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

Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre

1. Sources (nb. these are AR-language articles but the Google translate version of them is relatively clear albeit with the usual warning that it may appear clear but still be a mistranslation):

• Asharq Al-Awsat (2001): [1]: Article title: "The only resistance who survived the Al-Zararia massacre tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat the details of the confrontations with the Israelis"
• Al Akhbar (2018): [2]: Article title: "Zrariyeh ... the witness and the martyr"
  

2. Article: Zrarieh massacre.

3. Content: At present these are the only sources potentially showing WP:LASTING coverage of this "massacre" as required by WP:EVENT. However whether or not these are reliable sources independent of the subject is disputed (see AFD discussion here). FOARP (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat)≠

• To take the Al Akhbar translation here, I cannot see major contradictions between what it says about the attack and the available English sources. Arab News says the source is pro Hezbollah and "among the most read and respected newspapers in Lebanon". So perhaps a bit of bias but otherwise OK.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real reason to doubt the London based Asharq Al-Awsat translation other than for matters Saudi related which this is not.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• To also recap objections to these sources from the AFD argument: they are eye-witness accounts from "resistance" participants written in propagandistic language ("martyrs", "entity", "murderers", etc.) and not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat is one of the most well known Arabic newspapers on the planet. See for example this NYT rundown of Arabic news sources for why the idea that it is unreliable or not independent to an Israeli raid in Lebanon is not accurate. Al-Akhbar is on the same level as many Israeli sources, yes it uses language that represents a POV (martyr, resistance), whereas Israeli sources often use language that represents the diametrically opposed POV (terrorist, etc.), but POV does not make a source unreliable. See no reason these dont qualify as WP:NEWSORG given there are no sources brought that demonstrate any issue with their reliability, just an editor disliking their politics. Im not all that enamored with the politics of the Times of Israel or the Jerusalem Post, but they remain widely used on our pages as reliable sources. nableezy - 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat has substantially documented issues, including issues regarding their factual reporting (our article about them describes a particularly egregious incident in 2016), and should probably not be considered reliable. Al-Akhbar is openly pro-Hezbollah, and reliable sources that discuss them consistently mention their biases, so statements sourced to them should at a bare minimum be attributed as is standard with openly biased sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That incident resulted in a correction and the firing of the journalist who reported it. Issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not the only problem with their reporting, but this also goes beyond just a simple "correction". It's not like something was misstated but basically true (like the recent correction in the WaPo that has quite a few people up in arms), it was an entirely false story concocted for malicious reasons. It would have never held up under even a minimum amount of editorial oversight. The fact that a "journalist" such as that was ever hired speaks to the problematic nature of the publication, and I doubt that any retraction would have been issued, nor anyone fired, had there not been such a public rebuke from the supposed source cited in the article. "Corrections" are understandable. Publishing obviously fabricated stories is not, and does not speak to the robust fact checking and editorial oversight required of reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And the reporter was fired and a very visible correction was made. Again, issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. Your doubt on a hypothetical is interesting, but not all that relevant as it is indeed entirely hypothetical. nableezy - 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is a substantial difference between correcting an error in an otherwise correct story (which could be an understandable lapse for an editor to have missed) and retracting entirely an article that was completely and maliciously fabricated (which is absolutely indicative of a nearly complete lack of editorial oversight prior to publication). On the balance of coverage in reliable sources, it seems that their editorial oversight system is much more concerned about ideological purity than journalistic integrity and accuracy. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it isnt my opinion, it is Wikipedia's. From WP:NEWSORG: Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Publishing corrections is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 16:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Note that Al-Akhbar is not pro-Hezbollah, it has been publishing As'ad AbuKhalil articles since 2007 and he criticizes Hezbollah, Nasrallah, Iran and Syria. Also the massacre has nothing to do with Hezbollah as Israel claims it was targeting Amal. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Its Hezbollah mouthpiece that used for propaganda and anything negative about Israel goes in --Shrike (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh???? Who is "Hezbollah mouthpiece"?? The Saudi-controlled Asharq Al-Awsat, or the leftist Al Akhbar???? Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably Al Akhbar. I don't know that "mouthpiece" is completely accurate, but they have a well documented bias in favor of Hezbollah (New York Times says "They are a remarkable blend: the paper champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, even as it wholeheartedly supports Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement") and the court decision against them (for exposing the identity of purported witnesses against Hezbollah) is particularly damning: "With respect to the nature and gravity of the offence for which Mr Al A min is convicted, I find that the contemptuous behaviour here was particularly egregious: Mr Al Amin published the names, photographs and significant personal details of 17 purported confidential Tribunal witnesses and, after what was acknowledged by Mr Al Amin as public outcry and claims from various members of the public that his previous publication had infringed the law, he then published a second article with the photographs, names and personal information of a further 15"..."Furthermore, I have already concluded that portraying the 32 individuals as witnesses against Hezbollah is generally prohibited by principles governing the media and serves no journalistic value or pressing social need, and that in the impugned articles the author did not place himself as a neutral observer simply reporting on the results of an investigative inquiry but rather as a political advocate. Moreover, ample evidence demonstrates that the Accused's actions were inconsistent with investigative journalism." NonReproBlue (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; so we have a "Hezbollah mouthpiece", which allow atheist like As'ad AbuKhalil to publish in its pages? Lol, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Al Akhbar is a provacative anti-capaitalist rag that according to the New York Times has "news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion". Asharq Al-Awsat is bettet, but has major problems as well, in particular in issues opposed by its firm editorial line.Free1Soul (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, in this case: I would doubt anything Asharq Al-Awsat writes about the Saudi Royal family, but I see no reason to doubt them on this; neither do I see any reason to doubt Al Akhbar here, except a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Propaganda outlets with a clear agenda, not acceptable to report facts and events.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Both newspapers are RS and mainstream media in the Arab world. They're not marginal party propaganda or loony Islamist ranting, they are top selling daily newspapers. If they are critical of Israel, I don't think anyone should be particularly surprised or holler 'foul' - that's really just down to a partisan WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias. The Arab world has every right to a voice and these mainstream media are as close to that voice as you're going to find, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alexandermcnab (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)14:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, closely affiliated with the terrorist organization Hezbollah:
  1. "Hezbollah-backed, pro-Aoun daily Al Akhbar"[3]
  2. "Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese daily newspaper, is widely considered a mouthpiece for the terror group Hezbollah."[4]
  3. "Pro-Hezbollah mouthpiece Al-Akhbar" [5]
  4. "Lebanon's pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper"[6]
  5. "A newspaper affiliated with Hezbollah, Al-Akhbar,"[7]

It publishes shock news and messages from Hezbollah.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly pro-Hezbollah and leftist, too. And I don't particularly agree with that. It has a political stance - what decent newspaper doesn't? But 'Affiliated'? And offering up the Times of Israel as a source on the reliability or partiality of Arab media is a hoot, to say the least. Al Akhbar is one of the top selling newspapers in Lebanon and as a source its known stance should be taken into account. But completely dismissed? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable, they do definitely have a political slant, but I see no reason to doubt that their reporting is factual. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this Bellingcat article reliable for this specific BLP claim?

This question relates to contested claims about a BLP subject in the Andy Ngo article. The edit in question is here [[8]]. The Bellingcat article claims Andy Ngo put out a deceptive series of tweets during the unrests in 2020 [[9]]. At the end of the article BC tries to claim that Ngo did the same thing in 2019 during a confrontation between members of Patriot Prayer and Cider Riot patrons. This content is at the bottom of the BC article and includes the following claim, " In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists.". To support their claim BC includes a photo of the offending tweets [[10]]. My concern is the tweets are only Ngo stating that he was personally assaulted and asking for help to identify the assailant. The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee. Since the tweets do not support the specific claim I think the source is not reliable for this claim especially since it is making a negative claim about a BLP subject. Looking for additional input. Springee (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee." The tweet: "Was assaulted... by masked Antifa thugs", with no comment on Patriot Prayer. I'm not seeing what's wrong in their reporting here. Saying he "framed" the brawl as such is pretty clear: he portrayed himself as the victim of an attack by antifascists, and didn't discuss Patriot Prayer, who per the Bellingcat source were the true aggressors of the conflict. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You quoted the retweet. The original tweet was a request for help to identify the person who assaulted Ngo. "I was sprayed in the face point blank with pepper spray outside CiderRiot, where Antifa had massed. They cheered as I was blinded. Before that, they threatened me & brought up my mother's name. A woman helped me across the street. Please help me identity this person [video embedded in tweet]". This is clearly Ngo asking for help to identify his assalent. Classifying this as something about the larger PP-CiderRoit patron fight is simply false and should not pass RS standards needed to claim, even with attribution that a BLP subject framed the PP-CR fight as an unprovoked attack by one side vs the other. Springee (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please justify this statement. Your claim of "reliable" carries no merit if you can't explain why a tweet where Ngo states that he was personally attacked is actually framing Patriot Prayer as attacked by antifacists. Springee (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the article seems reliable. First, the tweets are not used to claim "Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation"; the article contains the more neutrally worded "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." The tweets are preceded by this sentence His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists. "It" refers to the fight as a whole. The fact that Ngo wrote his tweets to describe no action on anyone other than antifa's part supports that claim. Second, as for how this relates to Patriot Prayer, the article includes other sources to make that link: Video recorded before the fight at Cider Riot clearly shows members of Patriot Prayer checking their weapons and discussing their plans to assault the bar. One person standing near Ngo says clearly: “There’s going to be a huge fight,”. He did not report on what he had heard while marching to Cider Riot. and Based on the strength of those leaked videos, six members of Patriot Prayer were charged with felony riot incitement. So BC is using both the video itself and the fact that it lead to a felony riot incitement charge to say that Ngo's framing is misleading. Since that kind of intentional misdirection has been established as a key part of Ngo's journalistic practice, I don't think it's an extraordinary claim. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

But the tweets don't talk about the fight as a whole, only about the assault on Ngo. How can that be taken to suggest Ngo's claims regarding the larger picture? We can take for granted that PP started the fight and still find the claim that Ngo said otherwise to be false because the tweets presented as evidence don't support the claim. Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

My point was that your presentation of the claim did not mention other information contained in the article, specifically that Patriot Prayer expected a fight and "[discussed] plans to assault the bar." BC then mentions that those details are entirely absent from Ngo's reporting on the event. With that additional supporting information, I don't think the claim is unreliable. I'm with Horse Eye's Back below in thinking that we'd need sources that contradict BC to say more. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick summary of the dispute (not exact quotes). Ngo tweets, I was personally attacked, please help me identify the attacker. BC claims that actually means, Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation. Is that interpretation truthful enough include as a negative statement about Ngo's reporting in his BLP? Springee (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. This isn't math class and we don't require reliable sources to show their work. Bellingcat is likely basing their statement on the tweet thread as a whole: after the screenshotted tweets, Ngo goes on to say that anti-fascists were "using business as base to prep attack" and then referred to the event as the "#antifa May Day riot". That Ngo was referring to the event as a whole and not only his assault seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. And for all I know, there could have been other tweets as well. But it doesn't really matter because reliable sources don't have to say how they arrived at a conclusion or provide any evidence at all. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

