-2? The answer escapes me, but we shouldn't be turning to the popular press for what is, at its core, a scientific claim, when there are WP:MEDRS sources available. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I will attempt to answer your question on why the New York Magazine published a piece from an outsider. As you may know, there are always concerted interests in scientific circles, where funding is concerned, which can affect the POV of one scientist or group of scientists in regards to a certain issue. One such issue is biotechnology risk, which a group of scientists lead by Marc Lipsitch have written a consensus statement on, opposing the creation of novel potential pandemic pathogens for medical research. In response to this group, Vincent Racaniello created an opposing group called "Scientists for Science", which advocates for a more liberal approach, which you can read about in this Science Article. I hope this gives you insight into the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow at all. None of that explains why New York Magazine would choose to publish a story by someone not qualified to write one competently, nor does it make their decision justifiable or the result acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of journalists who write for publication aren't experts in the fields they write about. That doesn't disqualify them from writing, nor does it disqualify their their writings from being regarded as WP:RS.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But it does disqualify them from being regarded as WP:MEDRS. If the "lab leak hypothesis" is to be treated as a scientific hypothesis, then it needs scientific documentation. XOR'easter (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply here. I couldn't find any treatment advice in the New York article. Park3r (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical information, not just treatment advice. XOR'easter (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Park3r: Actually it kind of does for certain realms of knowledge. The business of journalism is to make interesting reading, and while you can find volumes of journalism considering, say, whether questions remain about who shot JFK, Wikipedia prefers to look to accepted academic scholarship for assertions on this topic. If a notion is at odds with accepted academic scholarship, Wikipedia must either omit it entirely or else contextualize it within that accepted context. This is core policy, and not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

^ This. The first duty of a news source is to be profitable, because if you go out of business, you can't report anything. They published this piece because people would read it, and not because it actually matters that a novelist personally felt like there was "something oddly artificial about the disease" last March and has now turned his unfounded gut feeling and his worries about the risks involved in doing virus research into a nice little story about how, although there's no actual evidence for it, the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have been present in one of those labs and might have been handled by one of the workers and might have infected that worker. (Also: has our novelist ever heard of measles before? SARS-CoV-2 is much less infective and much less deadly than other viruses.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. The section Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information? clearly states that history is not biomedical information. The origin of a disease is obviously history. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tracking the vector/patient zero of a virus is very much biomedical information ("how a disease progresses"), so we should definitely be sticking to MEDRS here. --Masem (t) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I concur with Masem. First, the page Wikipedia:Biomedical information is a supplement that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, even if we do follow its advice, what it talks about as "history" is bloodletting to balance the humors. It even says, Statements that could still have medical relevance, such as about the effectiveness of historical treatments, are still biomedical — and an ongoing pandemic is obviously still relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. Especially for a topic area where we have academic, peer-reviewed, secondary material which is directly on-topic. Why would we reach down to these lesser/unreliable sources? Doing so would risk over-exposing an undue POV, for which a WP:REDFLAG flies. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• New York Magazine is a WP:RS in this case. It does not purport to provide, nor can it be construed to, be treatment advice. The history of a disease is a topic of general interest. Whether SARS-Cov-2 accidentally originated in a lab, or jumped species in a market, is not going to reduce social distancing behaviour, masking, or the treatment of the disease, so WP:MEDRS shouldn't apply. The New York article is a secondary or tertiary source, that extensively quotes and links to other sources. In almost any other context, it would be regarded as an excellent source, and I would caution that the strident assertions that this is a "conspiracy theory" and suppression of reliable sources is likely to ripen into a Streisand Effect. Indeed, I had little more a passing interest in this topic, but the unusual way that this is being handled has now precipitated a great deal of personal interest in me.Park3r (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Adoring nanny: The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. There are three types of evidence that would support the plausibility of the lab leak theory: 1) Genomics, which require MEDRS from virology experts; 2) Forensics, which require MEDRS from the chinese epidemiologists and veterinarians that traced the cases of early patients; 3) Intelligence, which do not require MEDRS. For the sake of exposition, lets assume that Canada's Intelligence Agency discovers secret video footage of a Russian lab confessing they created the virus and showing how they did it. Then Reuters publishes an article called "Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being created in a lab has been found". In that hypothetical case, would any editor of Wikipedia allow Reuters to be a good enough RS to report on the lab leak, or would they double down on asking that a MEDRS supports it first, on the basis that it is fringy? Forich (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Forich, I think your hypothetical source would be reliable for a statement that "A Canadian intelligence agency says that a Russian lab confessed to creating the virus" but not for a claim that the virus was actually created that way. This is one of the problems with the way this discussion (and, indeed, with the whole concept of RSP): Our actual rule is WP:RSCONTEXT. It is possible that the ICT source could be reliable for its main point, which is "people are interested in this" (NB: not "it's true"). But I don't think it is reliable for statements of facts. Indeed, when I click through to RSP, I find that RSP actually says "There is no consensus on whether [New York Magazine] is generally reliable for contentious statements", which IMO is importantly different from how you portrayed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's very simple - use in-text attribution cited to RS. Our job is not to identify where the virus started. Mainstream consensus is that the virus originated in Wuhan per NPR: "China has repeatedly pushed back against consensus that the novel coronavirus first appeared in humans in Wuhan," NPR's Emily Feng reports from Beijing. "Officials have suggested without evidence that the virus began elsewhere, including the U.S., and was brought to China." Nature states that WHO has released a plan and investigations will begin in Wuhan. The Guardian states: Wuhan had excellent surveillance, as well as a world-class biosecure laboratory that would later fall under suspicion. The cluster was detected in Wuhan, but it is still possible it came from somewhere else. We publish what prevailing RS are telling us - basically that Wuhan is suspected, and it's under investigation that will probably take years to conclude, if a reliable conclusion is even possible. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• In-text attribution. The critical issue to me is whether we are saying "this is what actually went down" (which is a confident statement in the encyclopedia's voice, WP:MEDRS obviously required) or "a bunch of people said this was what went down" (per WP:MEDRS itself, Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc. is not biomedical information). The fact that there are a bunch of people who think CORVID-19 came cawing and pecking out of a lab in Wuhan is notable and well-supported by reliable sources. Whether or not this means it actually did is, well, a separate issue. I haven't kept up on the literature well enough to say whether that's what happened. While there is certainly a lot of hubbub about Wikipedia's coronavirus coverage, it is not our responsibility to never write articles which we suspect could cause someone to hold false beliefs. For example, we have an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. If we tell people that Dogwater Independent Picayune-Star said such-and-such, and the Proceedings of the International Medical Prestigiousness Symposium said another, well, we've done all we can. jp×g 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

JPxG hits the nail on the head. Please see below on updated RS on the topic, as it has been covered quite extensively, with a numebr of very prominent scientists saying that the possibility must be considered. Please see my note at the bottom of this section on the talk page of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where I make it clear what content changes I would like to see to describe "what actually went down". All I ask is to remove the POV unsupported by MEDRS from editors who ironically are insisting on a blanket application of the policy on all claims, biomedical and otherwise. Please also see discussions from Forich, clearly delineating information from reliable sources like the BBC, which are not biomedical in nature. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have editors pushing carefully selected quotes from selected sources in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, ignoring both the consensus of MEDRS sources and of general reliable sources that discuss the subject. This kind of cherry picking is unacceptable, and that should be the point here. Selective picking of sources, which aren’t even the best available sources, is problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the cherry picking of sources to make the "lab leak" postulation seem better supported than it is on the talk pages is pretty ridiculous. The best way of dealing with the cherry picking is by targeting the cherry picked sources, and demonstrating that that they are undue and don't represent mainstream views of virologists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "mainstream" view of virologists on the origins of the virus that represents scientific consensus. The origins of the virus are completely unknown, and even the WHO "terms of reference" for its investigation notes this, and this statement is made in many other MEDRS compliant sources. Different hypotheses have been made, but unless there is an open investigation, it is unlikely there will ever be a scientific consensus on the matter, with MEDR sources to cite accordingly. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if a scientific community has yet to settle upon a single hypothesis as its consensus position, it is still possible that the relative ranking of hypotheses by plausibility is itself agreed upon. In other words, the mainstream position can be that A is vastly more plausible than B, while the only thing that can be said for C is that it wouldn't technically violate the laws of physics. XOR'easter (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that there should be a relative ranking of hypotheses based on plausibility, however, I think you are missing something here. As it is now, the only hypothesis that is considered by certain Wikipedia editors as "plausible" is the zoonitic jump hypothesis, while the lab leak hypothesis is labeled as "misinformation" in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and "conspiracy theory" in Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is no mention of a lab leak as a plausible possibility at all, anywhere in Wikipedia, even though nothing has been proven about any possible origin scenario. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Is it not? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd sure hope that are editors carefully selecting their quotes and sources when writing articles. You have to find WP:RS that are about the thing you're trying to write, and then quote the relevant portions. I don't think that this is intrinsically sinister. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, you said that we "push carefully selected quotes from selected sources" in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, but thats a total misrepresentation of the discussion:

1. We opened the talk with a general request to discuss the lab leak theory and the best way to include edits mentioning it
2. Opposing editors claimed it was fringe
3. We explained in depth why we believed it was not fringe
4. Opposing editors argued that it was "Wall of text", too long for "lazy" editors to read
5. We narrowed it down to specific claims
6. Opposing editors argued the sources used were unreliable
7. We reached consensus on 6 MEDRS and 4 RS to be used on the matter
8. Opposing editors appealed that MEDRS ruled over the whole article per some exceptional rule on covid related topics
9. We appealed to have biomedical claims backed by MEDRS and non-biomedical claims backed by non-MEDRS RS
10. Opposing editors run out of excuses to avoid debating, so we dissected the claims and asked to debate their due weight, reliability, notability

I personally would not oppose if the consensus we reach is to avoid any mention of the lab leak theory, I have no "dog in the fight". However, it is important that the discussion exhausts and transpires every nuance so that we can display a resulting consensus in the talk page that exactly explains what is allowed and what is not allowed to be edited regarding the issue. Forich (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has been bouncing between talk pages, AN/I, RSP and God knows what else is a little confusing to me; none of the issues involved really seem like general WP:RS stuff, and none of the conduct really seems like it deserves to be at WP:ANI. jp×g 03:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless certain editors agree to stop conflating the theory of a possible accidental lab leak as an origin scenario with conspiracy theories, then this is heading next to WP:DR. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is conflating anything. We are simply maintaining that if a "possible accidental lab leak" is to be treated as a scientific theory, then it needs documentation in scientific sources. One can't have it both ways. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people are conflating between different lab origin scenarios, as I describe below. Treating the "possible accidental lab leak" as a possibility should not require scientific sources as per WP:MEDRS, as it is impossible for scientists to prove or disprove unless you have a way to magically teleport into the WIV, evade all the guards, and grab some forensic evidence. It is also impossible to prove or disprove a zoonitic jump having occurred and no self-respecting science would write a paper claiming to have it (which is why there is no MEDRS sources to back it up), and while evidence for either scenario is lacking, all hypotheses should be considered as possibilities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to treat the belief that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any specific place before people started getting sick as a scientific possibility, then you need scientific sources. If you want to treat it as something that some politician speculated about, then you need a political source (e.g., any reputable newspaper). As @XOR'easter says, we can't have it both ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not MEDRS/biomedical information. The only reason special standards exist for medical information is to make it less likely that readers will harm themselves by their misinterpreting bad medical information. Misinformation about the origin of the virus will not affect the likelihood of readers catching the virus, or dying from it, so it isn't a MEDRS domain. Normal standards apply. This is not an endorsement of these sources for scientific content, only a point about MEDRS scope creep. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say that misinformation about a pandemic is a public-health hazard in general. Buying into a conspiracy theory can mean taking a crackpot "treatment", exposing others by refusing to take precautions against transmission, etc. MEDRS isn't creeping; it just became relevant to a whole lot of daily life. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Crackpot treatments are already covered by MEDRS, whether or not conspiracy theories are involved. Geogene (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But what I'm saying is that when you say that misinformation about a pandemic's origin has no medical consequences, well, I'm not that optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Geopolitical consequences, maybe. Not medical consequences. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Members of the United States House of Representatives have caught the virus, quite possibly because they were forced to shelter in place with colleagues who refused to wear masks for ideological reasons during an insurrection fomented by conspiracy theories. The medical is geopolitical, and vice versa. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of any way in which the origin of the coronavirus makes an impact on my daily life. "While the coronavirus is just as deadly and transmissable as before, I read an article saying that it might have escaped from a lab, therefore I will stop washing my hands and go to a huge indoor party"? If little green men had brought the coronavirus here from Neptune, how would this have any impact on whether to have dinner in a crowded restaurant? That just doesn't make any sense to me. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What about, "I read an article saying that the coronavirus escaped from a lab. Obviously, scientists don't know what they're doing, so I shouldn't bother listening to their recommendations or getting the vaccine." XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is getting pretty far afield of Wikipedia's rôle. Is this a fully general principle that you think should applied across the project? jp×g 08:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO Wikipedia's role is to accurately represent the facts as understood by high-quality sources, both in the literal meaning of the individual sentences and in the overall impression we give our readers. IMO it is not accurate, according to those high-quality sources, that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any lab before the pandemic started. The fact that a cultural magazine got a novelist to write about how worried he is about lab research (even though he admits that there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever in that lab) does not change my view of what the high-quality sources say about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Geogene is incorrect about why MEDRS exists. MEDRS exists so that our articles are less likely to contain errors and misinformation. It doesn't matter whether the error is a good one ("People need to drink eight glasses of water a day") or a bad one. We want their contents to be accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• New York Magazine is great RS as long as it was not used for sourcing medical claims. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because the accidental leakage from the lab is not a medical claim. Actually, it has nothing to do with science. This is a Laboratory safety matter. A claim that the virus was artificially engineered is different. It would probably require MEDRS sources for claims related to scientific research, but not-MEDRS sources would be fine to document opinions by experts and political aspects of the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  How is laboratory safety not a part of science? I mean, safety lessons were part of every lab course I've ever taken — first day, usually. How is any procedure determined to be safe — a seal found adequate, a sterilizing agent effective, or whatever — other than by a scientific investigation? XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, one can do research related to laboratory safety. But in that specific case this is just a matter of an investigation (more in a law enforcement meaning) to answer single question: Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not) at the time prior to the outbreak? If such investigation would be conducted (it was not to my knowledge), one would not need any MEDRS sources because this is not a medical and not a scientific question. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not)" - such scientifically illiterate questions as this are an excellent illustration of why we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, rather than the amateur musings of Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am simply trying to explain in plain terms what this is all about. I am sure my comment was understandable. Yes, I could cite this: "Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records." Fact checking: TRUE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of the US State Department is in question, for obvious reasons. And, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that an investigation, in the law enforcement meaning of the word, finds a vial in a lab, or a suspicious genome sequence on a hard drive. How would they tell that the vial contained a sample of a particular virus, or what the genome was sequenced from? By doing science to it. Even in the forensic setting or against an espionage background, the pivotal questions require scientific knowledge to answer. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question this is actual statement by US State Department. The only question is about using it on specidfic page. As about investigation, I think we know the answer: Chinese government simply will not allow any meaningful independent investigation. So perhaps we will never know the answer. As about law enforcment people, yes, they are using a lot of standard tests. That does not make them scientists. Only those who are developing new methods in forensic science can be described as such. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; it's been a busy few days. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes here. The question is not whether an investigator has the right to list "scientist" on their business card, but whether their work has an unavoidable scientific component. If it does, then it must be held up to scientific standards, and so must anything we write about it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is simple. The "lab leakeage" is not a medical and mostly not even a scientific question. This is just a question if the virus was actually stored and studied in specific lab and what had actually happen. For example, should one use only MEDRS sources for page Sverdlovsk anthrax leak? Of course not. In this regard, the source under discussion is good and it was vetted in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a scientific question that lay sources reduce into nonsense. So when you say "the virus", what do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is valid source per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yes, it can be used. However, it should not be used for sourcing any specific claims that explicitly belong to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. This is not a biomedical information (as defined in the guideline) because the historical question if the virus was leaked from the lab does not affect anyone's sickness or health. This is a question related to biology of the virus and politics. This is all I am saying. We are not going to debate what is science. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