BC showed those specific tweets, nothing else. Even looking at the thread as a whole you would have to arguing to a conclusion vs arguing from evidence to make BC's claim. Also, no source is universally reliable and BC has a very limited history on which to base any reliability claim. A comment that cast such negative light on the motives of a BLP subject really needs clear evidence, not circumstantial evidence combined with an argument to a conclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable, both in general and in this specific case. Bellingcat does insanely in-depth research... Most of which is not detailed in their reports. Unless another WP:RS directly contradicts them I’m not seeing your point Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. Bellingcat show that Ngo was with a group of Patriot Prayer who attacked a bar in an incident he misleadingly described as if it was him who was personally attacked (he uses first person singular) by anti-fascists without mentioning they were defending themselves from the people he was with. As Bellingcat is a trusted reliable source, quibbling over interpretations and saying we know better than they do consitutes original research. As Woodroar says, Bellingcat may be basing their statements on evidence additional to the tweet they chose to embed. In any event, Dlthewave's edit attributes to Bellingcat so challenging it on this basis is even less worthwhile. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ngo was personally attacked. The video shows Ngo being attacked and does not show Ngo attacking or taunting others first. Conflating what is happening to Ngo himself vs the bigger story is misleading on the part of BC. Bob, I think its worth noting your user page includes an Antifa support banner. Springee (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Agree with above on Bellingcat in general. For the author Robert Evans in particular, a wide variety of RS have used him as an expert to interpret right-wing groups and right-wing internet phenomena. A recent example is his 2020 coverage of the boogaloo movement, which was used in sources ranging from the SPLC to the Middlebury Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism to Reason.com. Jlevi (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, per a lot of the above. While I understand the concern here, the small inferential leap we're talking about is one that an RS is entitled to take, in my opinion; Bellingcat is not restrained to simply reporting things verbatim. While it is negative in the larger picture, the context of this actual claim is less dangerous to me (i.e., he certainly claimed they attacked him unprovoked). All that said, I think it is appropriate to use it with attribution, as was done here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable I think the above comments to that effect pretty much summarize where I come down. Journalistic reporting doesn't always include every data point that backs up a given statement within the text itself; this can be a weird mode of writing when one is accustomed to scientific papers or even literary analysis, and not appreciating it can lead to a lot of missing the forest for the trees. Play it safe with in-text attribution. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable This is a valid interpretation by a reliable source. It's fair to say that the tweets were describing the overall brawl, even though Ngo misleadingly framed it as an unprovoked attack on himself. As others have mentioned, sources aren't expected to "show their work" as an academic paper (or a Wikipedia article, for that matter) would be, and analysis by a reliable source takes precedence over analysis by Wikipedia editors. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable in this case. Doubly so in falling short of the higher bar for BLP The particular statement logically looks like a baseless derivation/creation. It's not even reliable enough for wp:ver much less the higher standard for BLP. A negative claim about the person with no basis shown. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• A question (and this would apply broadly) is if Bellingcat is the only source that is reporting on the incident in depth that Ngo is talking about, or if Bellingcat is one of several RSes that have discussed the event with Bellingcat's coverage being the broadest or most in-depth? (This would be excluding RSes that are re-iterating Bellingcat's point). If it is the latter case, where there is corroborated sourcing to give the version of events as Bellingcat gives, then there's no question to reliability here per the above. But if it is basically Bellingcat's coverage (or any other quality RS) against what Ngo himself said what happened, with no other sources able to independently explain events around Ngo that night, this should be presented as attributed he-said-she-said rather than putting Bellingcat's statements in WP-voice. That said, at least the current version [11] appears to support that only Bellingcat is discussing the event that Ngo was involved with, and appropriately their statement is attributed, so this is perfectly fine. If there were more corroboration from independent RSes, the attribution would become unnecessary. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge BC is the only source that has made this specific claim about Ngo's tweets with respect to this specific event. The content in question appears at the very end of BC's article. The majority of the article is BC arguing Ngo falsely portrayed a different instance. In that case BC shows a long series of tweets and events that support their subjective POV. The mention of the 2019 incident was at teh very bottom of the article as a way to say, "this wasn't a one off thing". However, a significant difference is in most of the article Ngo is tweeting about something where he was not physically involved or assaulted. In the 2019 case Ngo was personally assaulted. The video does not show Ngo engaging anyone prior to being pepper sprayed and at least one of the sources in the Ngo article specifically said Ngo does not engage in any physical altercations. That Ngo would fixate on the attack against himself seems understandable to me. It is not clear if the larger melee had started before or after Ngo was sprayed. If after that could also explain why he didn't tweet much about the actual fight as he was likely recovering from being sprayed. Regardless, I agree that this is attributed and if BC is wrong then we aren't saying it in Wiki voice. However, that could raise a question of DUE. If this is a claim made by a little known source and who's presented evidence for the claim is weak they is the material DUE? When this content was first proposed in February there was not consensus that it was due. Given the flaky nature of the claim I still don't think it is but this isn't the place for that debate. Also, at this point DUE is often a !vote count and the outcome would depend on how many of the currently active editors are on which side of the debate this week. I won't raise it at NPOVN since I think it would be seen as forum shopping (though both the question of RS and DUE have been raised on the talk page). Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If the incident (specifically Ngo's involvement) is only sourced to Ngo's account and Bellingcat, that is a fair question of UNDUE; we are not here to list out every incident a person may be involved in just because it can be documented. The sourcing is fine if this meets UNDUE, but the UNDUE factor is a separate question. And as to the differences between what Ngo said happened and Bellingcat reported, unless the differences are clearly obvious (eg if Ngo said he was hit by a guy in a green shirt, and Bellingcat said he was hit by a guy in a red sweater), we at WP really can't be there to judge the differences in the video and Bellingcat's take, per OR/SYNTH. We simply can attribute them to Bellingcat. --Masem (t) 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is like "Ngo said red, BC said white" rather "Ngo said red, BC said wet". Instead we might think of it as scope. In the cited tweets Ngo said he was personally attacked/sprayed with pepper spray. So he is talking about his little part of the bigger picture. BC says the bigger picture is PP attacked Cider Riot patrons and Ngo's tweets suggested PP was the attacked without provocation. Ngo's cited tweets didn't say anything about PP or who started the larger melee, only that he personally was attacked. This is why I feel the gab between what is being reported ("Ngo portraying the fight between PP and the patron as unprovoked") is too much a subjective stretch from the evidence provided (or even the tweet string provided by an editor above). Perhaps in some other reporting on the subject BC's claims would have merit but as presented I can't see how we could say BC, a source with limited reputation and weight, has supported their claim. Since the claim is something negative about a BLP subject I think the standards for reliability should be strict hence why I see this as an unreliable source for this specific claim. My view would be different if we were talking about the tweet stream that was the primary focus of the BC article. Springee (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, also anything Ngo says about the incident should be treated with caution. His agenda is firmly pro-Fa. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee is IMO omitting an important piece of information. While Bellingcat is so far as I can tell the only source that has brought in Ngo's tweets, many many sources have covered Ngo's involvement with Patriot Prayer's attack on Cider Riot. The relevant section of our article is here; as you can see it's quite well sourced. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, there's more coverage to the May Day events - though only Bellingcat is apparently the only one talking about the tweets. But that said, reading though and given the subsequent and ongoing lawsuit Ngo filed, associating how Ngo discussed the attacks (and Bellingcat's characterization of them) would fit better there to explain why he filed the lawsuit. But untangling that is not straight forward, and beyond the question of Bellingcat's reliability here. --Masem (t) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Bellingcat has gained an impressive reputaiton in a short time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Providing context for primary sources is exatly why we encorage the use of secondary ones like BC (WP:RSPRIMARY)—blindlynx (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Bellingcat has, as Guy says, gained an impressive reputation for investigative journalism, and in a short time. But, this smacks of the gossip pages. Springee's reasoning gives a good argument for not using it in a BLP and per Masem there are UNDUE issues. We could use it attributed but I don't think we should. Encyclopedia articles are not for "he-said-she-said" rumors. Spudlace (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • More importantly, if Bellingcat is the only RS that has talked about this particular incident (in depth or as part of a larger picture around Ngo), its a problem to call it out that was, regardless of how reliable Bellingcat is. Even if it was the NYTimes reporting that way with its impeccable reliability, we shouldn't include it as we should not be a laundry list of every news article that mentions a person. --Masem (t) 23:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable: Bellingcat is a generally reliable source and we generally aren't in the business of second-guessing reliable secondary sources unless they are blatantly incorrect. That defeats the point of relying on reliable secondary sources: we don't analyze primary sources like Ngo's tweets ourselves but rely on secondary sources like Bellingcat to do it for us. If we're analyzing the tweets themselves to say Bellingcat is wrong, we may as well analyze the tweets and directly put that analysis in the article. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• The source is reliable for such claims, but one must properly summarize what it say. According to the diff, "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists". Yes, this is true, but the main claim by the article (if one reads it) is that Ngo misinterpreded and misused the video. That must be crystal clear from citation. Right now it is not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the BC article discusses two events. The majority of the article talks about a Ngo's twitter commentary related to someone else's video from Nov 2020 protests in Washington DC. BC lays out a good case for while the presentation was misleading. At the very end of the article BC says, in effect, "Ngo did this before" and then shows Ngo's tweets related to the 2019 fight at the Cider Riot bar. Ngo was present at the bar and based on video evidence was sprayed with mace without provocation (beyond trying to film the conflict). Ngo's tweets only said he was personally attacked without provocation and asked others to help him identify the attacker. Springee (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Bellingcat prides itself for using user-generated content and research. Ngo is a frequent target of online citizen activists. It is highly likely that there is a direct line of information being passed between these activists and Bellingcat on this subject, and as such should not be relied upon for Wikipedia. The heavy slant is obvious from reading the content. Nweil (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics.co.uk

Hello,

I seek your guidance.

I would like to know whether the aforementioned website is an acceptable form of source for DOB’s for members of the UK Parliament. The first time I asked this question I did not get a very good response as most of the commentary was on a completely irrelevant subject, but I will let that pass for the moment. On every single page I have looked at, at least 100 of them, they take words verbatim, not just similar, but verbatim transcripts from Wikipedia. I have yet to see a single example of where this is not the case. The policies are clear: Wikipedia is not a source, and the very limited information and credibility of this website makes this very questionable source, indeed. Only one response relevant to my question was given last time I raised this, and they agreed with me that it is a poor and unreliable source. I have therefore marked all MP’s with this poor source indicated with “better source needed” tags, and this is the very least that needs to happen. I don’t think this source has any reliability whatsoever for the reasons set out, and it should be removed quickly.

Hi, I noticed your tags against MPs' dates of birth and followed you here to understand what you were doing. I'm not sure how reliable Politics.co.uk is and will be interested to hear others' views. I cannot see your earlier discussion about the same issue. I can say though that not all the text for MPs on Politics.co.uk is identical with that on Wikipedia. Stuart Anderson (politician), for instance, whom you have tagged, has a much shorter description on Politics.co.uk than his Wikipedia article, though I guess it is possible that Politics is mirroring an earlier version of the Wiki article. Daisy Cooper, also tagged by you, also has a much longer entry on Wiki than at Politics.co.uk. (And please remember to sign your contributions here with four tildes.) Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Previous discussions for reference (these are only the ones I am aware of, and there may be more):
  • WP:RSN: here and here
  • WP:BLPN: here and
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom: here.

JBchrch (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies on the comment signing. I completely agree with your comments, that it will be interesting indeed to see what others think and to have a proper consensus for or against this ghastly source. My charge remains steadfast: almost all (feel free to point out more individual cases where this is not the case) of these articles copy the words of Wikipedia verbatim. I believe any differences reflect what the Wikipedia articles said as the time of the publication of the politics.co.uk source, and I have checked those examples mentioned above which confirmed my suspicions, and they taken parts out of subsections of the respective articles. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. In those circumstances, I fail to see where this source would even have a leg to stand on.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C87D:DAA6:F3C9:28 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you all I will be raising this issue until a consensus is reached for or against this shabby source. I believe it is an affront to our policies if this source is continued to be used without any legitimacy as to its credibility.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:88A5:9E62:F968:31B9 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't personally see a problem with the source. Politics.co.uk is a reputable site. They're in "the thick of it" in terms of British politics and they conduct original research, interviews, write very thorough articles etc. Important to remember that just because you can't see birth years/dates from any other sources on Google, it doesn't mean that others don't have access to this information via avenues like subscriptions (e.g. Debretts, Who's Who etc.) or private spreadsheets and databases (which I can tell you, exist within parliament). You say it is indisputable that they just copy bios from Wikipedia, and yet you don't give any clear cut examples and the user who has responded above has demonstrated in two examples where this clearly isn't the case. Even the BBC structures some bios on the BBC Music site based on their Wiki page, and yet they add plenty of their own information too. There is a big difference between a source which copies irrefutable/already sourced and/or widely available facts (e.g. MP's election date, past professions) from here and one which just blanket copies paragraphs from Wiki pages (unsourced or not). I'm happy with the source and I don't think you've built out your argument enough to really explain just why it's "shabby", "unreliable" as you say etc. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Some of their MP profiles do bear a similarity to Wikipedia articles, but not all of them by any means. Tim Farron writes for the site, and the editor has appeared on Any Questions?. I think the above summary by Jkaharper is pretty reasonable. It would be good to have a better source for the DOBs, but I don’t think this website would want to undermine their reputation by publishing unreliable info on MPs. Their profiles aren’t technically brilliant, but if anything, they read like press releases from the MPs.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is demonstrably terrible and so many of its examples prove that. I suggest better sources be found to replace this awful source.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You ask for examples? No problem. Here is a list of just some, not even all, but some examples of profiles which are taking words either verbatim or to a degree enough to make the plagiarism obvious to even the dimmest of folk. Believe me, I would be here all night if I were to stick them all here. The fact this one source with around MAX two paragraphs of writing has been used to source so many of these DOB’s in itself raises questions. Almost every single one was retrieved on 25 March by the above user, demonstrating they were just looking for a quick fix and were never really interested in verifiability.

Peter Gibson Gareth Davies James Wild Selaine Saxby Taiwo Owatemi Mary Foy Andrew Griffith Beth Winter James Sunderland Mark Fletcher Jo Gideon Simon Baynes Mark Jenkinson Gareth Bacon Luke Evans Tahir Ali Claire Hanna Nicola Richards Jerome Mayhew Ruth Edwards Lee Anderson Simon Jupp Chris Clarkson (politician) Richard Fuller Dave Doogan Sara Britcliffe Kate Osborne Sally-Ann Hart Anthony Mangnall Alyn Smith Paul Bristow Shaun Bailey Duncan Baker Allan Dorans Lia Nici Sarah Atherton

The explanation you provided, which was pure speculation and not fact, suggests that they are “in the thick of it”. Whatever that means, that answer is simply not good enough. I suggest you take a good look at these examples, though I very much doubt you will, and suggest to me again that this pathetic source has one iota of credibility. Yes, some of them are not verbatim, which I believe at best would account for around a third of the articles, again reflecting changes in Wikipedia’s articles that have not reflected on this shoddy website. All one has to do in any case is take a look back through previous revisions to see the ones which do have slight differences are near enough mirrored.

But what comes to mind is that time when a young ambitious Joe Biden stole some words out of Neil Kinnock’s speech, twisted the words a little and made out it was his. Would you turn around and say Biden wrote that speech? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that this terrible source, probably hastily written by a bunch of first year PPE students who clearly cannot even use a keyboard properly, for I spotted so many grammatical mistakes (such as ‘22th’) when posting that all important DOB.

As far as I am concerned, a source that has at best two to three paragraphs, numerous spelling and grammar errors and takes words, in many cases directly out of Wikipedia articles cannot even begin to be considered as an acceptable source. My charge still stands due to the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of your defence and because I want to respect what the above user said, I have not removed them and have instead put in place a better source needed tag. That is the very least that needs to happen, as we need better sources for DOB’s than sites like this. I say again that the fact a huge amount of MPs had this added as their DOB source, over a very short period of time on 25 March, is very concerning. I might finally just add how very telling is it that you apparently find the enforcement of policy a nuisance. Clearly, drab sources and suggesting one should be blocked for implementing policy are just your cup of tea. Thankfully, other users have explicitly pointed out that I deserve credit.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. I can assure you at once I will never cease raising this issue until I receive a satisfactory response.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8162:95A:112E:6ED4 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at your examples, I don’t see a significant issue. As for any similarity in wording between the source and WP, there are only so many ways you can word basic biographical info (and have you considered that if there was any plagiarism, it may actually be the other way around - ie our article copied the source, rather than the source copying WP). Sure, if a better source can be found, I would have no objection replacing it - but I think it is OK until a better source can be found. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The IP editor seems to be unnecessarily denigrating this source. Yes, its biographies of MPs could be better, but it also occurred to me that WP could have plagiarised them originally, not the other way round. Do we have any proof that they copied text directly from WP? It seems typical of the IP editor to attack others, including Politics.co.uk, which is nowhere near as bad as is being suggested. I inserted references from the site because they appeared to be the only readily accessible reliable source with those elusive DOBs. I don’t appreciate the accusation that I just wanted a quick fix and don’t care about verifiability, which isn’t true. This website has been online for a long time and appears to have established itself in British politics. The IP editor seems only too happy to remove dates or question references, without making any effort to find better sources themselves. The Times Guide to the House of Commons is £60, which is why I haven’t purchased it myself. For now, that’s the only other RS for these and other DOBs. It doesn’t even have all of them. Who’s Who will resend their form to MPs again this year. In summary: Politics.co.uk seems fine unless we find a better source - ie. one which actively seeks out DOBs, like those I’ve mentioned. See also this page for more info. Now, I think this discussion is too focused on one section of the Politics.co.uk website. When it comes to the site overall, it has a clear left-liberal bias in its reporting. That should be kept in mind when using it as a source, but The Guardian also has a similar ideological standpoint, and is still considered reliable. Incidentally, Peter Gibson is not the same person as the current MP.—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That is fine. But the tags will certainly remain and any I see removed will be reinstated quite quickly.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:1938:8F91:138:E650 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com)

Is Byline Times [ https://bylinetimes.com/ ], [ https://bylinetimes.com/about/ ] reliable?

This Byline Times is not to be confused with The Byline Times at [ https://byline.com/ ]:

"In 2016 we inherited a site from the founders of Byline.com which – by this point – was the only major surviving crowdfunded news site left."[12]

Also see [13] and [ https://byline.com/2015/04/14/welcome-to-byline/ ] From 2015.

The Byline Times I am referring to was started in 2019:[14]

Some material is "Written by Byline Times and the Citizens".[15]

Previous discussion that started off confusing the two: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Byline Times

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

New, left wing, subscription model, reliable for something in particular? I'm sure the usual suspects will show up claiming it is just like the Canary :) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 April (UTC)

Used to trash various (mostly British) conservatives in multiple articles, and in a few random nonpolitical articles:

• [16] used in Simon Dolan
• [17] used in Killings of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman
• [18] used in Political activities of the Koch brothers
• [19] used in Dominic Cummings
• [20] used in Chris Law
• [21] used in American Institute for Economic Research

We have an article at Byline Times.

I think it is unreliable tabloid editorializing. They sometimes get the facts right, but we should rely on better sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. To me, it seems like hard-left agitation of the worst kind. I think they’ve got in trouble for what they’ve written before, but I could be wrong. Quote this source in context, as editorial opinion, but it’s hugely biased for anything factual.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of uncorrected errors? I note they're not on IPSO register (2019) and of course, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Bias notwithstanding is there evidence of libel cases or extensive revisionism without stated rationale? Chumpih. (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't consider a source to be reliable just because we don't know of any uncorrected errors. per WP:RS the source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Lack of people suing them might just be because they are new or because they are careful to only make stuff up that won't get them sued. Who does the fact checking for bylinetimes.com? Have they ever printed a retraction? Also, look at the website. Do you see factual reporting in the "fact" and "reportage" sections or do you see editorializing? And who the hell are "Byline Times and the Citizens"? Crowdsourcing? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"We stand by the Impress code on corrections. Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year. For any news organisation, that's pretty good." 21 April 2021 Peter Jukes, Executive editor. Keep fishing, tho, might dredge up some actual muck somewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Because Selfstudier neglected to source the above claim, here it is:[22] It was a twitter post by Peter Jukes. (A later post changes that 120 to 220). The post was in response to "Is this like when you 'discovered' the hedge funds that 'paid for no deal brexit' by misreading some charts, Peter?" by Willard Foxton Todd. (I believe this is the same story that was referenced by Dr. Swag Lord below.)