Le Infezioni in Medicina

1. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (PDF). Infez Med. 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.

This paper evaluates literature only up to April 2020, and finds no support for a lab-origin of SARS-CoV-2 or ideas that it a "bioweapon", stating in the conclusion that "The information and knowledge currently available in the public domain as peer-reviewed publications support a probable bat or pangolin origin of SARS-CoV-2." The paper is otherwise uninteresting as it mostly evaluates what hasn't been said rather than what has. I am not familiar with Le Infezioni in Medicina (infezmed). It describes itself as a "is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal which publishes, free of charge, editorials, reviews, original articles, case reports and letters to the Editor on experimental and clinical investigations concerning any aspect of infectious diseases.". It has an impact factor of 0.748 in 2019, which seems fairly low. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a scientific review article, and therefore a MEDRS source. The impact factor of the journal is hardly relevant. Many unreliable sources are frequently cited. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is a low impact factor (not sure what's normal in the field of infectious diseases), but is MEDLINE-indexed, which is good; would probably be okay for nonWP:REDFLAG assertions. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a decent RS, seems to be a bit of a go to journal for Italian researchers who want to publish their research locally, peer review seems rigorousBoynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Scopus ranks this journal around the 30th percentile for its field, so it's probably okay but below median.

  I'm not a fan of using impact factors as some sort of magic number, and especially not as a one-size-fits-all-fields number, but a low impact factor can indicate a Predatory journal, so it bears investigation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

independentsciencenews.org

This website has consistently come up in discussions surrounding the "lab leak claims". From its about page it clearly has some kind of fringe (anti-GMO, anti-pesticide) viewpoint, mostly focusing on agriculture, with the additional promotion of "lab leak" claims since the beginning of the pandemic. independentsciencenews.org is published by the Bioscience Resource Project (which has a Wikipedia article may need to go to AfD at some point), which declares itself to be a "non-profit 501(c)3 organization". To me, this mostly looks like an essentially self-published source by the sites main author Dr. Jonathan Latham, who has no expertise in virology as far as I can tell and not a reliable souce for virological claims, and undue regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely fringey, with no indications of editorial oversight; could well be one man's pet project. Latham has published journal articles, but nothing substantial in virology AFAICT (only a little on plant viruses, back in the early 1990s), and his only institutional affiliation is the Bioscience Resource Project. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, plant viruses are a whole different kettle of fish from human viruses. A lot of the citations to "Jonathan Latham" on scholar appear to be to a chemist by the same name who works at the University of Manchester. The paper that Latham published with other members of the "Bioscience Resource Project", entitled "Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications" from 2006 which has been cited over 160 times, mostly in pesticide related articles. It's clear that he was (at least formerly) a published and somewhat respected scientist. I have managed to find a piece in Wired from 2011 that discusses a manifesto from the Bioscience Resource Project, it is described as "play[ing] a tune that will be familiar to anyone who has encountered the rhetoric of GeneWatch UK: basically, modern genomics is pure hype perpetuated by scientists seeking grant money and corporations seeking to absolve themselves of responsibility for environmental disasters." and states that the central claim of the piece is that "Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have failed to find variants explaining much of the risk of common diseases like type 2 diabetes" but that the "authors rely on a combination of distortions and statistical misunderstandings to make their case." Its an interesting look into the groups ideology, which cements the idea in my mind that they are indeed pretty fringe. I don't know why I did this much digging considering they were clearly not reliable source for human virology anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

a profile on the website Genetic Literacy Project describes them as openly promoting anti-gmo conspiracy theories. The Genetic Literacy Project have been accused, not entirely baselessly of being monsanto shills, so I don't take them entirely at their word. This is getting way off topic, however. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post Editoral

A November editoral in the Washington Post, entitled The coronavirus’s origins are still a mystery. We need a full investigation. has often been used to support the lab leak suppostion. In the introduction, the article even states: "Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans, which have become more common as people push into new areas where they have closer contact with wildlife", though the article goes on to state: "Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses." It then goes on to reference the 2012-2013 "Mojiang Mine incident" where several workers became sick and died of a SARS like illness in after contact with bats. though no viral samples were ever taken. This is covered in the Mòjiāng virus article about a virus that was collected from the locality several years after the incident and has no definitive connection to the illness cases. It concludes the paragraph that "Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water." Overall the Washington Post editorial is not massively fringe, but I question its dueness here. Per WP:MEDPOP, the popular press are not reliable sources to evaluate scientific claims, such as whether or not it is plausible that the virus leaked from a laboratory. As an editorial, it comes under WP:RSOPINION, which generally should not be used for statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep. WP:MEDPOP, WP:RSOPINION. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• None is MEDRS. And this whole discussion (here and at the host article) misses the point that even if some non-MEDRS source is notionally reliable (a news source, say) it can't be used to debunk or problematize a stronger source. We can't undercut peer-reviewed, academic, expert sources because Bob Journalist wrote a thinkpiece somewhere, even if is is "reliable" for his view. This is an essence of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  True dat. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement here, the point of bringing this to the RSN is to give oxygen to the conversation. These sources have been repeatedly brought up, so instead of endlessly going around in circles about them at the talk page with people who are little interested in editing about anything else, we can get a definitive concensus here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not reliable for any medical or scientific claim at all. It is, however, a reliable source for a statement about what the Washington Post's editorial board believes. It could, therefore, be used to support a sentence such as "The Washington Post said that there should be more research into how and where the virus started infecting the humans". (I'm not sure that sentence would be WP:DUE – we have a whole article on Further research is needed – but it would be reliable for such a statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WaPo is an excellent source on political aspects of any controversy, although not on scientific claims. That one is very much political. Main idea of the publication: "We need a full investigation". Yes, this is something obvious and consensus of many RS. Why do you think WHO team went to China [158]? My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Editorials are not normally considered reliable sources for statements of facts, political or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

David Relman opinion piece in PNAS

In November, an opinion piece entitled To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19 was published in PNAS by David Relman, a Professor in Medicine, and in Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. In the piece, it is stated that

There are several potential origin scenarios. First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats, which are known reservoirs of immense coronavirus diversity (2), and then spread directly, or indirectly via an intermediate host, to humans through natural mechanisms. The degree of anticipated but undiscovered natural diversity clearly lends support to this scenario, as well as support to other scenarios. Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally.

going on to state that:

Some have argued that a deliberate engineering scenario is unlikely because one would not have had the insight a priori to design the current pandemic virus (3). This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory. Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory.

concluding that "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts." Given that this is an opinion piece it comes under WP:RSOPINION, and shouldn't be used for statements of fact, only attributed opinion. It also doesn't mention the WIV by name. While David Relman seems to be a respected microbiologist (seemingly mostly focusing on gut flora,bacteria and archea, with some viral work as well). its difficult to get a sense of whether this represents the concensus of virologists, and whether or not Relman is a prominent enough microbiologist or not that this would be WP:DUE. (It appears he was stating the same thing back in April according to this BoingBoing article) In my view, we should avoid using opinion pieces entirely when discussing the origins of the virus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with avoiding opinion pieces entirely. Opinions are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Sure, this is a well sourced view, just like almost everything. But I think this is laughable when non-experts censor views by David Relman (a Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine) that were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. This only shows the degree of POV-pushing around here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. My point about Relman is that I don't know whether his view represents the concensus of virologists, and putting his opinion in the article could potentially lend undue weight. How have other academics reacted to the claim that "This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory." It clearly shows the "lab leak" postulation is not completely fringe among mainstream academics, but also does not demonstrate that it is probable either. Given that he doesn't even mention the WIV directly, is it even relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be used on page about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It should be used on page Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory (the header of this discussion tells about "the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab") or maybe on page Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. What other think about "to acknowledge the possibility that..."? Well, these viruses in fact were studied in labs, and the possibility of making a recombinant virus not only exists, but a trivial molecular biology procedure. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. This isn't POV-pushing, either; I would have the same objection to opinion pieces arguing in the opposite direction. XOR'easter (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

US Government claims

On January 15th, the US Department of State released a document entitled Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that has been extensively discussed on the WIV talk page, in the document, it is explosively claimed that:

The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.

among other claims. My issue with this is as a US govt document they are a WP:PRIMARY source for the claims, and that the origin of the virus has been polticised, in large part to the actions of the Trump administration, which has also developed a reputation for publishing falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and they cannot be considered a reliable source for the claims prima facie unless they are otherwise corroborated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you that this issue has been politicized by Trump, but as JPxG very eruditely points out above, Wikipedia has an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and discount the views of respected scientists like David Relman quoted in reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal (see here and here), just because there are a few idiot politicians misconstruing the science to score political points among Sinophobic constituents. We have to be able to transcend all that as Wikipedians, and conflating different lab origin scenarios, as I have written about below, is highly disingenuous. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. This is an official website of US State Department. Hence this is valid primary (or possibly even secondary) source. It can be cited directly with an attribution to US State Department. Is it "due" on page about Wuhan lab? Yes, sure, because it is directly about this lab and because the official view by US government is important in such context. I am not saying this view is "the truth". My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for claims of fact (e.g., for claims that people were sick. Also: I, too, "became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses". Does that "raise questions about the credibility of" these same White House politicians in saying that COVID-19 wasn't present in the US back then?). If you wanted to use that source to write that Trump's White House claimed that some WIV staff might have had COVID-19, then I think you'd need another source, both to show that mentioning this document was WP:DUE and to provide an analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for claims of fact, per WhatamIdoing and general concerns about prior history. (I myself did not become "sick in autumn 2019", etc., but a good friend did.) Secondary sources would be needed to establish due weight. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

False Premise of this post

When talking of the COVID-19 and the possibility of lab leak as an origin scenario, one should not conflate between the different classifications of emerging infectious disease, as clearly delineated here in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious diseases.

For the uninitiated, the Wikipedia entry clearly differentiates the scenario of a deliberate release of a bioweapon from an accidental release of a virus undergoing medical research, and for those who have actually read the New York Magazine piece, this distinction is clearly made, and is clearly distinguishable from conspiracy theories made by the likes of Li-Meng Yan and Luc Montagnier, which have been discredited and retracted, respectively. Other than the New York Magazine, a number of other reputable publications have covered the topic of an accidental lab leak, including the Boston Magazine, Wired Magazine, CNET the BBC, Reuters Bloomberg, The Telegraph, The Times, Presadiretta and Culture France, Le Monde, and multiple Washington Post articles, such as this. None of these articles present the possibility of a lab leak as fact, but in the dearth of evidence for any other scenario, they quote some reputable scientists (like David Relman) as saying that it should be considered as a possibility, and should not be discounted. Further than that, Professor Dominic Dwyer, who is one University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillof the members of the WHO's investigation team told The Australian that he is willing to keep an "open mind" to the possibility of a lab leak, even if he doesn't think it's likely.

The question of whether WP:MEDRS applies here, should only pertain to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and while certain aspects of determining the origins of the virus can certainly be considered biomedical information, there is currently a media and academic black out being imposed by the Chinese government, which was the subject of another reliable source on the possible lab origins of the virus, the Associated Press. The real question we should be asking, is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to establish that there is a controversy around the origins of the virus, to mandate the removal of the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" terms associated with the lab leak theory in the articles Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology, and any other articles where it may crop up. There is now also confirmation from the United States Department of State that a lab leak is a possibility they want the WHO to investigate, which also gives mention to the unknown provenance of Ratg13, a key piece of missing information that gave rise to the lab leak hypothesis, which was covered in the New York Magazine piece. The USDOS statement has been further covered in reliable sources, like this Telegraph article.