Byline.com is regulated by IMPRESS.[23] bylinetimes.com is not.[24]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I just read that tweet again. Is Peter Jukes actually bragging about bylinetimes not making any corrections? [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] has him beat. They have never posted a correction. That makes them super reliable, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do other reliable sources import material and facts from the bylinetimes? Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Byline Times ran a fake (or, at the very least, highly misleading) story regarding Boris Johnson and Brexit (here, here, and here). And, recently, they ran a fake story on Priti Patel, the current Home Secretary of the UK (as shown here, and here). Reliable sources seem to almost never reference Byline Times for facts or reporting, so they fail WP:USEBYOTHERS, too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like bylinetimes has not printed any retraction or correction on any of those stories. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe so. For the first story, Full Fact stated that: "We have asked Byline Times for more information on which firms they consider to have been direct or indirect Vote Leave donors; they told us they would not release this information for “legal reasons” because they had not contacted those firms. Their follow-up article does not detail the methodology they used to identify these firms as direct or indirect donors." For the second story, Byline Times added an "Update" which was just a Tweet from the British Government--not a correction. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Biased and reliability unclear. The site appears to label its articles into four categories: "fact", "argument", "reportage", and "culture". The main way to tell if an article is in a particular category is to look at the background color, which does clearly delineate the sections but also might be confusing to editors, who have to take the odd step of noting the background color of an article to figure out which section it is in. That being said, some of seem to be very speculation-heavy and might very well be described as news-pinion rather than news. I don't see any plain fabrication of information by the source, since its descriptions are often framed in subjunctive mood or alongside expressions indicating that the source is engaging in speculation but it's clear that opinion gets fused heavily into the articles filed under its "reportage" title. Its "arguments" section is obviously opinion, while its "culture" section seems to contain both possibly news and opinion pieces that aren't clearly marked as either, so I'm hesitant to use its culture pieces as a source for facts. Regarding its pieces put in its "facts" section, I can't really speak to its reliability in particular, though I believe previous users have shown that these two stories in particular. Obviously we shouldn't jump to a conclusion on a source's reliability based upon two incidents (newspapers get things wrong at times), but the lack of a correction on the still-live web articles makes me worry a bit. I would certainly not use them for extraordinary claims, though I think they're probably reliable enough to source quotes.

The reason that I don't have outright certainty on if it's WP:GUNREL is that I do see some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would indicate trust of the sources. I do see use of articles listed in its "reportage", "fact", and even "argument" categories in publications that include a few peer-reviewed journal articles (and a passing mention in another), BMJ editorials and perspective pieces, and a few references to its reporting in a journal that focuses on the Labour party. It also has the obvious issues discussed by previous editors of having published misleading information and having very few news sources that cite it except to note that it published misleading news, which absent the use of the Byline Times for facts by some peer-reviewed journals would lead me to think of it as a clear WP:GUNREL. I think it is probably fair to assess the source as no better that WP:MREL and biased, though I really am having a tough time in determining if the source is better classified as marginally reliable or generally unreliable. I certainly would not use the source if it is the only source of an extraordinary claim or to support a negative claim in a BLP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable assessment for now, I'm glad you noted the use by others. For myself, I would put it as marginally unreliable, see where it is a year from now, of course it should be attributed in all cases.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I can agree with this assessment too. They're almost never referenced by traditional media sources, but it seems that a couple of journals have cited them for facts related to COVID. I would also show caution for matters relating to the Israeli- Palestine Conflict, due to articles like this and this. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliability unclear. I broadly agree with Mikehawk10. Per Selfstudier, I would not class it as "just like the Canary" because, as I said the last time it came up here, the editorial team and senior reporters are all extremely experianced journalists with excellent reputations and a history of working in mainstream legacy media, so I would expect high standards. Having said that, some of the contributors are more controversial, so when attributing it would probably be sensible to attribute to both the author and publisher (e.g. Duncan Campbell (journalist) or Jonathan Portes have strong reputations for accuracy; CJ Werleman and perhaps Nafeez Ahmed do not). The four categories that include "fact" and "reportage" versus "opinion" and "culture" should be helpful, but because individual articles aren't clearly flagged by category (except via colour-coding) it's not immediately obvious. There's definitely an air of sensationalism. I think the best thing would be to class as WP:MREL for now and monitor over time. If the number of misleading (especially if uncorrected) articles (like the Home Office expenses and short positions one) build up we can move to generally unreliable but for now we need caution and attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - proper journalists, doing proper journalism. Strongly opinionated. But not liars, and they cover noteworthy news - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  "Proper journalists, doing proper journalism" print retractions and corrections. Bylinetimes.com brags about not printing corrections, implying that they are so good that they don't make mistakes the way lesser sources like The New York Times do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Your statement appears factually incorrect, per above: "Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year." - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's a suspiciously low percentage (compare with [25]), and I can't find any of those corrections (the claim was sourced to a twitter comment that contained another error and thus it is fair to ask for evidence that they really made those corrections) by searching their site for terms such as "correction" "retract", "update" and "edited to". I didn't read all 12,00 articles, though, so maybe the corrections are there and I couldn't find them. What we do know is that that the bylinetimes.com errors identified in this discussion -- including the one that resulted in the "3 corrections" tweet -- have no corrections or retractions. --Guy Macon (talk)

  "Cover noteworthy news" is something I would have to disagree with. Per their own website: "Byline Times...produce fearless journalism not found in the mainstream media...Byline Times does not intend to report the daily news cycle. That’s for others. Our aim is to concentrate on ‘what the papers don’t say’." So, in essence, the kind of news they do report is not noteworthy. There are serious WP:UNDUE concerns if your only source is Byline Times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think its choice to focus on topics not covered more broadly in the MSM, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily imply that the organization doesn't produce noteworthy reporting. After all, Bellingcat also doesn't really do the same sort of reporting as the MSM, but its reporting is often noteworthy due to its quality and investigative rigor. It of course should be noted, however, that The Byline Times is no Bellingcat in terms of quality or rigor, so I agree that there should be strong caution in using it as the sole source for a fact. I agree that we should almost never use this particular paper for exceptional facts (or negative facts in a BLP) if it is the only source reporting it, though I caution against writing off news outlets that intentionally focus on topics that the MSM does not cover in as much depth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable have run into their stories before and the quality was very poor. Nweil (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Facts.Org.cn (Truth on Falun Gong)

• Source: Facts.org.cn[26], specifically in this article: [27]
• Article: Jun Hong Lu
• Content:

  The Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door created by Lu Jun Hong claimed itself as Buddhism, and was criticized by the public and other religious organization for irrelevant teachings and activities towards Buddhism. An example indicated by the religious specialist which is Lu and the Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door teaches the believer to burn the yellow paper, known as "Little house". However, the burning of "Little house" was pointed out that it is irrelevant towards Buddhism because it does not exist in the Buddhist teaching.The religious ideology founded by Lu were also criticized for intending to profiting the organization and Lu himself.

Notes:

• The purpose of this website seems to be used by some authorities in China to crack down on religious groups and other specific groups
• There is no way to verify the story covered by the website articles.

Is this quialifed as a reliable source to be used in BLP?

Thank you for your time and comments. AutoPrime (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be wary of using any official Chinese source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no indication that its a reliable source, it seems to be the sort of explicit government propaganda that is a big no no BLP wise. I would never use a Chinese government source for a BLP statement that in any way involves religious freedom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and possible blacklist. Propaganda website that does not disclose its government affiliation. See below:

These websites copy the design of news portals, provide information that is aligned with the official policy of the PRC and tend to disguise ownership and authorship, which most of the time is linked to State agencies. [...] Two embassies (Addis Ababa and Lusaka) also provide links to Facts.org.cn, an English-language page providing very critical information about Falun Gong, a religious group banned in China. Although the website is presented as being manned by a private citizen, it appears to have the backing of Office 610, a paralegal security agency responsible for the prosecution of Falun Gong.

Madrid-Morales, Dani (26 June 2017). "China's digital public diplomacy towards Africa: Actors, messages and audiences". In Batchelor, Kathryn; Zhang, Xiaoling (eds.). China-Africa Relations: Building Images through Cultural Cooperation, Media Representation and Communication. Routledge. pp. 129–146. doi:10.4324/9781315229096-8. ISBN 9781315229096. Retrieved 26 April 2021 – via ResearchGate.

— Newslinger talk 16:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Change from "possible blacklist" to "blacklist" — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the Routledge article, other state-affiliated propaganda sites (that do not disclose their state affiliation) include:

• 2 Xinjiang-related sites: chinaxinjiang.cn, ts.cn
• 2 Tibet-related sites: showchina.org, tibet.cn

These sites should also be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 16:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Fix wording — Newslinger talk 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. And thanks for the information regarding the state agency links AutoPrime (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Obvious propaganda is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate and possible blacklist. These sites seem to be state-sponsored propaganda sites that publish false and/or fabricated information. Might be worth it to investigate some of the sites listed on this page to see if there are more sites akin to this one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  thanks for that website. all this is part of a propaganda campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_China).

  i've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. AutoPrime (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Request - My initial impression is probably unreliable as only an activism website, but this is an invitation to post sources. Can other sources about this website be found than from a HK university? I admit not having visited the website yet but the cited quote above is not so surprising, that a cult leader would profit from his business. —PaleoNeonate – 10:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  The quoted source above was authored by Dani Madrid-Morales, who is an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Houston, and that chapter was published by Routledge in London. There's also a brief mention in another academic source by Benjamin Penny, an Australian expert on Chinese religious movements:

Interviewed in 2006 in prison by the government-run anti–Falun Gong website Facts.org.cn, Li [Chang] was apparently reconciled to his imprisonment, acknowledging that "Falun Gong should not be engaged in political affairs." He "recalled that on April 25, in the early morning, he intentionally drove around Zhongnanhai for some time. When he found that more and more people gathered around Zhongnanhai, he couldn't help feeling afraid for he knew what was happening was totally beyond his control. Used to being an official in the Ministry of Public Security, he figured out that he would be punished by law."⁹¹

Interviews with two more of this group, in which they praise the actions of the authorities and regret their lives wasted in Falun Gong, have also appeared on Facts.org.cn.

Footnote

91. Tan Deyin, "Li Chang: It's Tragic for Falun Gong to Go to Politics," online at www.facts.org.cn/krs/wfem/200801/t75987.htm.

Penny, Benjamin (March 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65502-4. Retrieved 27 April 2021 – via Google Books.

The link in the footnote is defunct, but an archived version of the Facts.org.cn article is available: "Li Chang: it's tragic for Falun Gong to go to politics" (2006). The remainder of the article includes statements from Li Chang apparently denying the reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China that were released earlier in 2006 (see: Kilgour–Matas report). Note that, while the interview took place, Li Chang was in prison for his involvement in Falun Gong as a "high-ranking and long-standing practitioner" who was "among those arrested in the first major roundup of Falun Gong figures", according to Penny. Li Chang was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1999. — Newslinger talk 14:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a website setup to oppose Falun Gong, it can't be reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and I support blacklisting. Thanks Newslinger for another source, —PaleoNeonate – 13:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blacklist: We don't accept Falun Gong as a source on the Chinese government, so we should not We don't accept the Chinese government as a source on Falun Gong. Both topics have plenty of reliable sources that we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Depends Reliability depends on what the source is used for. In this case, the website has republished an article previously published in Kaiwind (September 27, 2006). In fact most of the website appears to be republication of articles from other sources. Whether or not any of these articles is reliable depends on whether the original article was reliable. When citing the website, we should follow Say where you read it. Credit the original source and mention that it was found in the Facts.org.cn website.

Original articles should be evaluated as self-published. Their reliability depends on whether or not the author is an expert.

The essay Wikipedia:Interviews provides helpful information about using interviews as sources.

TFD (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Facts.org.cn article in question was not republished from Kaiwind. The Facts.org.cn article link in the original comment is not the right one, but I can see from the page history of the Jun Hong Lu article that the disputed article ("The Beijing News: Guan Yin Citta is an illegal organization with the cult characteristics", now removed in Special:Diff/1020173540) is http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm – which has been moved. It is now available in three locations:

1. Facts.org.cn (new location): http://www.facts.org.cn/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml
2. 2020 archive of Facts.org.cn (old location): https://web.archive.org/web/20200226151659/http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm
3. Kaiwind: http://en.kaiwind.com/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml

The Kaiwind page (#3) is an exact replica of the Facts.org.cn page (#1), including the Facts.org.cn site logo. Note the text "Source:facts.org.cn" on the top-right, which indicates that Kaiwind is the site that republished the Facts.org.cn article, not the other way around. If you go to en.kaiwind.com, you can see that the Kaiwind subdomain is a mirror site of Facts.org.cn. Finally, at the bottom of the 2020 archive (#2), the text "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" indicates that Facts.org.cn is affiliated with Kaiwind. In fact, the 2020 archive of the Facts.org.cn home page has the same "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" text in the footer, confirming that Kaiwind and Facts.org.cn are operated by the same entity. This disclosure was removed from the current version of Facts.org.cn.

Additionally, I have done some more research on Kaiwind, and was able to confirm that Kaiwind is another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. See the section below for details. Both Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind should be added to the spam blacklist.

WP:BLP is the policy governing biographies of living persons, and WP:BLPRS calls for a strict reading of the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline for claims related to living persons (including Jun Hong Lu). Websites operated by the 610 Office, including Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind, do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by these policies and guidelines to be considered a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; kaiwind.com)

After doing some more research, I can confirm that Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; kaiwind.com  ) is an anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office (also known as the Office of Prevention and Handling of Cults), a government agency responsible for the persecution of Falun Gong in China. A search engine query led me to a document published by the Human Rights Law Foundation (HRLF) which confirms this: "HRLF FARA Report with appendices 1-4" (.docx file, 2018). I'm not familiar with the HRLF, so instead of quoting the report directly, I will examine the primary sources cited in the report.

Primary sources confirming the 610 Office's operation of Kaiwind, cited in the 2018 HRLF report

Footnote number	Source	Original text	Translated text
18	"中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》" - Google 2017 archive of Google search result for "中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》" ["The Central 610 Office is leading the organization in Kaiwind.com"] The search result shows a page on beita.gov.cn, the official website of the Beita District Committee of the Communist Party of China (中共北塔区委) and the Beita District People's Government (北塔区人民政). I am unable to access the domain, but a 2021 archive of beita.gov.cn is available here.	为深入贯彻落实中共邵阳市委610办公室《关于在全市集中开展反邪教法制 ... 今年9月－11月，中央610办牵头组织在《凯风网》进行“反邪教法制知识 ...	In order to thoroughly implement the 610 Office of the Shaoyang Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, "Regarding the Centralized Development of Anti-cult Legal System in the City... From September to November this year, the Central 610 Office took the lead in organizing the "Anti-cult Legal Knowledge" on Kaiwind.com ...
19	"《山中帝王师—朱子》简介" ["Introduction to The Emperor of the Mountain-Zhu Zi"] 2017 archive of 2015 article on the official website of the Nanping Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (中国人民政治协商会议南平委员会)	该专题片由中央610办官网“凯风网”提供平台、福建省610办和南平市610办筹拍、南平市政协和南平电视台联合录制	The feature film was provided by the Central 610 Office’s official website "Kaiwind.com", prepared by the Fujian Provincial 610 Office and Nanping 610 Office, and jointly recorded by the Nanping CPPCC and Nanping TV Station.
20	"香格里拉市参加全州反邪教网宣工作培训" ["Shangri-La City Participated in the Statewide Anti-cult Online Propaganda Training"] 2017 archive of 2016 article published by the 610 Office (政法委610办) of Shangri-La City on the official website of the Shangri-La Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (中共香格里拉市委) and the Shangri-La Municipal People's Government (香格里拉市人民政府)	省委防范处理邪教办凯风网主编李少波副处长分析了当前反邪教网宣工作的形势，介绍凯风网基本情况、凯风网作用与特性，凯风网权威性和专业性及未来发展的趋势，分析了我省撰稿供稿情况，同时对上报稿件的共性问题进行分析讲解。会上，李少波提出两点要求：一是克服畏难情绪，大胆投稿；二是发掘培养撰稿人，建设一支撰稿队伍；并指出今后全州上下要继续切实抓好反邪教网宣工作，要把反邪教网宣工作放在维护社会稳定的重要位置来抓。 此次培训丰富了香格里拉市防范处理邪教办工作人员的反邪教网宣理论知识，增强了反邪教网宣的责任感和使命感，对推动反邪教各项工作有着积极的意义。	Li Shaobo, editor-in-chief of Kaiwind.com, Deputy Director of the Office for Prevention and Handling of Cults [610 Office], analyzed the current situation of anti-cult online propaganda work, introduced the basic situation of Kaiwind.com, the role and characteristics of Kaiwind.com, and the authority and professionalism of Kaiwind.com and its future development. The trend of manuscripts in our province is analyzed, and the common problems of submitted manuscripts are analyzed and explained. At the meeting, Li Shaobo put forward two requirements: one is to overcome the fear of difficulties and submit articles boldly; the other is to find and train writers and build a team of writers; and he pointed out that the whole prefecture should continue to do a good job in anti-cult online propaganda work. It is necessary to put the anti-cult online propaganda work in an important position to maintain social stability. This training enriched the anti-cult online propaganda theoretical knowledge of the staff of the Office of Prevention and Handling of Cults [610 Office] in Shangri-La City, strengthened the sense of responsibility and mission of anti-cult online propaganda, and has a positive significance in promoting various anti-cult work.
21	"关于印发《凌云县防范和处理邪教问题 领导小组2016年工作要点》的通知" ["Notice on Printing and Distributing the Main Points of Work of the Leading Group of Lingyun County to Prevent and Deal with Cult Issues in 2016"] 2017 archive of 2016 article published by the 610 Office (610办) of Lingyun County on the offical website of the Lingyun County People's Government Office (凌云县人民政府办公室)	（六）进一步加强警示教育和宣传工作。积极拓宽反邪教警示教育资源渠道，为反邪教警示教育资源库建设提供优秀资料，充分利用资源库平台资源，提高警示教育水平；继续组织通过党员干部现代远程教育网络平台观看反邪教警示教育宣传片，加强党内教育；强化网上宣传工作，充分发挥凯风网广西频道特色栏目强化网上宣传，加强业务培训，加大原创力度，向该频道投送专业性的反邪教稿件，增强知识性、可读性，进一步提升宣传质量及影响力。	(6) Further strengthen warning education and xuanchuan [propaganda, 宣传] work. Actively broaden the channels of anti-cult warning education resources, provide excellent materials for the construction of the anti-cult warning education resource bank, make full use of the resources of the resource database platform to improve the level of warning education; continue to organize to watch anti-cult warning education xuanchuan videos through the modern distance education network platform for party members and cadres, Strengthen internal party education; strengthen online xuanchuan, give full play to the characteristics of Kaiwind.com’s Guangxi channel, strengthen online xuanchuan, strengthen business training, increase originality, and send professional anti-cult manuscripts to the channel to enhance knowledge and accessibility. Readability to further enhance the quality and influence of xuanchuan.
22	"关于组织市直林业系统党员干部参加反邪教法制知识竞赛的通知" ["Notice on organizing party members and cadres of the municipal forestry system to participate in the anti-cult legal knowledge contest"] 2017 archive of 2013 article published on the official website of the Xiangyang Forestry Bureau (襄阳市林业局)	一、竞赛方式 本次竞赛方式是网上答题（答题截止时间为10月31日）。请先从法制网、凯风网或中国反邪教网下载《反邪教法制教育学习问答》学习把握。同时动员组织每位在职党员干部自行登陆凯风网参加答题。具体操作步骤是：打开凯风网首页，进入“六五普法反邪教法制知识竞赛”。打开“竞赛试题”，熟悉所有试题及标准答案。在“我要答题”对话框内，选择所在地区“湖北”，填写本人手机号码，即行答题。在规定的100分钟内答完单选多选判断共60道题后，输入验证码的正确结果，提交答卷，完成赛事。11月份进行评奖总结。经电脑随机抽取的5225名获奖名单（奖金每人50－5000元不等）将在凯风网和有关媒体公布并颁奖。 [...] 并请及时上报本单位获得凯风网电脑抽奖人员情况报局党办，然后由局党办汇总后，统一报市直机关工委。市委市直机关工委将对竞赛活动组织工作成绩突出的单位将以适当方式表扬奖励；对行动迟缓、敷衍塞责、弄虚作假的单位予以批评扣分。	1. Competition method The contest method is to answer the questions online (the deadline for answering questions is October 31). Please download the "Questions and Answers on Anti-cult Legal Education Learning" from the Legal Network, Kaifeng Network or China Anti-cult Network to learn and grasp. At the same time, mobilize and organize every serving party member and cadre to log on to Kaiwind.com to answer questions on their own. The specific steps are: Open the homepage of Kaiwind.com and enter the "Sixth Five-Year Law Popularization and Anti-cult Legal Knowledge Contest". Open the "Contest Questions" to familiarize yourself with all the test questions and standard answers. In the "I want to answer" dialog box, select the region "Hubei" and fill in your mobile phone number to answer the question. After answering a total of 60 questions in the single-choice multiple-choice judgment within the specified 100 minutes, enter the correct result of the verification code, submit the answer sheet, and complete the competition. The award summary will be conducted in November. The list of 5,225 winners randomly selected by the computer (with bonuses ranging from 50-5000 yuan each) will be announced and awarded on Kaiwind.com and relevant media. [...] Please report to the party office of the bureau for the information of the personnel who have obtained the computer lottery draw of Kaiwind.com in a timely manner, and then the party office of the bureau will collectively report to the working committee of the municipal organ. The Municipal Party Committee and Municipal Work Committee will commend and reward units with outstanding achievements in the organization of competition activities in an appropriate manner; criticize and deduct points for units that are slow, perfunctory, and fraudulent.
23	"审计局开展'凯风网'上竟答'六五普法'反邪教法制知识竟赛活动情况" ["The Audit Bureau launched an anti-cult legal knowledge contest on 'Kaiwind.com' to answer the 'Sixth Five-Year Plan' anti-cult legal knowledge contest"] 2017 archive of 2013 article published by the Audit Bureau (审计局) of Chaoyang District, Changchun, on the official website of the People's Government of Chaoyang District, Changchun (长春市朝阳区人民政府)	按照中央610办工作要求，在依法治区办公室的精心安排下，在全区范围内开展“凯风网”上竟答“六五普法”反邪教法制知识竟赛活动。我局接到通知后，领导亲自按排布置，并于9月23日组织全局党员干部，在 “凯风网”上竟答“六五普法”反邪教法制知识竟赛活动，全局所有党员干部共同努力，认真答题，并且都取得了很好的成绩。通过这次竟赛活动，使全局党员干部进一步增强了反邪教法制知识，进一步提高全局同志的社会主义民主法制水平，全面推进依法行政，依法审计。	In accordance with the work requirements of the Central 610 Office, and under the careful arrangement of the district office under the rule of law, "Kaiwind.com" was launched across the district to answer the "Sixth Five-Year Popularization of Law" anti-cult legal knowledge contest. After receiving the notice, our bureau’s leaders personally prepared the arrangement, and organized the overall party members and cadres on September 23 to answer the "Sixth Five-Year Law Popularization" anti-cult legal knowledge contest on "Kaiwind.com". All party members and cadres in the overall situation worked together, answered the questions carefully, and have achieved good results. Through this competition, party members and cadres in the overall situation have further enhanced their knowledge of the anti-cult legal system, further improved the level of socialist democracy and legal system of comrades in the overall situation, and comprehensively promoted administration and audit in accordance with the law.