Guys, what we have is a legitimate controversy about a possible biosecurity event that certain scientists have been warning about for years. Instead of trying to topic ban me and delete my stuff, it would be better to engage in a good-faith discussion, without conflating the issues.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, other scientists working in this field have also been warning for years that naturally occurring SARS viruses in South China pose a big threat. I wouldn't set much store by what the US government says on this matter (for a few days), since there's a conflict of interest and a declared policy to blame China/the Chinese for some or all aspects of its own recent failings. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Fair enough. What your reference demonstrates is that there are differing views between scientists on the possible origins of the virus. Many scientists have found it odd that a specific virus from a bat species found in Yunan, 1,400km away south of Wuhan, broke out where it did, and how it did. This doesn't prove anything, but nor has any other origin scenario been proven, and in the dearth of evidence for any given scenario, and the uncooperative nature of the Chinese government, many scientists agree that a lab leak scenario should be given consideration. It certainly can't be considered as misinformation or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that in the 21st century a commodity be transported a few hundred miles before causing an epidemic in a market! Note that the reference I provided has nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2; it's older than the virus, so it most certainly does not provide evidence of differing opinion on SARS-CoV-2's origins. GPinkerton (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for a commodity to be transported. Though there is the small matter of nearby laboratory, which was well known to be performing gain of function research on SARS-like coronaviruses to infect humans, whose sponsor said as much in a Tweet and YouTube interview (timestamped), which was also forced to make an Addendum to a Nature article they had published about a certain SARS-like coronavirus called RaTG13 earlier in the year, which revealed that they had collected it with a number of other unpublished viruses that they were working on in undisclosed ways. There is a legitimate scientific inquiry into this lab and its affairs, especially as it was partly funded by the US gov (via EcoHealth), and should thus be required to divulge certain information, which they are not (and instead they deleted their entire public database of viruses from the web, claiming the server is down). Fain of function research isn't nefarious and "passaging" a virus in a host that it wouldn't usually infect is done in order to generate attenuated strains for use in vaccines, which has been done successfully for diseases llike Polio. But, such research poses huge risks, and the are numerous cases of virus leaking from labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is all on the level of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory (promoted by Russia) that supposed the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal somehow not the Russians' doing just because Porton Down is nearby. Trump's funding decisions are neither here nor there. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no comparison that can be made with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. In that case, an investigation was made, with forensic evidence uncovered from various sites, and in this case, no open investigation has been made and no forensic evidence has been found (the WHO Investigation has working on a "Terms of Reference" that precludes the possibility of a WIV lab leak). We have absolutely no idea what went on. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, we know that a SARS coronavirus common in bats in southern China was transmitted to humans in southern China and caused a pandemic in the early 21st century. Then it happened again in 2019. GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, there is one huge difference between the outbreak of SARS-COV-1 in Guangdong in 2002, and the outbreak of SARS-COV-2 in Wuhan in 2019, and that is that the former was not pre-adapted for human transmission from the start, while the latter was. You can read about that from the scientists who published a paper about it, here. One of the authors was quoted in the abovementioned Boston Magazine and New York Magazine articles that you or may not have read. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, and you link a non-peer-reviewed study from last year to claim this? GPinkerton (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, were you thinking of countering the claim? I sent you the paper for you to read and understand one of the most significant differences between SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2. The findings of this paper, which has been noted by numerous other scientists, are confirmed by World Health Organisation in a document they released just last week on their investigation. You can download it here, and you need not go past page 3 to find it, which should tell you something about its significance. You are welcome. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion you postulate above. There is absolutely nothing on page 3 of that report that supports any of your claims, and refutes several of them that you have made elsewhere, notably the you are working off very old information claim. And yet, this WHO report dwells on the Wuhan market as the source of what it repeatedly calls a zoonotic bat virus. By contrast, no laboratories are mentioned; the word only appears as part of phrases like "laboratory testing". Neither does "pre-adapted" appear anywhere, nor the name of the Wuhan Institute. It is not necessary to repudiate outdated speculation, nor to refute it. I have yet to read of a conclusive study that proves definitely that painting animals on cave walls does not augment the herds in the next hunting season. Yet we are not expected to give that kind of belief system credence in the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, let's take this one point at a time.

First, to demonstrate that the WHO takes the position of the abovementioned paper on the subject of pre-adaption: Current findings show that the virus has been remarkable stable since it was first reported in Wuhan, with sequences well conserved in different countries, suggesting that the virus was well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. This is also corroborated by the epidemiology and transmission patterns seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. (page three)

Secondly, the fact that the WHO dwells on the Wuhan market, like you did, is due to the fact that the entire exercise is a sham, and the United States Department of State has released a statement about it, here. There are many others who have called on the WHO to demand China's full cooperation for their investigation.

Thirdly, if you are genuinely interested in the lab leak hypothesis, you can read a draft that I wrote on the topic. (it needs more work... maybe you can help?). You should also read the sources I provided.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, so you are first promoting the WHO as supporting your claims, and now you say it's all a sham because some red-faced Americans have also made the claim as an attempt to cover their own inadequacy. I see. GPinkerton (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies if this is no longer the right section. Depends on how it is presented. If we are presenting it as a legitimate possibility, we need sources that meet WP:MEDRS. If we are clearly presenting it as a conspiracy theory, we don't. Any more than we need MEDRS sources on the Reptilian conspiracy theory or Resurrection of Jesus, or any other things that would involve medical issues if we presented them as medical theories. --GRuban (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And why are WP:MEDRS sources not required to present the lab leak as a conspiracy theory? There is currently no proof of any theory. Only hypetheses. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure by what you mean "no proof of any theory". There isn't any proof that it's true? Well, yeah. That's because it's almost certainly not true. We do write about things that aren't true, from Piltdown man to the Flat earth theory. There's no proof that there is such a conspiracy theory? Oh, come on. Forbes, USA Today, NBC News... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/10/a-timeline-of-the-covid-19-wuhan-lab-origin-theory/?sh=2c00c3b5abad https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/did-coronavirus-really-escape-chinese-lab-here-s-what-we-n1199531 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/21/fact-check-did-coronavirus-originate-chinese-laboratory/2881150001/. --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood you, and that you may have also misunderstood me. Currently, there is a dearth of evidence to prove any origin scenario as to how the virus emerged, of which there are multiple. The argument that has been going on for the past few weeks is whether the lab leak scenario should be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory", when there are a number of prominent scientists who consider it to be a possibility, as reported by a number of reliable sources (like the ones mentiond above), and now even the US State Department has made a statement on the matter, confirming it to be a possibility they are considering, which they would like the WHO to investigate. Several editors above, including Adoring nanny, Forich, and JPxG, and Geogene agree that MEDRS does not apply here, as the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature, and WP:MEDRS usually only applies to Wikipedia:biomedical information. I believe that we can revert to WP:RS, which indicates there is a controversy around the issue of the virus's origins, and that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" tags should be removed. I hope this clarifies the differing POVs being argued. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature is a stunning claim. Other than the word "claim" itself, every noun in it is a biomedical one, and hypotheses concerning origins of pathogenic viruses are biomedical by definition. GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the "it's not biomedical" claim repeated many times, and I've tried my best to understand it, but I just can't follow. I'd almost call it analytically untrue, in the philosophers' sense — incapable of being true due to the meanings of the words it's built from. Moreover, without MEDRS-compliant sources laying out exactly what the different lab-leak "hypotheses" might be, sorting them into grades of plausibility, Wikipedia doing so would be synthesis. The whole starting point of that effort is incompatible with policy. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It really depends how it's worded. If I am claiming that SARS-COV-2 definitely originated in a lab that then accidentally leaked it, then for sure I would need a MEDRS source to back it up. If however, I want to content on Wikipedia to reflect the reality, which is that the origins of the virus are currently unknown, and that no hypothesis has been proven, then MEDRS should not apply. The reason for this is very simple. There are no MEDR sources proving anything. There are a number of scientific papers from very prestigious scientists making the case that the virus is most likely not of lab origin, yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility. The most cited paper is Anderson et al, (this paper is quoted in every and any article railing against the lab leak theory) and another one is Baric et al (Ralph Baric is one of the world's formost experts on coronaviruses and synthetic engineering and a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to say that the origins are unknown and that no hypothesis has been definitively proven, then you still need MEDRS sources, because that's a biomedical claim, just like the claim that the origins are known would be. It's the subject matter of the claim that makes MEDRS essential, not whether the claim is negative or positive. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that deciding that something's been proven, based on interpretation of primary sources which largely do not themselves say that the thing's been definitively proven, is WP:OR; if this is really as obvious as claimed, it'll be denied by all authoritative sources fairly soon, and newspapers will stop writing articles about whether or not it happened. I mean, all the newspapers could be full of crap, but Wikipedia is not really set up to address that issue. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) "There are no MEDR sources proving anything." "yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility." The lay public and media will just never understand that scientists speak in hedgey modals, not certainties. So when they hear an expert hesitate to declare something "impossible" they assume that thing is a valid option; and when an expert cautiously says "might" or "potentially" a lot they may attribute the behavior to a lack of authority or (worse) as dissembling. This is why it's even more important to use only MEDRS for the "origin story". JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJayI understand your point, but in this case, there are a small (but increasing) number of scientists (like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch) who have specifically said that a lab leak scenario has to be investigated. One of the world's foremost experts in coronaviruses, Ralph S Baric, who is a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli and collaberated extensively with the Wuhan Institute of Virology put out a paper back in May and explaining why he doesn't think a lab leak is likely, but still says that lacking any evidence for a "natural escape", a "lab escape" will "remain reasonable". Another paper on the topic which was put out in March, and which is perhaps the most cited, is Anderson et al, and they too do not discount the possibility of a lab escape. Both those papers, despite their citations and notability of their authors have been discounted as MEDRS by certain editors who prefer other MEDRS sources more supportive of their POV, based on their interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES, which I and other users have taken up issue with. There is a real issue of NPOV, as how to present the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario for COVID-19 on Wikipedia, and not only is WP:MEDRS not being evenly applied, it is also being misapplied. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So first, the Nature paper was rightly excluded from COVID-19 articles: it is a primary source. End of story. Second, the primary issue I see with both papers is a matter of DUEWEIGHT: neither paper is about the lab leak hypothesis—rather, it is briefly mentioned as a "possibility" (in the exact sense I mention above regarding hedging) before the authors thoroughly discount it. Trying to argue either of these papers can be used as evidence of scientists supporting its plausibility is equivalent to reading basically any mol bio paper and latching onto one of the alternative hypotheses preemptively offered in the middle of the Results subsection for a particular experiment, right before it is discredited without even needing to be tested. It's just a thing in science papers to set up pre-experimental alternative hypotheses and post-experimental alternative interpretations of data and then immediately demonstrate why they are invalid; the fact that such things evidently crossed the mind of the researchers or reviewers is utterly meaningless. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:JoelleJay, by no means did I suggest that those papers can be used as evidence to support the plausibility of a lab leak hypothesis. The exact content changes that I have requested are that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" labels be removed from the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology pages, as they violate WP:NPOV and the MEDR sources cited to support those labels do not differentiate between accidental and deliberate lab origin scenarios (see discussion on that here). I have also written a draft on the lab leak theory here (it needs some more work), and you will notice I didn't use any of the above-mentioned papers to support the theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you use them as examples of scientists you say are entertaining the possibility of a lab leak? My comment applied to both sourcing for WP articles and to the general arguments put forth in this thread. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been banned from talking about a certain topic so I have to be careful what I say, but I didn't bring forward papers (such as Anderson or Baric's papers) as examples of scientists entertaining the possibility (there are other papers for that). Rather, what I said was that those scientists said it cannot be ruled out, yet we have some editors here who want to polarise the argument, and discredit those who entertain the possibility as "conspiracy theorists". The exact content changes that I and other editors sort to make was to remove the "conspiracy theory" label that was being used, and has now been removed from the relevant pages. The scenario of said possibility is intricate, and there are many different scenarios within that are possible, and you can look here to get an idea of them (though you probably already know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current US State Department is not only not a reliable source on conspiracy theories, but is, in fact, a promulgator of them (as is much of the rest of the current administration, following the lead of the President of the United States). This is, an a nutshell, the difference between a notable source and a reliable source. That the virus that is, broadly speaking, crippling the globe, is man made (conveniently enough by a political rival of the US administration), is an amazingly impressive claim, and needs really, really good sources before we write about it as a serious possibility. That there are people wildly hypothesizing about it without particularly good evidence is a much less impressive claim, and mainstream media outlets suffice. --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your view about the Trump administration, but unfortunately, you are conflating two very different theories with each other. Please see my post above about properly differentiating the lab legitimate leak theory as posited by serious scientists, from the "man made" theory presented by kooky conspiracy theorists. They are not one and the same thing, and if you read the New York Magazine article, as well as the Boston Magazine article, this will become infinitely clear. Accidents happen, and it now widely believed that H1N1 flu subtype in 1977 was the result of a lab accident. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to also mention this lab leak event 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom which is often mentioned in the field of laboratory safety. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, the British had another lab leak 30 years later 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak. Accidents in lab research happen and cannot be discounted in a proper investigation. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, and in both instances, the first individuals infected were those one would expect to be infected in such a scenario: the people working in, and the animals grazing near, the respective research laboratory. In the present case, the outbreak happened among people working at a market where infectious animals are known to be housed and sold. Is it really credible that the virus escaped and made its way unaided across town, without infecting anybody at the lab or on the way, solely in order to seek out a location where its native bat hosts are present and then begin infecting the market's employees? GPinkerton (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it seems you are working off very old information. The Chinese Government ruled out the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the site of a zoonitic jump, back in May (see statements from Chinese CDC director here, or listen to him yourself if you understand Chinese, here). No SARS-COV-2 virus was detected in animal samples taken from the market, and were instead found in only environmental samples, and sewage. Furthermore, many of the first cases were found in people who had never been to the market, or had no relatives or colleagues that had been to the market. It is currently a complete mystery as to how a virus from a bat species from 1,400km away suddenly emerged in Wuhan, during their hibernation state. Please read the articles I provided above so that you understand the subject of this conversation. I would start you off with the Le Monde article, here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, more non-peer-reviewed, outdated speculation. GPinkerton (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkertonI hope you read the article with statements from the Chinese CDC director so that you are now aware of the outdated information relating to the Wuhan wet market. You don't have to read the Le Monde piece, but it will bring you up to date on other things. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a science source which supports the statement of the editor above. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market has bee ruled out:

The earliest recognised case of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was an elderly and infirm man who developed symptoms on 1 December 2019. None of his family members became infected, and the source of his virus remains unknown. Furthermore, 14 of the 41 first cases had no contact with the seafood market. In another report, five of the first seven cases of COVID-19 had no link to the seafood market. Thus, it seems very likely that the virus was amplified in the market, but the market might not have been the site of origin nor the only source of the outbreak.[159]

What is known is that the outbreak began in Wuhan, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology does some of the best and most extensive research on coronaviruses in the world. If the coronavirus outbreak had started in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, would you only investigate the bats in the Blue Ridge mountains? No, you would walk on over to the University of North Carolina campus and knock on the door of professor Ralph S Baric's office and ask him some questions and ask to see his lab's notebooks and virus database. The idea of a lab leak is reasonable as those two cases above make clear. Whether it happened or not is unknown at the moment. Specialists in the field as mentioned already like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch agree. And, it really should not take such a leap of faith to believe that a lab accident might have happened as has happened multiple times in the United Kingdom and around the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, without any evidence, a leap of faith over a canyon of Occam's razors is precisely what is required. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Reliable sources have been presented which state that experts in the field see the hypothesis of a lab accident as possible. Labeling the hypothesis as misinformation or a conspiracy theory is not tenable per wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And just to clarify, for all those people who are in love with that Anderson et. al. Nature article, it is a letter to the editor -- ie it's an opinion piece. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, panspermia is possible. UFOs are possible. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and are worthless without, as in this case. GPinkerton (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like somebody ought to mention that the Telegraph story linked up there describes the State Department's assertions as going over like a lead balloon: The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. Meanwhile, maybe someone can explain to me how "there was an accidental leak and the Chinese government is covering it up" is not a conspiracy theory. And an almost archetypal one, at that. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, let it be noted, but that does not mean that the theory should be considered "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories". There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and neither of them are claiming to have the absolute truth. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there is another discussion on this very page about the Chinese government being an unreliable source, in which every participant (as far as I can tell) is in consensus about the overall issue of their claims not being believable prima facie: I'm not sure how it could be generally accepted fact for all other issues and conspiracy theory specifically when about COVID. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing science with opinions of scientists. There are scientists who believe in astrology, Creationism, homeopathy, high-dosage vitamins, and other similar stuff, none of which is science. "A scientist believes in it" or even "three scientists believe in it" is not enough to make something credible. Only people who do not understand how science works think it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HB, your correct distinction regarding what is shown via the scientific method vs the opinions of scientist is not made stronger by needlessly antagonist comments such as this, ”Only people who do not understand how science works think it is.". While not directed at any particular editor it can be seen as directed at a subset of editors and thus is a CIVIL issue. It would be best to hold back such comments and let the reason of your argument stand on its own (sound) merit. Springee (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that I am confusing opinions from scientists with proven hypotheses from scientists. That is not the case, and as I've pointed out, there is currently no proof of any COVID-19 origin scenario. As such, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight, until there is a scientific consensus on the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight is patently absurd. There is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic bat pathogen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you seriously suggesting we give an extra-terrestrial or supernatural origin equal space to medical evidence? At this point, this is speculation on the level of panspermia. GPinkerton (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am afraid you are the one making extraordinary claims. There is no evidence of the zoonitic jump scenario, and as likely as it is, it is not proven. This situation is due to the lack of information coming out of China. There is no equivalence to extra-terrestrials. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, if there is no evidence of zoonosis, why does the WHO source, which you supplied, refer to SARS-CoV-2 as a zoonotic pathogen? This is ridiculous. GPinkerton (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that SARS-COV-2 is bat derived coronavirus (aka "zoonotic pathogen"), does not preclude the possibility that it underwent studies in a lab from which it was accidentally leaked. Please read the sources I provided, otherwise you are just taking up space on this page to ask questions you would know not to ask. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, I would only know not to ask if I interpreted the sources according to the novel method you appear to be using. It is not up to you whether or not others disagree with your claims. GPinkerton (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Occam's razor precludes such assumptions without evidence. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton No. Occam's razor tells us the most likely origin for SARS-COV-2 is a lab leak. Arcturus (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, no it absolutely does not. GPinkerton (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". So SARS-COV-2 originated in a city where there's a lab carrying out research on zoonotic origins of coronaviruses, but it didn't come from the lab? That's pretty much on a par with claiming that the effects witnessed after Chernobyl weren't caused by the local power plant. Arcturus (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". What's more likely, an escape of a zoonotic virus from highly controlled biosecurity without any infections at the source and magical transmission to a market across town, or a perfectly normal and frequently repeated natural zoonosis in an environment known to to contain the both the host animals and the first human cases of the disease? What's more likely, some blogs, Daily Mail, and magazine claims being right or the overwhelming scientific consensus being wrong? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you might consider a combination of both the scenarios you mention (take out "magical") - not that I've seen it suggested in the MSM - yet. A similar scenario might be cases of Anthrax suddenly appearing in the village of Porton, Wiltshire. What would be made of that? Arcturus (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, so it's just original research and tu quoque. Slicey, slicey. GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks intended. I'm merely asking you to consider some scenarios. Arcturus (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the thread is to make Wikipedia's readers consider the groundless and unsubstantiated "lab leak" conspiracy theory ...

We already know the quality of claims made when there was a "lab leak" conspiracy theory based on the vicinity of Porton Down to Salisbury. I don't see how this is any different: speculation resting on a few seconds' look at a map. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

> Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight

Presenting all scenarios with equal weight violates the NPOV policy, specifically the WP:GEVAL section, which explicitly bans giving equal weight to all scenarios when high-quality reliable sources tend to favor one over another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to give my own view on the underlying controversy. Although I don not think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is required, I also think that it is clear that at this point, the sourcing in favor of the view that this is a conspiracy theory is stronger than the sourcing for the view that it is not. Unfortunately, the way things work on Wikipedia, for our purposes that is more important than the question of whether or not it is actually a conspiracy theory. I would therefore caution users opposed to the conspiracy theory idea, and User:ScrupulousScribe in particular, not to try to go beyond what the sourcing actually supports. WP:FRINGE/PS may apply here. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which sourcing that advocates the conspiracy theory do you have in mind - sourcing that actually uses those words? Arcturus (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I appreciate your response. The only sources that indicate that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, are those which conflate it with legitimate conspiracy theories. There is a discussion to be had on why two papers from unknown authors that conflate different lab origin theories should be considered WP:BESTSOURCES, superceding even the most notable coronavirus scientists, like Ralph Baric, who has said that a "lab escape" theory is "reasonable" given the "lack of evidence" for a "natural escape". The USDOS statement is significant, as it reflects US Government policy, and has made a few editors in this conversation reconsider the position, as per WP:DUE, and WP:RS. As the incoming Biden administration takes the helm, one of the most likely things to happen is that the US will rejoin the WHO, and as part of that, it will likely demand for the investigation to be taken seriously, which will give us more statements, and strengthen the case for WP:DUE and WP:RS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, you appear to be basing your claims' validity on what the US government might do in future, contrary to normal chronological logic and WP:CRYSTAL. We need not wait that long in any case, since reliable sources already discuss this "theory" as a "conspiracy theory". See:
Nie, Jing-Bao (2020-12-01). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1872-4353. PMC 7445685. PMID 32840850. GPinkerton (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This really is getting tedious! That source claims conspiracy about biological weapons, not about an lab leak per se. Arcturus (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, it explicitly calls the idea of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theory and "groundless" "according to the available scientific evidence". Tedious yes. MEDRS supporting the lab leak conspiracy theory, none yet ... GPinkerton (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? There are peer-reviewed papers from scientists making the opposite claim, like this one. Like I said, there are scientists on both sides, and there is no clear consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not MEDRS. You can find scientists saying all sorts of crap in peer-reviewed journals, like that homeopathy works. That's why Wikipedia has altogether stricter criteria for SCI/MED sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This paper's evidence is the same non-peer-reviewed paper from early last year and an article in the Wall Street Journal ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times now (over at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology), that paper was written by a botanist and an entrepreneur. Out of the thousands of papers written about SARS-CoV-2, you cherry-pick one written by people who aren't even virologists. Others have pointed out that it's classified as an "Essay". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is from Reuters dated January 18, 2021. Factbox: The origins of COVID-19. Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. Why wikipedia editors want to interject the term "conspiracy theory" is beyond me and many other editors. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. See: argumentum ex silentio. beyond me and many other editors. See: argumentum ad populum. The reliable source linked above says specifically that there is no evidence for "lab leak". ("Though there is no credible supporting evidence, some researchers still do not rule out the possibility that the virus was released accidentally by a specialist lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.") Theories without evidence are called what? GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the virus "did" leak from the lab is false; however, the statement that the virus "might" have leaked from the lab is true. That the virus might have leaked from a lab is a hypothesis that multiple scientists and the US government say is plausible. Also, these individuals are of the opinion that this hypothesis along with the hypothesis that the virus came directly from bats should both be investigated by the WHO investigatory team. Just put whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have leaked from a lab" to a vote; then everyone can have their say, and this conversation will be done. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Break

This discussion is wasting everyone's time at this point. The question of what sort of sourcing we should rely on is clear. WP:MEDRS is the relevant policy, and Alexbrn has explained how that policy applies to this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. However, an important point I got from this discussion is that layman readers like many of us who are not virologists are not prepared to understand the science behind it. I liked that Vincent Racaniello, who disaproved the NY Magazine article, took the time to breakdown the lab leak theory in this episode of his podcast. It shows scientific integrity and open-mindedness from him to pinpoint exactly what parts of the theory are bogus, which we need to understand so that a future reiteration of attempts to edit Wikipedia on it can be properly addresed. So, yes, the sort of sourcing that we should rely when editing stuff about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, is MEDRS, but there are aspects of it that could exceptionally have RS sourcing, and it shouldn't be hard to provide explicit guidelines in that sense. Forich (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to identify a MEDRS source that supports the notion that a lab leak is "conspiracy". If you read the one suggested above by GPinkerton you'll see that it doesn't. Arcturus (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one will see no such thing. The paper is all about conspiracy theories. GPinkerton (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's about biological warfare conspiracy theories, and that's all. There is no real disagreement that this is probably a conspiracy. At issue is the point that all other lab leak scenarios are currently classified as "conspiracy" by Wikipedia. So again, please point to a usable, i.e. recent, MEDRS source that labels such things as an accidental lab leak as conspiracy. Arcturus (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it specifically describes the conspiracy theory of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. GPinkerton (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper details two [conspiracy] theories (quotations given):

First theory

A few days after the lockdown of Wuhan in late January 2020, a U.S. newspaper prone to circulating conspiracy theories linked the origins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2, then called 2019-nCoV) to China’s covert biological weapons programme ...

Second theory

Immediately after the epidemic (initially called “Wuhan pneumonia”) became public knowledge in late January, an unsettling theory started to circulate in China. Posts with certain variations—but containing exactly the same information and similar wording—spread like wildfire, particularly on Chinese social media WeChat. They tied the origins of the virus to the first China-hosted international military multi-sport event which involved the participation of nearly ten thousand athletes from over one hundred countries ...

The paper does not address anything other than these two very specific theories. It is certainly not "all about conspiracy theories". In fact, the second theory is about the USA being the source. This paper cannot be used as source to support, for instance, the claim that an accidental leak from a laboratory - the Wuhan Lab - engaged in coronavirus experimentation, is a conspiracy. Incidentally, it's a paper from a bio-ethics group. Is this actually MEDRS? I'm not saying it isn't, but maybe someone could confirm that it is. Arcturus (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, the text you have quoted omits the title of the section it was quoted from, which is as follows: Conspiracy Theory Version 1: A P4 Lab in Wuhan. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some other lab in Wuhan to which some wholly separate conspiracy theory has somehow attached? How is this different from claiming that while most aliens at Roswell were a conspiracy theory, the real aliens are somehow bona fide? GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Both theories are described within the context of biological warfare. As far as the current discussion is concerned, it doesn't mater if the paper is RS or MEDRS; it's irrelevant and of no use. Arcturus (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, why? The conspiracy theory alleges there was a leak from a lab. If this paper isn't pertinent to that conspiracy theory, nothing will be and we can agree not to include any mention of the idea at the page suggested, as it is wholly spurious, groundless, and without evidence. I suppose now you'll relent in the "Occam's razor suggests the conspiracy theory is true without one MEDRS to back it" philosophy? GPinkerton (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it is not at all clear why WP:MEDRS should apply on aspects of Covid-19 that do not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, or on aspects of Covid-19 which would usually constitute biomedical information (such as the mechanism of transmission of the first human infection), but where there is no public information for scientists to assess. MEDRS should be required for things like the purported medical benefits of THC or CBD, but not for topics like decriminalization of cannabis in the US, or how many States have legalized it. There is an ongoing discussion on this topic here.

Also, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is that there are no firm rules (WP:5P5), and policies can be discussed and changed if they are not working in special circumstances. It is not every day that a virus causes a global pandemic that started in a country that imposes a complete media and academic blackout on its origins. I personally don't think any policies need to be changed, but it has to be discussed as to how WP:MEDRS applies here, given the lack of data for scientists to assess, and the subsequent lack of scientific studies that can conclude the matter.