The above evidence, which features statements from government agencies, conclusively establishes that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) is a propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. While the primary source documents have since been taken offline, the archived pages are still available for verification.

Also, note that Kaiwind hosts a mirror site of Facts.org.cn, another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office, on the subdomain en.kaiwind.com. See the previous section on Facts.org.cn for more information.

Based on this evidence, I propose that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) be added to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Indeed, Kaiwing and facts.org.cn are the same thing.Thanks for your valuable input.--Ba7manG0tham86 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and blacklist, surprised we haven’t done this sooner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Vzglyad (newspaper)

Can Vzglyad (newspaper) be considered a reliable source? I would appreciate wiki community assessment of this source. Grandmaster 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. It's another Russian State propaganda source, founded by Konstantin Rykov. The article itself states "the work of the site was supervised at monthly intervals by Rykov and then deputy head of the internal policy department of the Russian President" That's a big no. --Jayron32 17:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  My own research also suggests that it is problematic: [28] Grandmaster 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's referenced an awful lot here. Might be a candidate for deprecation. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Last time I checked, they certainly had pro-government and nationalist bias. The ru wiki article says it's controlled by an NGO which is financed by various state-owned companies. I'm not aware of specific issues but generally I would not use such a source. Can you provide some context for your request? Is it related to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by any chance? Alaexis_¿question? 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it was used in that article too to make some claims about living persons. Such claims require strong sourcing, and I would like to know how reliable this source is, considering that Russia is directly involved in the developments in the region and has its own stakes in the game. Grandmaster 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Since 2013, Vzglyad was owned by the organisation headed by the former deputy head of the internal policy department of the Presidential Administration of Russia (Dmitry Badovsky).
  Former editor in chief of Vzglyad Alexander Shmelev said that the newspaper was the "forefront of the [authorities] campaign" during 2007-2008 elections: "the toughest propaganda materials passed through us, as a result of which the very word Vzglyad has become a household name in blogs and social networks." The Atlantic, Andrei Soldatov,, Meduza and The Guardian call Vzglyad "pro-Kremlin". Transitions Online call it "pro-United Russia Party". Pulitzer Prize laureate investigative journalist Olesya Shmagun, who worked in Vzglyad, called it an example of "Surkov's propaganda". She said: "I was invited there by my former editor, he convinced me that I should not believe the reviews on the Internet. But it quickly became clear that all the stereotypes about Vzglyad turned out to be true." According to the newspaper Realnoe Vremya, Vzglyad is known for its closeness to the authorities. On August 17, 2017, Vzglyad came under the control of another organisation, associated with the presidential administration headed by Anton Vaino. Vzglyad is unofficially funded by the Russian government to promote the Russian interests. Vzglyad pushes anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and spreads COVID-19 misinformation. Omits important information: [29] and pushes anti-EU propaganda: [30]. Eurotopics says, that Vzglyad has a pro-governmental political orientation: "The website ... is published by a sociology institute with close ties to the Kremlin."--Renat 20:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This is a propaganda outlet by Russian state. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable, this is a state propaganda outlet.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, they do not appear to have a reputation for fact checking nor do they appear to be independent. In fact we have WP:RS clearly calling what they publish disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just because a source is pro-government doesn't necessarily mean it is unreliable. Almost every newspaper has some kind of bias. Is there any evidence of Vzglyad having a history of publishing false or fabricated information? --Steverci (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per other contributers. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 15:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Xinhua

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC on Radio Free Asia acknowledged that for geopolitically sensitive subjects, in-text attribution of RFA's claims is appropriate. There is an acknowledgment that in some sensitive subject areas, RFA is a biased source with a somewhat checkered record. As I pointed out in the RfC, RFA has pushed disinformation over the last year about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting completely wild figures that are orders of magnitude higher than scientific estimates. RFA recently suggested that 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province. That's over 30 times the scientific estimates, which are typically around 4500. An excess mortality study finds about 4600 excess pneumonia deaths in Hubei province during the outbreak. A study in Nature estimates a CoVID-19 death rate of 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in Wuhan, which translates to approximately 4000 deaths in total in the city. These studies (and a host of others on seroprevalence: [31] [32] [33]) all paint a consistent picture of the overall level of mortality in Wuhan and Hubei province, in the range of 4500 deaths. The figures that RFA has been pushing, as high as 150,000, are just wild conspiracy theorizing. This is the sort of reporting that led to the RfC result that in-text attribution is appropriate for RFA in geopolitically sensitive subject areas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right now [34] we cite a US government-funded newsource [35] and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" [36] to reproduce the allegation that the Mosque has been transformed into just a tourist attraction.

However, the imam of the actual mosque itself, Memet Jume, disputes this in multiple Chinese media sources [37][38][39]. Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination [40].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unreliable/propaganda for any claims related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, such as the claim under discussion. This is according to consensus in previous discussion linked at the top [41]. Is it reliable in general? Of course not, although it probably might be used for noncontroversial non-political info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support inclusion of the twitter video with attribution as a primary source as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. A mosque would be most analogous to the business example on the page, which states primary sources are acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions." Whether a plaque is in place or not is both simple and objective (and controversial, but that is unmentioned). WP:ABOUTSELF similarly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." We should be careful when using primary sources, especially a clearly biased one like this, but in this situation they are allowed with attribution. In such a controversial example, the best thing to do would be to report what the primary source has to say on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Include. Xinhua is a reliable source for this type of information; it is one of the main news agencies in the country, and other reliable sources regularly rely on its reporting. In-text attribution is probably a good choice in this context, given the controversy. To include the Radio Free Asia claim but omit Xinhua's reporting on the issue would make a mockery of WP:NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Xinhua is under the control of the People's Republic of China, which routinely disappears people who hold the wrong opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding Geo TV / Geo News (geo.tv)

The largest and most well-known Pakistani media outlet, and one that I've used frequently as a source, particularly when writing about Turkish TV. I would say it is reliable in its entertainment info. It offers occasional political commentary, although that is usually from field experts and should probably be considered in the same light as The Guardian. IronManCap (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close This isn't how a RfC is started, and there's no need to have one unless there are unresolved or repeated disputes. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Then better just have this as a regular discussion (without the RfC bit, since the RfC template was not even added anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, newbies offen get that wrong despite the clear instructions at WP:RfC. Best to just quietly convert the pseudo-RfC to a normal discussion. Maybe we could create a user talk page template that starts with "Hi! I noticed that you labeled a discussion as and RfC without reading the instructions at [[W{:RFC]]. I have converted it to a regular discussion (optional: ...and moved it to the article talk page at X)." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to discussing geo.tv...

We have an article on Geo TV with a URL of https://harpalgeo.tv/ but I don't think that is the right Wikipedia article. The correct article appears to be at Geo News. Are they the same? Should the articles be merged?

Also, whenever I deal with a non-English source that has an English version, I always ask whether someone who speaks both languages could compare the two versions. Some sources just do a straight translation. A lot of them do a straight translation but only on selected articles. Sometimes you get wildly different content and editorial standards. Could someone who speaks both languages please tell me which ois true for geo.tv?

Despite the name, [ https://www.geo.tv/about-us ] is a contact-us page. The actual about-us page is at [ https://www.geo.tv/corporate-profile ].

[ https://www.geo.tv/privacy-policy-and-tos ] is interesting. That page led me to Jang Media Group, Daily Jang, and The News International. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian and Guy Macon:Sorry about putting this on this page, I saw other sources being listed and assumed this was how to get a reliability check. About Geo TV vs Geo News, the News is the news and bulletin branch of the outlet, whilst 'TV' is the station for airing various TV programs, including the likes of Geo Entertainment. Geo as a whole is owned by the larger Jang Media Group, which includes other outlets such as Daily Jang and The News International. If this is indeed given a reliability rating, maybe it should be done under the single 'Jang Media Group' header. I think the given website for Geo TV is correct as an on-demand website for the TV branch. IronManCap (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You are doing fine, and this was a really good question to bring up. Wikipedia can be confusing for a new(ish) user, which is really more our fault than the new(ish) user's fault.

I just looked over a dozen articles on that site, and to me it looks like they print uncontroversial news items with a strong emphasis on local Pakistani stories. Unless someone gives me a reason to believe otherwise I am going to call this one as generally reliable. Of course some of their articles are useful as citations in an encyclopedia[42] while other articles are only of local interest[43] but that's true of most news sources.

Speaking of local news, I found this to be especially heartwarming. The world is full of good people. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for most things but not politics, religion, or civil rights. Geo is decent by Pakistani standards, but those standards are incredibly low. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Could I ask what you are basing that on? IronManCap (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I consume a lot of english language asian media, Geo is a tier below Dawn (newspaper) and Dawn isn’t super strong if we’re comparing it to global benchmarks like NYT, The Guardian, etc so I feel like putting Geo in the Generally Reliable tier would be a misstep. Their coverage is often a bit too sensational but that seems to be a journalism wide problem than anything to fault them specifically on, why I say to be careful when it comes to politics, religion, or civil rights is that Geo tends to mirror the opinions of its ownership on those issues while maintaining, at least in my opinion, a more open mind on other topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RandomCanadian and Guy Macon: Any comment? Do we need a broader assessment of Pakistani media? IronManCap (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  My opinion was based upon 10 minutes of reading articles, so I would defer to HIB if they have looked more closely. How about reliable with attribution? Would that work for everybody? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Amazon as a source

There's been a recent debate on a number of articles on biographical books as to the reliability of Amazon.com as a source of information for publication dates and other information:

• Madonna: An Intimate Biography
• Madonna: Like an Icon
• Rekha: The Untold Story
• Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar
• Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy

A user started removing these sources, calling them spam, which sparked a sort of edit war. I personally see no problem using it per WP:AMAZON, but it would be good to settle it specifically here in relation to these particular articles. Please weigh in on this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: This what you means right? OK, I get it. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is how Amazon.com links have been used in the last four of the articles listed above:

• In Sridevi: The Eternal Screen Goddess, the sentence

  The book was published by Random House on 16 December in the hardcover format.[5] Its Amazon Kindle and audiobook edition were released on 20 December and 12 February 2021, respectively;[6] the latter was publisher by Random House Audio and narrated by Shaayan Bhattacharya.[7]

  has three separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Rekha: The Untold Story, the publication of the two Kindle editions (Hindi and English)in the Publication history table have separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy, the sentence

  Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy was published on 13 March 2018 in a hardcover format by Juggernaut Books, marking Usman's second collaboration with the publishing company following Rekha: The Untold Story in 2016.[5]

  and the sentence

  A second hardcover printing was released on 31 March,[8] and its paperback and Amazon Kindle editions followed on 20 September 2019 and 1 June 2020, respectively.[9][10]

  together have four diffrerent reference links to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.
• In Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar, the sentences

  Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar was released by Penguin Books on 5 December 2014 on Amazon Kindle.[6]

  and

  The book was published in a paperback edition on 13 December 2014 in India.[9]

  each has a reference link to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.