Discussing the matter of whether MEDRS applies here is anything but a waste of time, and can go right the way up to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if it has to.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:MEDRS is clear here, and you're wasting everyone's time by arguing that we should lower sourcing standards for an important biomedical subject. The discussion has played out here. If you want to go to WP:ARBCOM, then you're free to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why should MEDRS apply to subjects "which would usually constitute biomedical information...but where there is no public information for scientists to assess"? How about we just not write anything about which no information is available? And if we're determined to write something based on theoretical evaluations, how about we prefer the theoretical evaluations of subject-matter experts over the wild guesses of anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Debate conclusions

First of all, I am going to ask editors, specially on the side of the lab leak theory to keep their comments brief in this section. Now, here are the strongest points made on each side:

Anti lab leak theory best points

1. The sources provided (New York Magazine and Infection Control Today) are not MEDRS. Editing medical articles require MEDRS, thus do not mention the lab leak theory based on Non-MEDRS sources
2. There has been confusion regarding medical peer-reviewed sources and MEDRS. They are not the same, and editors should familiarize with the difference before engaging in editing a medical topic
3. Even if we assume that secondary sources may be imperfect in this case (i.e. they are slow in keeping up with the latest developments, there has been signs of censorship to Chinese scientists, there are ethical accusations against an important subset of the scientists gatekeeping the MEDRS), MEDRS are still the best source for a Wikipedia entry on medical subjects. Moreover, If MEDRS are accused of intentionally ignoring touching the lab leak theory as a way of preemptive censorship, there are independent assesments on the theory by prominent experts (e.g. Vincent Racaniello) that have explicitely debunked it point by point. This should suffice to restore our faith in the mainstream standard channels.
4. Edits that delete lab-leak claims from Wikipedia should not be interpreted as an attack on the personal beliefs of pro lab-leak editors, and civil debate showing how this deletes are grounded in Wikipedia policy should be enough to avoid edit wars. The fact that anti lab leak editors put up this RS Noticeboard is telling of an open mind to understand whether they were missing something.

Pro lab leak theory best points

1. The issue of understanding how MEDRS-only policy works for Covid-related topics is not simple. Repeating that it is simple does not make it any less complicated, and instead seems condescending
2. There is nothing wrong in proposing edits in talk pages in good faith, and edits there discussing the lab leak theory should not be seen as disruptive just because of it being a fringy topic. If it is not your favorite topic, do not read it, and skip to the next section of the talk page
3. It feels unfair to have the lab leak theory completely extirpated from all pages in Wikipedia, given the traction it has received in RS. Wikipolicies should not drive us to the error of complete extirpation of a notable subject.
4. Splitting-hair argument #1: It is wrong to compare the lab leak and the flat earth theories. WHO has admited they will look into the lab leak theory, although it is a remote possibility. No scientific corpus will ever "look into the flat earth theory".
5. Splitting-hair argument #2: To have the virus be of animal origin is not the same as to have animal origin and natural evolution. The possibility of natural origin and artificial recombination in a laboratory is not a semantic game but a distinct instance, so there needs to be a separated discussion of it based on logic sense, regardless of no MEDRS breaking down the lab leak theory into man-made (constructed) vs artificially recombined (manipulated). It would be a straw-man argument to try to debunk both by only addresing the man-made hypothesis.
6. Splitting-hair argument #3: It would be preferable to have sources be discussed mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation. Ad-hominems and bringing out certain cherry-picked stains in the CV of authors should either come as secondary rebuttals, or rebuttals aimed at the editorial decision of the publication that allowed a questionable person publish a certain topic in a RS.

Next, I'm asking i) for an independent editor to provide his own take on the conclusion, and ii) is there a chance of a middle ground between the two sides that would allow for productive editing? I hope that we are open to hear proposals in that sense. Forich (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: thanks for the above effort; a good summary. This clearly needs an independent arbitrator to close it. WP:RF3O is only when there's a dispute between two editors, so a WP:RFC might be the next step. Arcturus (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the standard practice is for an uninvolved editor to write a summary in circumstances like these, or when closing a discussion and the like; otherwise, we run the risk of simply escalating the meta-argument another level ("that's not what I said!" "nobody even made that point, why is it here?!" and so forth). XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a not-unreasonable collection of arguments, but the last item should be marked as anti-policy. We do not really want editors to choose sources "mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation". MEDRS warns against this: '"Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.' The alternative is to decide that editors know better than the sources. We need to pick high-quality sources and accept what they say; we should not pick sources based on whether we agree with the contents (e.g., "their evidence and arguments"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: Origin unknown

There is only one question in this discussion: that is whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have come from a laboratory accident". The US government has stated it most clearly:

The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.[160]

Multiple scientists have also stated the same thing. If a conclusion is needed, a request for comment can be opened on the relevant page and a conclusion decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Disagreed. "Neutral" by no means implies "middle", "central", or "no position". Experienced editors should all be familiar enough with the NPOV principle, where neutrality has a specific definition. Also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, so decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions is also questionable. Normchou ^💬 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Abusing MEDRS is destructive and harmful

I would like to point to a recent discussion in a specific context on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#WP:MEDRS, where I argued the specious use of MEDRS has the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. This is harmful to the Wikipedia project.

Also, I cannot help but raise the issue about WP:CONDUCT even though this is a RSN discussion. As Forich has mentioned above, there is a certain sense of condescension among some of the editors who frequently cite MEDRS in their editing decisions, regardless of whether or not they are correct. Actually, as I noted earlier on the ANI, I can sense quite some tribalism and WP:BITE mentality when I examine the editing history of some of those editors. I am not sure how long this phenomenon has existed on Wikipedia, but definitely feel it is causing harm to the community if continued. Normchou ^💬 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Repurposing from my comment at ANI): So right now, all the non-biomedical "evidence" we have of a lab leak is the lab's proximity (location- and research-wise) and the shitty opaqueness of the Chinese government. These are both circumstantial and unconvincing, so the media rely on overinterpreting scientists' opinions of the virus's genetic origins to strengthen their narrative. The evidentiary details that we can actually empirically analyze are all dependent on expert interpretation of viral evolution and epidemiology. That is to say, any "evidence" we have to boost this out of misinformation territory requires a) constructing a timeline that fits with the known epidemiological timeline; and b) proposing a mechanism that would align the genetic history with what one would expect if there was passage within the lab beforehand. Both of these necessitate MEDR sourcing reflecting expert agreement. The consensus among scientists, from very early on, has been to assume a zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans, because that is how prior epidemics have arisen and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance. Of course there are lots of unknowns in the early days; we almost never have a clue as to who patient zero was for any epidemic. But given the corpus that has been published over the last year, the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Instead they looked at the available data, found it comports with the standard origin assumptions, and did their analyses using those assumptions. That a handful of academics, many not even in virology, have spoken up about a lab leak does not change the consensus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that when the lab leak is addressed at all in the literature, even in articles directly relating to viral origin, it is treated as a hedged "sigh" note to humor the pressures of laypeople before being discarded. It is extremely important any claims by non-MEDRS be couched in the context of widespread expert opinion of those claims; when such consensus is unavailable, the details of the claim are not DUE. This translates to not including non-MEDRS proposed origin mechanisms (even when the ref is said to quote a qualified scientist) when such mechanisms are not directly addressed by strong MEDRS. If hypothetically there were no review articles discussing the furin-like cleavage site in the context of engineered GoFs, then relaying MEDPOP interpretation of it as evidence of lab manipulation would be giving undue credence to FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent conclusion, no one could have said it better. The lab leak theory has two solid starting points but a missing link in the middle makes the whole logical chain flawed.

On one side, if hypothetically the exact same virus strain of SARS-CoV-2 was reported to be in a freezer in WIV, and all the other evidence and narratives remained the same, the lab leak theory would not be fringe. This proves that to have a lab leak per se is not the contended issue.

On the other side, scientists do not know how to weigh the two hypothesis explaining the emergence of the virus, it either gained its adaptability to humans and stability by i) cryptic evolution (meaning that for many years people or wild animals somewhere had SARS-CoV-2 but poor surveillance kept it an obscure fact) or ii) it evolved in accelerated conditions that left no traces of circulation (either in a lab or some miracle of nature). From this side, the absence of evidence on the cryptic evolution has been used by lab-leak-theory guys as evidence of absence, thus claiming that accelerated evolution had to happened.

For the lab leak theory to be substantiated, the missing link needs evidence: did the WIV had in secret a 99.9% similar strain? Does WHO's investigation (antibodies, forensic sampling of wildlife, tracing of early cases) rules out the cryptic evolution hypothesis? Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation, since the narrative has stablished that the origin is well-understood. Forich (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at this point, the lab leak idea is unfalsifiable. The most in favour anyone reasonable can say is that it "can't be ruled out" or "we might never know". If this is the case, unsubstantiated claims about an artificial origin fail the test of falsification and are factually meaningless. On the other hand, the assumption that viruses are subject to evolution like everything else and this one is probably no different is verifiable and falsifiable in principle, and therefore it is more meaningful to make truth-apt statements about the one than the other. GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You are an economist, so it surprises me that you consider Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation only to be associated with narratives, whereas in reality there is also a big incentive issue that has not been fully scrutinized. A scientist is, first of all, a human. They need respect, prestige, and money (funding) to continue their career. As Stuart Turville, an immuno-virologist at the Kirby Institute in Australia said, the possibility of a "lab leak" keeps us up at night and is the nightmare within nightmares [161]. Why do you think they are so afraid of this scenario, provided that they are supposed to be only "discoverers of the truth"? The user above, JoelleJay, has mentioned that the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Is this phenomenon a pure consequence of the scientific methodology and/or established norms within the scientific community regardless of any conflict of interest? Now, suppose there exists a significant non-scientific, human factor that incentivizes (in a conscious or unconscious way) these scientists (as humans) to focus more on "zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans" and less on the "lab leak", then we have a general bias that is difficult to be self-corrected by the scientists only. Such a bias can already exist before all these scientific investigations are conducted and research papers written. Normchou ^💬 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou, This sounds like confusing a "possibility" of "nightmare" with a statement of fact worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the article and understand the context of the "nightmare": This theory is the most uncomfortable and most controversial. If true, it would have severe and lasting ramifications on research, geopolitics and trust in scientific institutions. I am not for or against the "lab leak" theory, but merely pointing out the incentive issue that has been ignored in all these discussions. We should allow a NPOV (one of the WP:5Ps) presentation of the issue using other RSes that balances the "over-dueness" of the "scientific" narrative on this specific issue, which is actually subject to the human incentive issue I've mentioned above. Normchou ^💬 18:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC); edited 18:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:Nightmares: Dara O'Briain on fear scenarios (first 32 seconds, but the whole thing is good). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay (talk · contribs) puts it well, and that should be the end of this stupid debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, it is great to have Wikipedians like you who argue the point, instead of attacking the credibility of other editors, as others here have done and continue to do. Since I've been banned from a specific topic related to this thread, I would like to make only one very specific point about something you said in the previous ANI which you brought here, specifically that "there nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance". In truth, there is something very different about the emergence of SARS-COV-2 from the emergence of SARS-COV-1 and from other emerging diseases in the general, which is it's seeming pre-adaption to humans, and which is the subject of a peer-reviewed paper here. The author's hypothesis was proven when the virus jumped from humans to minks in European fur farms, and the mink version began to rapidly mutate (paper here), and this is the subject of further study. The fact that the virus has been well adapted to humans from the very start, is also mentioned in "Current knowledge supporting origin tracing work" (page 3) of the WHO's "Terms of Reference" document for its investigation, here. This peculiar fact and associated papers/authors have been referenced in a number of reliable sources, and continue to get referenced (like in this BBC report from last night), that were put forward by myself to make certain content changes. I hope you read those papers, and unfortunately, I won't be able to reply further in this thread, as may get too close to the topic I can't talk about. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the first link you supplied (yet again) and which you described as "peer-reviewed" is no such thing. You have clearly missed the large yellow label at the top of the target page which states: bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. and then again missed the next notice on the top of the page (a little lower) warning that: This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. The BBC source you supply does not credit the lab-leak claim, and quotes experts repudiating it, and furthermore describes the WHO terms of reference report as "mentioning many of China's talking points, including foreign origins and food-chain transmission" with a "hint at the politics behind the scenes", so hardly the most impartial source for whatever hand0waving you'd like the encyclopaedia to reproduce. GPinkerton (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, the above post from GPinkerton is a great example of an argument that doesn't really make any point. The WHO document says that the virus is well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. GPinkerton, see thread above where ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• MEDRS is really nothing more than a recommendation to use really high-quality sources, which isn't ever a real problem. Abusing WP:MEDRS could be bad, agreed, since sometimes trivial claims can have trivial sources. But using WP:MEDRS is great, since it helps us keep our sourcing standards high when they need to be. In my experience, editors complaining about this are editors the Project would be better off ejecting. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can be used as a device to keep primary source material out when the claims are not addressed in any secondary source. This might be in aggregate desirable, but this is not technically the same as a recommendation to only use the best sources. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• MEDRS is a collection of guidance and recommendations that would apply to any Wikipedia topic where there is a similar abundance of recent, reliable secondary sources. If art topics had the same huge quantity of recent research and review as medical topics generally enjoy, then ARTRS would be just as sensible an extension of RS as MEDRS is. Much of the problem we observe with these complaints about MEDRS is that it makes it far more difficult for POV-pushers to swamp articles with poor quality, "fringy" sources that they are fed from off-wiki conspiracy sites and social media. The time is coming when we are going to have to show the POV-pushers the door immediately without all the timewasting we go through at present. And we are going to have to understand the difference between manipulative accusations of WP:BITE (along with insincere howls of "censorship") and preserving the integrity and accuracy of Wikipedia. In the current climate, we have to choose to support one or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the accusations of censorship are probably sincere but ill-founded. Talpedia (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree mostly with what is said above in particularly in JoelleJay's statement. That said, there are times where non-MEDRS but otherwise normally good RSes (NYTimes) are appropriate for statements that are very high level and make no attempt at a novel medical or scientific claim but otherwise readily collaborate with MEDRS. For example, using a NYTimes source which backs the statement "The first known COVID cases originated in China." would be 100% reasonable. Using a NYTimes source to broadly document high-level methods of reducing spread of COVID like mask-wearing and frequent hand washing would be appropriate, even though we have numerous MEDRS studies that affirm the effectiveness of these, we don't need to fall back on such high level advice. Using a NYTimes source to back a more "precise" statement "COVID originated from a lab leak near Wuhan, China." would be inappropriate at this time since that would require MEDRS to be affirming, or saying that "COVID is able to affect the host body by using ACE2 enzymes." (a very specialized piece of knowledge that is not high-level and thus should be sourced to a specialized, MEDRS source.) There is some common sense when talking use of non-MEDRS in talking high-level medical related information and I've seen some cases where adherents to MEDRS may jump too much to disallow non-MEDRS in these cases. But I will fully agree that anything related to this claimed lab leak theory needs a clear MEDRS source, since that's a virus/disease origin aspect that requires specialized knowldge. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rules can be rules-lawyered, principles invariably contradict one another, finding how to trade off principles and which best apply is hard. Lots of this is just the way of the world. I don't think there is antyhing here beyond the standard issues with conflict. I suspect the "abuse" here refers to whether a claim is medical, journalistic or sociology and appling MEDRS standards to arguably journalistic claims. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Complaints about "abusing" the project's standards of sourcing generally seem to put the cart before the horse. We don't decide that a topic is important and then lower our standards until writings on that topic clear the bar. We write about topics when adequately-reliable sources cover it to such an extent that it is noteworthy. Sometimes, I regret that; there has been more than one occasion when I would have liked to write about a thing, but it was too niche or too transient. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that MEDRS is frequently abused and in fact is irrelevant to this topic. The stated reason for MEDRS is that Wikipedia articles "are widely used among those seeking health information." In the case of COVID-19, this helps us for example to ensure that readers are not given false information about hydroxychloroquine, which some people have falsely claimed can cure the illness. But whether COVID-19 originated in a lab or from animals is irrelevant to what treatment someone should seek. Wikipedia policies, including RS, WEIGHT and NOR, are adequate to prevent the articles from being false or misleading or misrepresenting the weight of expert opinion. TFD (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, and the fact that these same virologists who're being accused of leaking this on the world and denying it have been, unheeded, telling everyone to minimize human contact with bats in Asia is what, irrelevant to peoples' health? If we give false credence to speculation that this pandemic was anything but the long-expected result of insanitary overlap between SARS-CoV-carrying bats and humans, how is that any different to giving false credence to speculation that antimalarials might be beneficial in some way in its treatment? If, entirely unsupported by any securely known facts, we allow Wikipedia's authorial voice to allow readers to take away the notion that Covid-19 is somehow not, prima facie, a predicable and predicted, ordinary natural occurrence, then NPOV will have failed by default. Pandemic zoonosis is routine, and logic demands extraordinary evidence to overturn the obvious consensus that no artificial "missing link" is necessary, just as in the other bat coronavirus pandemics in the 21st century. GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. People are not going to increase their contact with bats just because they don't think they were the source of COVID-19. In fact, scientists do not think that COVID-19 came directly from bats but from an unknown intermediary animal, such as an anteater. TFD (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, yes, they will. Throughout the region, bats are encouraged to roost above or near the home in order to collect guano for fertilizer, a fact which has caused coronavirus pandemics more than once this century already. Anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone. GPinkerton (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone, then you might want to correct the article COVID-19 pandemic, which says the source is "Possibly via bats, pangolins, or both." (Pangolins are often referred to as anteaters.) Bats can transmit rabies, which is far more serious to the individual than COVID-19, and guano is known to cause illnesses, all of which are far more likely than someone contracting COVID-19 from a bat. Seriously, no one would say, "Well I know I can get rabies or other sicknesses from bats, but I don't care about that. What I do care about is the possibility that one person once contracted COVID-19 from a bat."

Pretty much all human activity has some health consequences and if we carry MEDRS to extremes then we will seriously limit sources. Universal health care, war, gun control, imprisonment, cooking, climate change, poverty, fracking - all of these have impacts on human health, but we don't have to source all the related articles to medical journals.

Fringe theories about science rarely receive extensive coverage in medical journals - that's why we call them fringe theories. They may however receive extensive coverage in social sciences. For example white supremacist race theories are not extensively documented in medical journals because they are not real science. But social scientists may study them extensively as social phenomena. The investigator from the SPLC does not need to be a medical doctor nor do they need their reports to be reviewed by medical experts. All they need to know is what any educated person knows, that racist claims have no support in science. They don't have to know how the human genome was sequenced for example.

If we want to write about the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 originated in a lab, we should be able to use articles by responsible journalists and academics who write about it. While they will not typically have medical degrees, they will have sufficient understanding to write about it responsibly.

TFD (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There's an article, "Alpine race," which "is a historical race concept defined by some late 19th-century and early 20th-century anthropologists as one of the sub-races of the Caucasian race." It was thought that optimal diets for humans differed according to their sub-race. Mediterranean people for example were thought to be better eating fish, while Nordics should eat red meat. Are we supposed to source all these articles to medical journals? After all, someone may change their diet, which has health consequences, based on their supposed membership in a racial sub-group. TFD (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources at List of highest-grossing media franchises

Some examples: The Licensing Letter [162] (behind paywall) Chartbiz/taojinjubao.com [163] Are these considered reliable? Timur9008 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Licensing Letter and CharaBiz Data are two of the most widely cited sources for licensed merchandise sales in the North American and Japanese markets, respectively. Numerous reliable sources rely on these two sources for their data on the North American and Japanese licensed merchandise markets, respectively. Taojinjubao, on the other hand, was a random Chinese site (now a dead link) that leaked data from CharaBiz. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Maestro2016 and Chris Stuckmann? Timur9008 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As a reputable film critic, he looks like a reliable source to me.Still not sure what the problem is with using him as a source. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You've raised a good point about paywalls though. Both hide much of their data behind paywalls. Is there a way to reliably access data hidden behind paywalls without having to pay large amounts of money? Maestro2016 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to address the paywall issue. Timur9008 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL we do not discount the reliability of these sites simply because they are paywalled. --Masem (t) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now made a resource request at WP:Resource requests#CharaBiz (Japanese language) sources for List of highest-grossing media franchises. Not sure if it will work, but it's worth a try. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this source look like a reliable source? It lists some of the 1999 data from CharaBiz. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Find A Grave

At WP:RSP, the info for the Find A Grave section says The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. User-generated by the person in the grave, or user-generated similar to articles on Wikipedia? On a serious note, user-generated is not such a bad thing when you consider family members are quite often the ones adding the material relative to DOB and DOD, and place of birth. If it is known that a close relative added/updated material, it can probably be corroborated with a published obit - but guess who provides that info? Going directly to the Dept. of Vital Statistics would be OR but the published material can at least be corroborated if one doesn't trust the family to know when their grandparent, parent, spouse, or child was born and died. I think Find A Grave should be used with caution, but perhaps generally unreliable is a bit of stretch. Perhaps we should change it to use with caution because not all are verifiable? For example, the information at Eva Mae Campbell Roberts is as reliable as any obit or published article in most reliable news sources - it includes a copy of the birth certificate, and we know the write-up is customarily biased opinion. Agree or disagree? Atsme 💬 📧 10:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Assessment at RSP is correct, sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would say that information like dates of birth and death can be reputable, but only if a tombstone is included (which often only includes years of death and birth but no specific dates). Sometimes people include photographs of individuals, birth certificates, or other documents, but I'd have to agree with Alexbrn that it is generally user-generated and unreliable on its own. However, often people post text of obituaries on the pages, so that can lead you to the original source, which is often in a newspaper database like Newspapers.com or Chronicling America, among the many others out there. In terms of the profile you listed, I would say that on its own this information is unreliable:

parents john Campbell b. Jul 1889 and Annie Mae Candler b. 1892 d. 1913 [.] Married Walter J. Ring 25 Sept. 1928 [.] 2 children to this union: Lawrence J. Ring b 28, June, 1929 d. jan. 2009 and Annie Mae Ring b. 03 Nov. 1931 d. 10 Apr. 1976 [.] Love of horses lasted her whole life. Was a race jockey in the late 30's early 40's. Later a trainer of race horses and teacher of English riding. Her son Lawrence commented that she saved the family from starving when Walter had an accident and was disabled for several years. Her race winnings fed the family. Some of the horses she trained that won races were Pussy Boots, owner W. Little. Miss Rosetown,owner W. Little and Liberty Boy, owner W. Little. She divorced Walter in the 1950's and married Robert Roberts.

However, this information has to come from somewhere, meaning that searching FamilySearch, Ancestry.com, state, local, or national archives, would likely turn up records. While I see what you are saying that "family members are quite often the ones adding the material relative to DOB and DOD, and place of birth," this isn't always true. As a person who has used the site, I can say that there are individuals who manage thousands upon thousands of profiles, and they aren't related to the family, whether ancestors or whatnot. Some even refuse to transfer them to family members. Its pretty awful. I wouldn't say that everything on the profile is as "reliable as any obit or published article in most reliable news sources." The same profile you mention does include images of a birth certificate, a few newspaper articles, and various photographs, all of which look like they came out of a scrapbook. However, where these articles were published is not noted, unfortunately, but it is definitely possible to track down the original source. Historyday01 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am of mixed feelings about Find-A-Grave. To give a specific example, I wrote, mostly, a Good article about a very interesting U.S. Civil War veteran Harry Yount and when it passed the GA review, it included a reference to Find-A-Grave, or more specifically to a photo of his gravestone. I quoted his epitaph in the article and another editor removed it in 2017. I did not revert because I had another source for his place and date of death, but it irked me a bit. Since he was unmarried and had no heirs, I thought the fact that he arranged to have his Civil War service inscribed on his headstone added a little bit to an understanding of the man. And it is exceptionally unlikely that there were two Union Army Civil War veterans from Missouri named Harry Yount who both died in Wyoming at that time. Someone else decided the gravestone photo was unreliable and removed it. Whatever. On the other hand, if the article was about a guy named Robert Williams who died in New York around 1930, I would be highly skeptical of a sketchy Find-A-Grave listing. There could have been dozens of guys with that name who died in New York around that time. This is an example where good editorial judgment on a case by case basis is required rather than a hard and fast ruling. At least in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Grave inscriptions and family written obituaries are not reliable since they do not undergo factchecking. While vital statistics records are reliable, they require analysis in secondary sources. Furthermore, if these are your only sources for information, then the information is not noteworthy and should be omitted. The only exception is non-controversial information provided by the person themselves, which excludes grave inscriptions. Incidentally I have been working recently on a project about people in the 19th century and have used Find a Grave. It's difficult to determine if the person in a cemetary is the same person I am looking for, since many people had the same name, spellings were inconsistent, birth dates are frequently wrong. TFD (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think RSP is correct here, however the photographs of the tombstones themselves are probably as reliable as a Commons photograph (also issues) and probably count as a primary source for the image of tombstone.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Although I generally agree with the assessment at RSP, I believe it should be edited to note that images included there, such as cemetery headstones, may be used in appropriate cases as primary sources. John M Baker (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's "user-generated similar to articles on Wikipedia." If I recall correctly, anyone can go in and upload photos or change the metadata associated with them. The WP:UGC guideline says "content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable," and explicitly gives Find a Grave as an example. I think the rational is that such sites can have questionable or inconsistent editorial practices and fact checking, and there's too high of a likelihood that the data is either mistaken or deliberately inaccurate. For instance, if it could be used, a vandal could upload a photoshopped image for a grave to support a deliberately incorrect birth/death date in a Wikipedia biography. GretLomborg (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ofsted school inspection reports

This questions concerns Ofsted school inspection repoorts [164]. These government inspection reports are written for all state maintained schools in England and many/most non-state schools. It has been asserted at AfD that these reports are independent sources for establishing notability of government schools.

Recent AfDs this concerns are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etonbury Academy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrybergh Academy. I am posting a link to this thread in the AfD threads.

Question: Should Ofsted inspection reports be considered independent sources for establishing notability for schools?

Thanks,  // Timothy :: t | c | a   01:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well , they are independent reliable sources regarding the schools inspected in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Atlantic306, How is a government report about a government school considered independent? the question is not about reliability for content, its about independence for establishing notability.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If Ofsted reports are considered independent sources to establish notability, basically all government schools in England will be notable, and similar government reports in other countries will have a similar effect on establishing notability.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ofsted is independent of the schools themselves and frequently critical of them which shows its independence as a source. This board is for determining the reliability of a source not for determining AFD results, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable but does not establish notability. To be truly independent and count for notability, the source needs not to be commissioned to produce the report, imo. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable primary sources (for their own findings), that do not establish notability. Would need secondary coverage for that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment- All of this has been explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School. If the confusion is based on the idea that the source needs not to be commissioned by the subject of the article, that is simple to counter. The school has as much control over the arrival of Ofsted as a bolt of lightening.ClemRutter (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Government reports about government schools are not IS.
• Government reports are primary, not secondary sources.
• Government reports that all government schools receive are not IS RS for demonstrating notability.

These reports are RS for facts and content, they are not IS RS to demonstrate notability. // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, of course they are independent reliable sources and also help to establish notability. Just because they are government does not mean they are primary or affiliated with the school. They are run by entirely different bodies. You'd want one or two other sources to be able to construct a meaningful article, but there's no doubt that the ofsted report counts.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable primary sources but do not establish notability for an aricle or noteworthiness within an article because there is one for every school. Saying an Ofsted report's exsistence establishes notability is like saying a TV listing establishes a show's notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to me that these are primary sources since they are based off of the personal observations of inspectors. As such, they don't move the needle when it comes to the GNG. They may or may not be independent, but that just gilds (or, more accurately, paints) the lily. It's also worth noting that a contrary position would make secondary schools de facto presumptively notable, which is contrary to that oft-cited 2017 RFC. And where would it stop? Would every restaurant be notable if a Board of Health inspection report could be produced? Surely not. Ofsted reports may be reliable for content, but they should not in my view contribute to notability. (I do agree with Atlantic306 that this is probably the wrong place for this since it isn't about reliability.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that this is probably not the place to discuss all this, but this has been rumbling on in various setting over Wikipedia for year, and the 2017 RFC imo was just one failed attempt to put it to bed.