The point I have made in the discussions about the matter is that the information that is verifiable through amazon.com is also verifiable through the ISBN templates. I have not looked at the Madonna book articles, but if direct links to Amazon is used to verify basic bibliographic information, that would almost certainly not be appropriate there either. --10:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I tend to accept your stand that the ISBN could be taken to support information re publication dates. So it might be a good idea to remove these souces across the board. That being said, since you are an involved party, let's see what others say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: You want me to use the template {{Cite book}} to replace the Amazon citations, didn't you? I actually don't know what the ISBN templates you mean here... --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, "ISBN template" was not a very exact description. What I meant was that having a link to Special:BookSources for the ISBN of the book is enough, because a page such as Special:BookSources/978-81-93284-18-6 (which is the ISBN BookSources page for Rekha: The Untold Story) gives the reader the option of checking the information about the book at Google Books or in a library catalogue – or, indeed, in Amazon. In my opinion, if you want to add a reference to support a statement about a particular edition, {{cite book}} including the "isbn" parameter is very useful. Other contributors might have other suggestions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Before I continue, please take a look at Rekha: The Untold Story first. Am I correct? --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

New York Post

In October last year, New York Post reporters refused to write a story about "Hunter Biden's laptop" that even Fox rejected,[44] but the Post put it on the front page anyway.

Last weekend another politically motivated fabrication was published on the front page:

Under the tabloid-ready headline “KAM ON IN,” The Post, which is controlled by the conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch, claimed that copies of a children’s book written by Vice President Kamala Harris were provided at taxpayer expense in a “welcome kit” for unaccompanied migrant children at a shelter in Long Beach, Calif.
[...]
But the claims were untrue. And on Tuesday, the Post reporter who wrote the original article said she had resigned from the paper because of “an incorrect story I was ordered to write,” describing the episode as “my breaking point.”

— https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/business/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris.html

This is not a journalistic error. In both cases the paper ordered the writing and front page placement of false stories its own staff identified as dubious. The Post is currently marked "generally unreliable". I think it should probably be deprecated and potentially even blacklisted. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it's usually been claimed that correcting an error is generally a positive sign. I see that the article no longer claims that Harris' books are distributed to migrants [45]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is usually true yes. However that is as a result of publishing in good faith and later being corrected. Not as the journalist here claims, where from the outset it was known it was not true. Thats the key difference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, according to this journalist. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, who, you know, was forced to write the article, and then resigned in disgust. So that's two egregious fabrications on the front page. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d give it a minute to see if we get confirmation of the reporter’s story from more than the NYT, those are certainly shocking allegations and *if true* would put NYP solidly into deprecate territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the Washington Post and CNN have detailed reports that agree with the NY Times report, and also say that the NY Post correction did not correct all of the falsehoods in the original report (in fact, repeating the part that the book in the photo was given to an immigrant child). NightHeron (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have a major issue here then. On a side note don’t we need to open an RfC to deprecate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post acknowledged the error, posted a different story, and got the resignation of the reporter. The reporter responsible for the falsehood is now making a claim that some Wikipedia editors seem to think is worth considering without seeing whether there's any corroboration, but the verifiable facts point to: the New York Post did what we expect from a reliable source. In any case, if somebody had rushed to put it in Wikipedia, it could have been corrected on the appropriate page instead of going to WP:RSN without saying what Wikipedia page was affected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, no they did not. They partially corrected the story after they were caught out, but it still contains substantial inaccuracies, and has not been retracted despite having been made up from whole cloth by them. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story. Regarding the Harris book, the paper updated the story to include the correct details, which other organizations do all the time. Again this is common and happens all the time, and is expected of reliable sources when they make a mistake. In fact, the USA Today just recently edited a Stacey Abrams op-ed changing the tone of her support for boycotts in Georgia once a particularly impactful one was announced. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story". Oh dear, reality must be difficult sometimes (i.e. no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion). Anyway, it appears that the paper told her to write a false story. If that is the case, then yes we must Deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion The funny this is that I've been trying to argue this for a few weeks now at the FAQ section for the laptop. According to CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. What do you think is false or wrong with the Post story? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it would be greatly quicker to list all the things which have been proven true about it: there was a laptop. Everything else is somewhere on the scale from doubtful to known Russian disinformation. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "known" Russian disinformation about the Biden laptop story. Some suspect it, but there's no proof yet. Maybe we'll find out soon after this FBI raid at Giuliani's place? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, ah, so you haven't been keeping up with the intelligence declassifications. Since 2020. OK, then. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had an actual site guideline for when a generally unreliable source should become deprecated. For example, my understanding is we deprecate sources to prevent sloppy (or outright deceptive) reporting reaching and misinforming readers. The source is already considered generally unreliable, and at minimum that appears to be the correct classification based on this incident as well. To bump that up to deprecated surely there should be evidence that the status quo is proving insufficient. So: did someone actually try to push that New York Post story into an article, and did it successfully gain consensus to be pushed into an article? Does the NYP have these issues outside of American politics? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Separately, Fox News seems to be mentioned in the NYTimes report Guy links for their false reporting, apparently they repeated a report from the Daily Mail (lol).[46][47][48] Fox is currently at no consensus. Does this event constitute reason to up it to generally unreliable for politics? Again, a lack of site guidelines on generally unreliable sources is seemingly resulting in inconsistent outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be good to have a little more general guidance about the difference between pink, red, and gray at WP:RSP. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Fox's reaction to the Jan 6 insurrection was to fire Chris Stirewalt, who correctly called Alabama for Biden, and to promote bot Maria Bartiromo (a proponent of the Big Lie) and give more airtime to Tucker Carlson (Big Lie proponent now promoting white supremacist talking points to the delight of Stormfront, VDARE, The Daily Stormer and David Duke).

For the avoidance of doubt: fuck yeah. Fox is unreliable for politics. Entirely unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Arizona, not Alabama. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Status quo for this source seems OK, this incident would only reinforce what we already know and what WP:RSPSOURCES already says about NYP. --Chillabit (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• This journalistic malfeasance does not make The Post more reliable. At any rate, the new head of The New York Post is from [ WP:THESUN!!! ], so we probably should at least update with that info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is indicative of a sick process within the NY Post. In no way does it reflect well upon them. I can sympathize with the inclination to push them even further into the red at WP:RSP, though I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in practice. Do we have a problem with people trying to push their stories here that the current rating is inadequate to handle? (I'm not asking rhetorically; in my experience, the status quo seems to have been adequate, but I don't see everything.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search says that the New York Post is being used on 12,000 pages, which seems like an awful lot for a source whose RSP rating is generally unreliable. Furthermore, at a glance a lot of the usage seems to be for politics, especially New York City politics, which is the usage that the current RSP rating specifically warns against. It might make sense to depreciate it for politics specifically, although I would be more inclined to depreciate entirely - my assumption would be that it's not that the Post publishes more false stories about politics, just that those tend to get caught more often because they are more alarming. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to change from the status quo. If we have contentious information that is only corroborate to the Post, it should be removed as potentially wrong; but the Post otherwise usually is corroborating contentious information with other sources, but that means we should simply replace the Post with other sources, it should be. When the material is not contentious (eg around entertainment news) it seems far less in any type of hot water. Basically if the store seems to be front page clickbait, we should clearly avoid the Post and use other sources. --Masem (t) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entertainment? Good for celebrity gossip should mean, wrap fish with it and throw it away. At any rate, do they really "corroborate", would that not require real journalism work? As opposed to say, notice a donated book on a bed in a Reuters picture, and write 500 words of innuendo and falsehoods about someone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not celebrity gossip (though they do engage in that too and that should be swept away broadly that we simply don't do celebrity gossip). I mean, they will talk to producers/directors/actors to gain insight on a production if it happens in NYC, which is useful information for a show or film. We're probably talking different departments here at play, their "news" department ordered to be as sensational as possible while an "arts" department, far under the fold, is under far less pressure to draw readers so can actually be journalistic. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would at least deprecate this source for politics related content. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per what I said above I'd lean towards depreciation. This seems like a pretty clear-cut pattern of intentionally publishing false or misleading stories, which is the baseline for depreciation; more alarmingly, it looks very much like the current RSP rating isn't doing its job, since the Post is currently cited 12,000 times, many of them for politics or even New York City politics, which is the precise topic area where its current RSP entry specifically says it should not be used. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate for political topics specifically I think this and the many other incidents in the past have shown that the NYP can't be trusted for accurately reporting on political topics and, in fact, can be known for fabricating political stories that they then front-line. For that reason, I think any usage of the NYP for political articles and topics should be deprecated. For anything non-political, I think they are still trustworthy until/unless we obtain further evidence in the future that this corruption has spread to other parts of their news departments. Silverseren^C 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would oppose deprecation and support the status quo, seeing as the NY Post does post op-eds and opinion pieces from notable individuals in U.S. politics, including sitting senator March Rubio and the mayor of New York City, The Speaker of NYC's Council, among others. A blanket deprecation would catch these opinion pieces as well, which may very well influence the ability of the project to provide balance on these sorts of issues, which might affect our ability to cover relevant political reactions (especially in New York City local politics), and it might help us to retain the source as generally usable for the quotes of these authors as it pertains to issues of public controversy. WP:GUNREL maintains that it is generally unreliable for facts, which appears very much to be the case, but deprecation might be a bridge too far here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see that 6 discussions about the reliability of NYP have already taken place. Now I've seen movie reviews or film festival coverage published by NYP deleted from film articles based on WP:RSP. Whatever results from this particular discussion, a distinction needs to be made between using NYP for news stories and fact checking -- and an article such as a film review. We should not be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the last few comments, I'd now say that I support deprecation. As Aquillion says, the current RSP rating isn't doing its job. I don't see a reason to separate out politics from other subjects; fundamentally, if they're willing to pull shenanigans on one topic, I don't see why we should respect them on any other. Tabloids will tabloid. Nor should we presume that they take any particular care in whose opinion pieces they run. Opinions are cheap, and for our purposes, they are not noteworthy unless reliable sources have taken note of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: The laptop story is referred to above as a politically motivated fabrication, but my understanding was that the laptop story had been substantially verified now. At least, the central element of the story that many people originally called into question - the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden - is now assumed by many (including the law enforcement agencies that have possession of the laptop) to be true. According to a recent CNN article,

Hunter Biden told CBS News in an interview clip released on Friday that he has 'no idea whether or not' the laptop belongs to him, but acknowledged that it was 'certainly' a possibility, before raising several other theories.