It may be helpful to read this paper Twenty years of inspecting schools to understand the nature of the organisation and the types of reports it issues, it also discusses the governance of the entity we call a school in the UK. User:TimothyBlue often keeps referring to government schools- which have never existed outside British India. All schools are separate legal entities and since 1944 have received funding from the state through local government. Saying they are state-funded schools is also misleading, as capital funding is provided by local government, or a faith community, our article State-funded schools (England) does a good job of describing the structures In the 1944 model, the deeds of the land remained with the Church in VC schools and with local government (the county Council) in VA schools. More recently the schools have been divested further and are not on the local council terrier of property. For most of the period, Ofsted, the organisation contracted out to competing companies the inspection, but by 2012, the three companies doing the inspections were selected by geography. Ofsted inspections are done against published criteria School inspection handbook and deviations from this standard have landed Ofsted in court- (see Resignation of Chris Woodhead) and another case pending.Impington Village College).

• The primary secondary source discussion raises extra problems. Some section 8 inspections involve no observation they are paper inspections. Over time the nature of the inspection has also changed. Then we have the problem of whether the inspection is the work of Ofsted (the commissioner and publisher) or the inspection team of the company commissioned to do the observations. The primary/ secondary nature of the source is very blurred. As it says in WP:PSTS- this is complex and relies on context.

For example, Bramhall High School Section 5 Inspection 2017 Page 1- A judgement:primary, Summary- A report on the report:secondary. Page 2-A recommendation:primary Page 3-6 mainly primary but containing reports of surveys and statistics collected elsewhere thus secondary. Page 7 contains numbers and contact details:primary, and then a description of sociology of the school repeating data first published elsewhere:very much secondary. Page 8: has a description of the inspection, a report on the reporting:either secondary or primary.

I have read Ofsted reports as part of my duties as a governor. A Primary Source. I have read it as a parent it was a secondary source, I have received them as an appendix a member of the LEA for the budget debate- where they were secondary. As a wikipedia editor, I can use it fill the infobox in a primary role or to verify the existence of opinions of parents, politicians and professional in a secondary role. For Notability purposes it is more than adequate. A section 8 report sample section 8 is a monitoring report, it is one inspector reporting on the school:primary source; while giving opinion on (analysing) the previous section 5, thus a secondary source. Thank goodness for WP:AGF and the use of 'may' not 'must'. ClemRutter (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/2466317

• Nope They are reliable for inspector's views on schools, but they have to inspect every educational establishment that falls into certain parameters. Some schools, especially small schools of a religous nature or for specialist SEND children, will not be notable. Here's an inspection report on a school that has two pupils. Edit: Here's one with a single pupil! Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• This question about notability is off-topic here at the reliable sources noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities

Because of the discussion on a RFD, I'd like to bring the question here as to whether the editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities stands as a reliable Tertiary Source for Fraternities/Sororities/Honor Societies including chapter lists. There is also an auxiliary question as to whether or not it is appropriate to create a Wikipedia article entirely based on the information in Baird's for a Fraternity which had enough chapters to be notable.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• The very nature of GNG requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources. I am willing to grant that maybe the manual can stand as one of the reliable secondary sources, but it should never be the lone reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?

Gript Media is an opinion/commentary website with associated social media accounts, launched in 2019 by John McGuirk. It was founded and funded by anti-abortion campaigners (see here, also.

• It presents a particular world-view - some have described it as "rightist", including conservative sources.
• It is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland (which includes web-only publications).
• It has promoted those spreading COVID-19 disinformation.
• It publishes such... balanced... articles as "Black Crimes Matter" (we Irish are, apparently, all white, I learned from the first paragraph!) and "How Irish people are conditioned to hate their own culture".
• It does not list an office, and address, or any method of contact that I can find (bar commenting on its website or @'ing it's social media?)
• It has an 'About' page, which pretty much states it will not be neutral.

Am I right in thinking this can be deemed to not be a reliable source for Irish and international news and current affairs, where better/other sources exist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bastun, If it doesn't publish actual news only opinion pieces, then the entire site is only reliable for its own opinion and/or that of the writers. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that is has started to creep into edits on relevant pages (which have been reverted so far such as here), I think it is worth considering blacklisting as a source, to alleviate the work of editors watching these pages. Smirkybec (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it markets itself as news, which is why I think it should be considered for blacklisting. Smirkybec (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Probably not. Its raison d'être seems to be to oppose the outcomes of the founder's losing referendum campaigns; it's unlikely to gain a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy campaigning against women's rights and against European solidarity. Certainly not reliable for facts. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extratime.ie

Hi, I wanted to know if Extratime.ie can be considered a RS? It came up in the GA Review for Denise O'Sullivan. Many articles regarding association football in Ireland reference their articles. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For soccer and Irish soccer players, yes. While not a soccer fan myself, it pops up in my newsfeed quite often and seems to have a good reputation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a RS (and I am a soccer fan). It is owned/run by a guy called Gareth Penrose who is a professional web developer and journalist who used to run Shelbourne FC's website. The news editor Dave Donnelly is another pro journalist. I know the site asks for volunteer writers, but that's not quite the same as being 'user generated' in my opinion. It seems the other contributors all have some sort of journalistic credentials and expertise in Irish soccer. Evidently they are accredited by the FAI and LOI, while the fact that would-be volunteers have to apply to Penrose in writing with a CV suggests to me that there is a degree of editorial oversight there.

For comparison one of the most widely-used soccer sources on Wikipedia remains the late Neil Brown's stats pages, which has a long list of acknowledgments and asks for volunteers to send info and corrections. Even RSSSF which has a very high reputation is made up of volunteers. I've even sent them some stuff myself, which just proves they'll take it from anybody! On here a worrying number of Scottish football stub bio articles are pegged solely on John Litster's stats compendium, which (I think) is a self-published Excel spreadsheet on a CD-Rom. That's not to disparage Neil, John or any other hobbyists but just to show that the WP:RS bar is set relatively low at WP:Footy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Washington Times

Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times  , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)

Option 1: Generally reliable for news

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for news

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Washington Times)

• Option 2.5 It's been cited by reliable sources including PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc. ([165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170]). At the same time, it's also been noted publishing errors or falsehoods; however, in a number of these cases - though prolific - it's also published corrections or removed the offending material (e.g. [171]). Despite the glaring examples of issues with the WT - and there are many - just looking at its website on any single day it's apparent that these are not the paper's grist and, 95% of what is currently on its site as of this datestamp can't be differentiated from wire copy and is fairly straight-laced. My sense is it should not be used as a source for content regarding the Unification Church, nor should it be the only source for extraordinary claims. And, obviously, WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Washington Times is a source with a conservative lean that has strong links to the Unification movement. It has had a reputation for being one of the most partisan broadsheet papers in the United States since the 1990s. It may be the case that it generally unreliable for politics and science issues (the entry for The Washington Times document these extensively), as well as issues related to the Unification movement or its founders. However, it does not appear to be generally unreliable for news outside of those areas. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• If you disagree with what's listed at RSP it would be helpful to provide arguments/evidence. If you don't disagree, an RfC isn't necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I agree with Chetsford's "2.5" (which is actually just a specific 2, "additional considerations apply"). I would also point out that the paper and its website are of questionable to low reliability on American politics, for the same reasons as Fox News and New York Post, i.e. a strong right-wing bias. No, not because the opinions are conservative (National Review and Wall Street Journal are much more reliable but even more conservative), but rather because in this era and with this sort of publication it translates into poor fact-checking and even some dissemination of proven falsehoods that are popular among the far-right political base. I have not assessed its science coverage in great detail, though that's always a concern with far-right media (actually far-left, too, which is responsible for a lot of pseudo-medical nonsense). Washington TImes's more rote reportage is probably just as reliable as the average smaller newspaper; it is not quite in the same league of reliability failure as Breitbart News and Newsmax, which exist simply as far-right propaganda farms. Honestly, I would be okay with option 3, but 1 is out of the question, and 4 may be a stretch. Unfortunately for WT as a source here, most of its original reportage, most of what people are apt to try to cite it for, is American politics material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think it is reasonable that it not be used as a source for the Unification movement due to a clear COI, but for all other things it just seems to have a political angle that many news organisations (left and right) all have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for political, social, religious, or other contentious matters; option 3 for other matters. Clearly a very-low quality source. Let's review what our own article notes about them (all well-sourced):

The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, on ozone depletion, and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, and promoting Islamophobia.

References for those interested.
References

In addition to the issues above, the newspaper promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theories (echoing Russian disinformation) in an op-ed column, for which the newspaper issued a lengthy retraction and apology in 2018—after being forced to do so by a lawsuit (cite). Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side:

• In 2001 and 2002, the Washington Times ran a series of stories falsely accusing seven biologists of engaging in fraud to trigger endangered species protections (see here, here).
• During the 2020 campaign, the Washington Times used a quote from a university official in a misleading way (a "dishonest light") to make it appear as if Joe Biden had misstated where he attended college (here, here)
• The Washington Times has published news articles baselessly suggesting that COVID-19 virus was a "biological weapon" (here)
• Just two weeks ago, the Washington Times had to retract a bogus "news" story claiming that a facial recognition company had "identified" perpetrators of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as "antifa" (the riot at the Capitol was, in fact, a far-right attack). The newspaper only retracted the story after the company's lawyers had demanded it do so. here, here

This is an encyclopedia; we should try to use mainstream journalistic sources and academic sources and avoid scraping the bottom of the barrel. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the links. I haven't reviewed all of them, but the Islamophobia one relies on the opinion of the Council on American–Islamic Relations which is itself hardly a reliable source (see here). I'm not sure we can take their characterisation at face value. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4, DEPRECATE. A long history of pushing conspiracy theories, science denialism of various sorts, islamophobia, xenophobia[172], and of course, obvious falsehoods[173]. Recently it was also spreading COVID-19 disinformation [174] and just in the last two weeks it was producing false claims that facial recognition found "antifa infiltrators" within the mob at the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. [175] It didn't earn the nickname "The Moonie Times" without good reason; it simply can't be trusted for honest reporting. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Quite a lot of issues, but it appears that they tend to issue corrections and retract problematic articles (see User:Neutrality's examples above and [176], for example). Many outlets classified as reliable also make mistakes ([177]), so as long as corrections are made I think it should stay 2. Alaexis_¿question? 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is (a) the number of mistakes and (b) the pattern. Washington Times's history is clear that they don't make the initial good faith effort to get the reporting right. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I voted based on the examples provided in the thread and all of them are about specific inaccuracies which seem to be subsequently corrected. They do not support your claim that they make more or graver mistakes. If such evidence is presented I will reconsider my vote. Alaexis_¿question? 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 as per above. I have seen concerns that their near confusion in name with the Wa Post is also of issue which makes them a tad suspect in additional to their conservative bent. They aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies, but they're not anywhere close to a clear reliable source. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually did research before saying things that aren't true, like claiming "they aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies"? SPLC Report: The Washington Times has History of Hyped Stories, Shoddy Reporting and Failing to Correct Errors. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a big different between shoddy/poor reporting and deliberately false reporting as the DM has been proven to do (deliberately changing people's quotes for example). --Masem (t) 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 except for politics and science which they should never be used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2 Generally reliable source. Almost all of (if not all of) the most prolific sources have made errors on occasion. The name obviously comes from the city it was founded in, not an attempt to confuse people it the WaPo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 . . . but we should be specific. I want to draw a contrast between different types of situations. I think they are completely fine in situations where they are reporting on publicly-available primary sources.[178][179]. We should avoid them in situations where the underlying facts are murky.[180]. In reporting on a murder, obviously the whodunit aspect is a matter of great dispute. In their favor, they do have a corrections page.[181] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Neutrality. Their false reporting on environmental issues ([182][183]), the coronavirus ([184][185][186]), the recent election ([187][188][189][190]; they retracted the last one, but, as noted above, only after they were threatened with a lawsuit), the 2016 election ([191][192]) and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory ([193][194]; again, only retracted after they were sued) in particular are concerning because these don't seem to be mere innocent mistakes; they're overtly false stories that serve the purpose of supporting the Times' bias. This covers more examples. See [195] for a paper about how they cover things in a misleading way to support specific biases, or [196][197] here for discussion of how its biases influence its reporting. Simply being WP:BIASED or sometimes getting things wrong aren't, individually, enough to get a source depreciated; but a biased source that repeatedly gets things wrong in the direction of its bias, and which doesn't generally issue a retraction or apology for this unless compelled to by legal threats, ought to be treated as intentionally publishing false or fabricated information ala WP:DUCK. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for American politics, Option 3/4 otherwise: mostly per Aquillion and Newslinger. I believe deliberately reporting false information merits deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for American politics and topics that inherit the contentiousness of American politics (e.g., environmental science and climate change, COVID) per Aquillion and Newslinger. The examples cited above all seem to pertain to that area, but I am doubtful they are frequently cited for anything else (arts and culture, say). XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The details cited above are adequate for this. When we have good content mixed in with bad content as a regular occurrence, overall the source can't be considered reliable or trusted. Spudlace (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 promotion of voter fraud [198] and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and most recently false flag antifa stories shows that this is an outlet with equivalent reliability to that of Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References (The Washington Times)

References

Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?

https://www.makeuseof.com/ MakeUseOf

• Unreliable

• A recent edit[199] had an advertising flavor, IMO, and the source[200] looked like a regurgitation of material found on a "foundation" website.

• I've used it before[201]. It has been used in many articles, 259 times at this writing.[202]

• I did not find previous discussion here.

• Scanning a few recent articles, or posts, they mostly look like ad-infested click-bait, similarly based on regurgitating other "news" sources.

• I found no bios of editorial staff, although editorial oversight is implied in a few places.

• Their Partnership Disclaimer warns of using affiliate links and collecting lots of marketing data that will be "shared."

• Their Advertising Policy states they separate Ad and Editorial staff.

• They have brief Ethics Policy and Corrections Policy.

-- Yae4 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal

Reliable source for news on Judaism and the jewish communities in LA and NY or not? Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion is not set up as a formal request for comment. Please see WP:RFC for details. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Jewish Journal (Boston North), The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, or another publication? — Newslinger talk 07:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, generally reliable-- The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is considered to be one of the most acclaimed Jewish publications in the country. It has won multiple awards from the American Jewish Press Association [203]. In addition, it is frequently cited by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and academic institutions: [204], [205], [206], [207],[208], [209], [210]. Apply normal guidelines for opinion/commentary. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Latin Australian Times

I've noticed a large uptick in articles, Australian related, that use a newspaper called "The Latin Australian Times" as a reference. This is across multiple articles such as Maurice Novoa, Lucia Hou and others. The thing is I can find almost no references for this newspaper. They used to have a web presence in 2016 for a very short period (here's an archive version I found) but it was short lived. As far as I can tell it seems to be just one of those niche community newsletter type publications and not a full on proper newspaper. Note it is a Spanish language paper, but uses "The Latin Australian Times" as its name. The fact I can't find any real references to the paper, it seems to have never made an impact on the web in any way other that Wikipedia mentions and mirrors, and no other reliable sources seem to ever mention or use it, suggests to me that this is not a reliable source. I could be wrong, but I can't shake the feeling this is just a community newsletter type publication that just published anything in the community and not a newspaper and therefore not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is mothership.sg reliable?

Looking at their about us page, there's nothing too suspicious, though the site didn't stand out as clearly reliable to me either. While the site is referenced across Wikipedia many times, I've haven't found any discussion of it here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nature editorials as guides for articulating existing consensus

When there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that a scientific consensus exists on a certain topic, should we consider Nature editorials reliable sources to guide the language we use to articulate this consensus in our articles? Or are Nature editorials somehow unreliable for this purpose? I would have thought this straightforward, given that e.g. WP:RSP states that "the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature and The Lancet, are entirely missing from this list, most likely because they are so clearly reliable that there was no need to discuss them at all", but I have encountered some rather strenuous resistance at Talk:Race and intelligence.

In this case the statement in the article is "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups", part of the lead paragraph of Race and intelligence. Similar language is presented in the body and in other related articles following an RfC last year which concluded that "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory". [211]

Two of the sources I've used to explain this consensus to skeptical editors are [212] and [213]. The first is a recent editorial in Nature stating that "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races". This editorial is un-bylined and Nature describes such un-bylined editorials as their "collective voice". [214] The second is a bylined piece by two recognized experts in the field which states that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." This editorial is one of the main sources used to guide the language in our lead statement quoted above. Note that these are far from the only sources used to back up the current language on the scientific consensus, but they have the virtue of being very clearly stated. Which is why I thought that it would be uncontroversial to use them to articulate that consensus to other editors and to our readers.

I won't give you the blow-by-blow of the current dispute, but you can take a look at the relevant thread here: [215] (the relevant bit comes about halfway through the thread, when a different editor comes in and takes the discussion in another direction). This previous thread is also referenced: [216]

Note too that issues related to race and intelligence are subject to discretionary sanctions because of a long history of contentious behavior and WP:SEALIONing. For anyone who's unaware (and interested), here's an off-Wiki article that discusses some of the issues that have plagued the topic area: [217]

Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No single source should be considered adequate to establish so strong a claim that there is a consensus in a discipline about something: that is something that would need several sources. But Nature editorials are certainly the kind of source I would be looking for in putting together the case that there is such a consensus. They are not technically peer reviewed, but the editorial controls compare favourably to those of newspapers we consider solid RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Without looking at the specifics ... Editorials are not WP:MEDRS so shouldn't be used for any non-trivial biomedical claim; they can be used for unsurprising claims in other fields. If something weighty is truly "accepted knowledge" of the kind Wikipedia is meant to be reflecting, it would not be found just in a Nature editorial; better sources would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Just a procedural point. As the OP says, there was an RfC on the question last year, and the editor the OP is debating with refuses to accept the judgment reached. Unless something major has changed since last year concerning racialist claims about intelligence, there's no need to re-litigate the issue with every editor who comes along who doesn't agree with the consensus. It suffices to refer the editor in question to the earlier discussions. One of the purposes of a strong closing of an RfC, as in this case, is to avoid the time sink that comes from having to debate the same issue again and again. NightHeron (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Seems to me like an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there. If it was another, uncontroversial claim, like "moderate exercise provides health benefits", then I don't anyone would have objected to it being sourced to a Nature editorial. And that most scientists don't believe that genetics explain the differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, I think, absolutely is an uncontroversial claim. ImTheIP (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Seems to me like an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there." ← Think again. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the Wikipedia:MEDASSESS page. I hadn't been familiar with that Wikipedia guideline, but it directly answers the question under discussion. In the graph on the left, when evaluating quality of evidence, editorials are ranked second from the bottom, while most of the categories of actual studies are ranked higher in the pyramid. Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn's response here referenced the (perhaps) overstated claim that an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there, not the question under discussion in my OP. The issue is not whether there is a scientific consensus on the matter. That has already been established by the RfC. The issue is whether Nature editorials are reliable guides to wording when consensus is already established.

Also: WP:MEDASSESS is a subsection of WP:MEDRS, an important guideline with wide buy-in from the community. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the whole thing. The Procter & Gamble pyramid does indeed place editorials below systematic studies, at the same level as "expert opinion", but we still evaluate such sources relative to the overall quality of editorial oversight provided by the journal in question. Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Without looking at the dispute in question, I agree that a Nature editorial is indeed one of the most golden sources out there. While most editorials are low-quality, Nature editorials are not; they are authored by some of the most respected scientists and peer-reviewers in the world. As an example, this is why we can use one as the sole source for the lead paragraph of Traditional Chinese medicine. Scientific statements made in Nature editorials can be assumed to be summaries of the evidence. I would also argue they could be considered position statements from national or international expert bodies as described in both MEDASSESS and the lead of MEDRS. Sunrise (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a good argument, especially when it conflicts with an established content guideline.

Now that I see there's a community-written guideline about this overall principle, it seems strange to have to defend the guideline's applicability to specific journals, but I guess I'll go ahead: there's no reason to assume Nature is different from any other journal in this respect. As I said on the article talk page, the point of peer review is to have one's ideas vetted by other experts in the relevant field. It's impossible for the editorial board of a generalist journal like Nature to be an expert body on a technical topic, because it doesn't have experts in every possible field. Editorials written by an anonymous author are not actually peer reviewed by experts in that field, as Charles Stewart said.

I also agree with Charles Stewart that editorials in academic journals are better sources than newspaper articles. But in the case of the Traditional Chinese medicine article, an editorial in a medical journal such as The Lancet would be preferable as a source over one in a generalist journal, because for an article that wasn't peer reviewed, The Lancet can provide a stronger guarantee that it still will have been vetted by experts in medicine. And citing a clinical practice guideline, or a peer-reviewed meta-analysis or literature review, would be even better. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that, while "anonymous" editorials published in Nature are not strictly peer-reviewed, they do in fact speak for the editorial board and are planned by the editor-in-chief. This piece by Nature's current editor-in-chief, the geneticist Magdalena Skipper, gives some details about the process: [218]. This doesn't speak directly to Ferahgo the Assassin's point about "experts in the field", but I think it's clear that such experts are consulted wherever necessary. And I image that this would be especially true of the first editorial I cited above, "Intelligence research should not be held back by its past" ([219]), which really exists just to comment on a contemporaneously published meta-analysis in Nature Genetics ([220]). Generalrelative (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

India Times

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which option best describes the reliability of The Times of India?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Note: Covered by WP:TOI.

Firestar464 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply. I think there may be issues with bias in some areas. So case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• At the top of the page it says: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Please do so before we proceed with this - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• There was an RFC on the TOI less than a year ago (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#Times_of_India_RFC). Unless any new evidence has appeared since then, this should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Independent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which option best describes the reliability of The Independent?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Firestar464 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply The indy is one of the UK's top line papers, I need to see a reason why its not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: A bit lefty but one of the UK's most well known and reliable papers. What's the reasoning behind this straw poll? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• At the top of the page it says: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Please do so before we proceed with this - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• This is already listed at RSP. Is there a reason to re-litigate? There's no point in engaging in this unless there is a specific editing dispute or query. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Before starting a new discussion on a source, the recommended practice is to search the archives (using the "Search the noticeboard archives" box near the top of the page) for previous discussions that can answer the same question. The perennial sources list has an entry for The Independent, which lists three significant past discussions. Is there a specific angle you would like this discussion to go that is not covered by the prior discussions? For example, is there a specific article in The Independent that you are asking about, or did you find evidence that The Independent is not a generally reliable source? — Newslinger talk 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• No reason given for a discussion. Unless some is provided, this should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historic England

Martinevans123 and I are having a cordial discussion at Talk:W._B._Yeats#Chantry_House,_Steyning about the reliability of the contents of a tablet displayed at a historic house, which asserts that W B Yeats wrote many of his later poems in that residence. Our respective views are set forth in the discussion linked above. Can those interests or willing give their opinions? Thanks much. Kablammo (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading the discussion at that article's talk page, it seems to me that participating editors have misread the NE text, which is studiously neutral. It says only that there is a plaque on the wall about the poet. That's it. It doesn't say that NE vouches for its accuracy or otherwise, let alone that it was they who put it there. "Guilt by association"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And that is the issue. If the message is incorrect, there is no use for it in the article. I do not see how the tablet is a reliable source for its assertion. Kablammo (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 has provided an independent, reliable link on the talk page of Yeats' article so it is not necessary to determine whether this tablet would be a reliable source. Kablammo (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That does not resolve the question of whether Historic England is a reliable source, and if so, under what circumstances. But such a resolution is no longer needed for the W B Yeats article. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The National Pulse

Which option best describes the reliability of The National Pulse founded by Raheem Kassam?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

There is an ongoing discussion about this souce on the Chinese Wikipedia counterpart as an attempt to justify citing its report about a far-left group being the major source of sedition of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The National Pulse's reports on the US politics share a very similar pattern of One America News and Newsmax, both of which are considered unreliable on English Wikipedia.

P.S. Generally English WP policies do not directly apply to other language Wikipedia, but I have 2 good reasons to initiate this RfC on English WP and reference the result on Chinese WP. First as a matter of citing only reliable source and not giving publicity to unreliable sources on Wikimedia platforms. Second there are much fewer Chinese editors actually knowledgeable about the sources from Western media, the discussion on Chinese WP inevitably suffers information asymmetry. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• thenationalpulse.com   Not cited anywhere on enwp except Kassam's article. I am skeptical to the least that this source has a reputation for factual accuracy as we require. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to call its reports "Posts", thus seems to operate a blog model of news reporting. Either anonymous or by one person (their TV producer), or Raheem Kassam himself. No it all looks very bloggy and a bit SPSy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you'd want to use this obviously heavily biased source to cite information on the Sullivan story when plenty of RS are covering it as well? Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the Chinese Wikipedian who wants to cite this "press" in the storming of the Capitol article believes the (debunked) voter frauds from news outlets like Epoch Times whose editors/contributors vehemently supports Donald J Trump and his conspiracy theories. This should give you a good idea what represents this editor's POV. On Chinese Wikipedia, Epoch Times and its sister news outlets are considered unreliable only on Chinese affairs. The last such deliberation had happened before the 2020 US voter fraud claims dominated news headlines. Using the "English WP doesn't override Chinese WP editorial policies" argument, this gives any Trump supporters/apologists a convenient loophole to cite even Fox News, Newsmax or OAN on controversial topics in any Chinese WP articles to spread disinformation. So far no conversation regarding these 3 media outlets were ever held on Chinese WP. Doing another round of RfC about all the controversial English press would be extremely counterproductive. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, one Chinese Wikipedian insisted this source was generally reliable, and could be an exceptional source to add some information on Chinese Wikipedia about some leftist made a false flag attack against pro-Trump faction during the storming of the United States Capitol. His argument included this newspaper / media was cited by several other sources that is somewhat reliable in Chinese Wikipedia. Like Liberty Times(1). I understand this happened on Chinese Wikipedia, but generally English Wikipedia's discussions and clues are somewhat effective and useful for Chinese Wikipedia. Also, when discussing on Chinese Wikipedia, the editor claimed that the previous discussion on English Wikipedia could not be considered as a mainstream opinion about The National Pulse.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I see. Well then, Option 4. It's obviously not reliable. Five seconds look at the front page of their website will tell you that. I note that it was booted from Twitter after it repeatedly posted conspiracy theories about the election result. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I still hold my previous opinion on Chinese Wikipedia. So option 4. As JzG said before, I think it's mainly a propaganda blog and should be treated like Breitbart.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What they do, not do, want to do, discuss on the Chinese WP have no impact here. It is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have already discussed on Chinese WP for about 60,000 bytes but still unable to get an obvious result about it.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And what we decide here has no relevance there, they have different policies and standards.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, indeed it is, but at least I think Chinese Wikipedians used discussions here a lot.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tubefilter

Which option best describes the reliability of Tubefilter.com, a site reporting on internet related topics?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

I am asking as it is currently cited on 683 articles, and if it is deemed unreliable we would need to stop that number growing. SK2242 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• About page (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See the above discussions closed by @Eggishorn:, you shouldn't be making these kind of proposals without a good reason. Is there a reason why you think this is unreliable? Listing this for discussion just because its used on 683 articles isn't really a convincing reason. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Virtus Scientific Journal - Ukraine

I came across this journal when checking a reference for Shabo language, which was followed in the text of the article by a warning that the author of the source linked is not a professional linguist. The source makes a very bold claim, that Shabo is linked to Austronesian languages and Sumerian., and is, to my reasonably trained eye, a load of old tosh that doesn't follow the standard practices of modern (or ancient) linguistics. The author is not a professional linguist, but is an academic.

This led me to look at the journal in detail, it seems to have a reasonable editorial board, it's free which might be ok, it charges contributors, which is not unknown in RS journals (unfortunately), but there is no mention of peer review or extensive editing on the site's requirements for publication.

Should this journal be classified as vanity/self-publishing and deprecated, or should it be considered as possibly RS for some subjects?

The help of Ukrainian and Russian speaking users would be particularly useful here. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a grand claim! No mention of peer-review does not not bode well for a reputation for fact checking ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so exceptional that I was really taken aback. I kind of hoped there was something in it! Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It advertises the bunk sjifactor.com and sindexs.org metrics, doesn't mention peer-review... It's not a good look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)