A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop.

I would genuinely be interested in hearing if there was some other aspect of the story that turned out to be false, but right now, I don't understand why this story is being characterized as a fabrication above.

Beyond the question of the laptop story, deprecation is a drastic step, and should only be taken for very few sources. I think there are problems with the NY Post (it's a tabloid, with the typical sensationalism that one finds in that medium), and editors should certainly be aware of its political leanings, but I don't think we should go as far as deprecating it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Geeksforgeeks.org

• geeksforgeeks.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I noticed this added by an account which was primarily a spam account. They did add one or two legit links in the mix, and I can't tell if this is one of them. When I do a source search I see we have 51 articles that use it. It seems like it's primarily intended to sell its services, but figured I'd check here in case it's better than it seems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I searched for http://geeksforgeeks.com/ and it says the domain is for sale. —El Millo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: oops. fixed. .org — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Their About page shows no sign of editorial oversight. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Billions of Users, Millions of Articles Published"? Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

I don't know who is violating who's copyright, but do a google search on "Like Binary Search, Jump Search is a searching algorithm for sorted arrays. The basic idea is to check fewer elements" (with the quotes). You will get similar results on just about any phrase you pick randomly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I came across this site when reverting edits by a spam account. There were a couple links to Britannica and one to this, but all of their other edits were to garbage content farms (now blacklisted). If this is likewise a garbage content farm, it at least looks a little better than the others, but it would not be a shock... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Beebom.com

As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Beebom.com, I found this website while searching for ways to improve tower defense articles. Ferret said that there is no editorial staff there and merely just "staff".

I can't find a staff listing or editorial policy. A great deal of the content on the front page right now has no Author byline, simply "Staff". It's not a video game focused site, so WP:RSN may serve you better.

So can we safely say that Beebom.com is unreliable? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I looks borderline to me, they seem to be decently old and say many of the right things and they have an active hiring section with a posting for an "Assistant Editor/Editor” so they do seem to have some sort of editorial process but I can’t find a listing of editors and I’ve never heard about them before. It might be a group blog but we really need more information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence

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.

---

consensus below is that this is not a valid RfC as if fails to make any brief and neutral statement of the issue.

Last year, a consensus was reached in a RFC that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory. This is the hypothesis that there is a non-zero genetic contribution to variation in average IQ scores between racial or ethnic groups, as opposed to it being caused 100% by environmental factors. Last year's decision is generally understood to require about 45 otherwise reliable sources to be removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, and also to require the inclusion of material that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources that it cites. As explained in this edit summary, these conclusions about required or prohibited material are based on the authority of the sources that were the basis for the previous RFC decision (8 sources).

The question that needs to be answered is: Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented? The decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory needs to be re-examined with respect to whether these consequences of the classification are compatible with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:V.

• Option 1: The hereditarian hypothesis is mainstream.
• Option 2: The hereditarian hypothesis is controversial but not fringe, as is it was classified from 2010 until a year ago (see this discussion). WP:WEIGHT describes this type of theory as a "significant minority" view.
• Option 3: The hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory (i.e. how it has been classified for the past year).

See below for further details regarding the specific sources at issue, as well as the material whose verifiability is disputed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Detailed overview

Issue 1: Source removal/exclusion

The decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has required most books and papers that give credence to this hypothesis to be removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, amounting to about 45 sources. In this RFC I'm using the term "excluded" for cases where someone tried or proposed to add a source to an article, and was prevented from doing so. It should be emphasized that classifying the hereditarian viewpoint as a fringe theory has rendered these sources are inadmissible per WP:PROFRINGE, that is, "The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year."

The following are sources that last year's decision has required to be removed or excluded from articles. This list leaves out some removals of low-quality or outdated sources, as those removals can be justified independently of the RFC. Many diffs appear in this list more than once, as most of these edits removed more than one source at a time.

Sources removed or excluded from articles based on the previous RFC decision (approximately 45 sources)

Papers published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences by Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010), [49] Rushton (2012), [50] Becker and Rindermann (2016), [51] Woodley et al. (2016), [52] and Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2017). [53] The last source is about the Flynn effect and does not mention race, but it was removed because of its similarity to other papers that support the hereditarian view. Most (but not all) of the material cited to the review by Hunt and Carlson (2007) published in Perspectives on Psychological Science. [54] [55] [56] [57] Other papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science by Gottfredson (2007) [58] and Pietschnig and Voracek (2015). [59] The Pietschnig and Voracek paper is another paper that does not discuss race, but was removed because of its indirect association with hereditarian research. Papers published in the journal Intelligence by te Nijenhuis and van der Flier (2013), [60] [61] Murray (2006), [62] Murray (2007), [63] Rindermann and Thompson (2013), [64] Gottfredson (1997), [65] Lubke et al. (2003), [66] Kanazawa (2008), [67] Teasdale and Owen (2008), [68] and Christainsen (2013). [69] A paper published in PLOS One by Rindermann and Pichelmann (2015). [70] A paper published in Psychological Assessment by Campbell (1996). [71] A paper published in Frontiers in Psychology by Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2016). [72] A paper published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience by Wicherts at al. (2012). [73] A paper published in Psychological Review by Dickens and Flynn (2001). [74] A year later, a citation to this source was added in a different part of the article, [75] but the originally removed material from this source has never been restored. A paper published in Nature Neuroscience by Posthuma et al. (2002). [76] A clear reason was not given for removing this source, but its removal appears to be a follow-up to this removal of material cited to Hunt and Wicherts, as the Nature Neuroscience paper is about the same topic as the paragraph that was removed in the earlier edit. A paper published in Scientific Reports by Kang et al. (2020). [77] This source is about ethnic group differences in brain structure and how they relate to differences in visual processing, so the attempt to add this source did not correctly summarize its findings. However, this is one of the newest and highest quality sources to be prohibited by last year’s RFC, having been published last December in a Nature journal. A paper published in Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki by Ko (2016). [78] A paper published in Human Genetics by Shi et al. (2017). [79] A paper published in International Journal of Neuroscience by Rushton and Ankney (2009). [80] A paper published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience by Cairo (2011). [81] James Flynn's book Are We Getting Smarter? (Cambridge University Press, 2012). [82] Flynn was not a hereditarian; this source was removed as part of an edit that blanked five paragraphs of text, eliminating the discussion of a concept by both hereditarians and their opponents. Most (but not all) of the material cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2010). [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] The removal in the second diff is especially significant, because this eliminated the article's only explanation of how race's status as a social construct does not make it impossible for racial IQ gaps to have a partially genetic component (because despite being socially constructed, racial categories also correlate with genetic variation). The chapter by Niu and Brass on international variation in IQ scores in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2011). [90] All material that had been cited to Heiner Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018). [91] [92] The Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence article has been deleted entirely, so it is not possible to provide diffs of the removals from that article. But prior to its deletion the most important prohibited source was Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, along with the various secondary sources that gave credence to this paper, including The New York Times and The Economist. It was explained in this discussion that the result of last year's RFC specifically prohibits citing sources that support this paper's hypothesis. The following is an incomplete list of other sources related to the JBS paper's hypothesis that have been removed or excluded, based on diffs that can be collected from non-deleted articles and talk pages: A paper published in Mens Sana Monographs by Gilman (2008). [93] [94] A paper published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences by Dunkel et al. (2019). [95] A paper published in Human Nature by Cofnas (2018). [96] A 2010 article in the New York Times by David Brooks. [97] [98] This is a separate article from the (also excluded) 2006 New York Times article about the JBS paper. An 2007 article in Commentary magazine by Charles Murray. [99] [100] A 2006 article in The New Republic by Steven Pinker. [101] Cochran and Harpending's book The 10,000 Year Explosion (Basic Books, 2009). [102] Jon Entine's book Abram's Children (Hachette Digital, 2007). [103] In this discussion it was mentioned that the prohibited sources also include In the Know by Russell Warne (Cambridge University Press, 2020), and the chapter about international IQ differences in The Nature of Human Intelligence edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2018). In this edit summary and this one, it was stated by that writings by Charles Murray are no longer considered a reliable source about any topic, and it was stated here that all work by Heiner Rindermann is now "seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence". The Google scholar profiles of Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann list several hundred works with mostly mainstream publishers, so these judgments potentially apply to hundreds of sources that would otherwise satisfy WP:RS. There is a tension between these decisions and an existing decision made last year at the reliable sources noticeboard, which found books published by Cambridge University Press to be reliable sources with respect to the R&I topic, and specifically mentioned Hunt and Rindermann as appropriate experts in this area.

These ~45 sources are not a complete list of the sources prohibited by last year's RFC, because this list does not include source removals for which no diffs can be provided, due to the removals having occurred on an article that was subsequently deleted (Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence). I also have not attempted to list every publication by Murray and Rindermann affected by the judgment that all of these authors' works are unreliable sources, or any other sources sympathetic to the hereditarian view—and presumably prohibited for that reason—beyond those that have been directly removed or blocked from inclusion.

The sources that the previous RFC outcome was based on—and consequently, the sources that are the basis for removing or excluding the other 45 sources—were listed here. The following is a complete list of the sources the previous RFC outcome is based on that discuss race and intelligence. (Note this qualifier: this list does not include two sources that were misleadingly presented as supporting the RFC outcome but that argued only against racial discrimination or racial essentialism, without mentioning intelligence or IQ.)

Sources that the previous RFC decision was based on (8 sources)

Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini (Beacon Press, 2019). The Trouble with Twin Studies by Jay Joseph (Routledge, 2015). The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (W. W. Norton & Co., 1981, republished 1996). The Science and Politics of I.Q. by Leon J. Kamin (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1974). A paper published in American Psychologist by Smedley and Smedley (2005). A 1994 statement published by the American Anthropological Association. A second, 1998 statement from the American Anthropological Association. The 1998 statement itself does not mention intelligence or IQ, but the AAA's background information about this statement says that it was a follow-up to their 1994 statement (the previous item on this list), which does discuss the topic. The sixth edition of Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten (Wadsworth, 2004). I have examined later editions of this book, and in every subsequent edition published from 2007 to the present, the wording that was quoted in last year's RFC has been modified to make it less strong. In the RFC this source was quoted as saying, "However, heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses", but later editions instead say, "Critics argue that heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses". The current (2017) edition of this book presents the views of both hereditarians and their critics, without arguing for one side over the other.

Issue 2: WP:Verifiability concerns

The outcome of last year's RFC is generally understood to require the inclusion of content that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources it cites. The disputed sentence (which is present in multiple Wikipedia articles) states: "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." The most-discussed source for this sentence is Earl B. Hunt's widely used 2010 textbook Human Intelligence. The most relevant passage from this source (on pages 434–435) is as follows:

Rushton and Jensen, and in other writings (to be discussed in the next section) Lynn make a few more points, but these are their major ones. In general, I find their arguments not so much wrong as vastly overstated. But overstatement does not mean that there is no point to them. Rushton and Jensen present two conclusions:

1. They argue that the hypothesis that Black-White (and by extension, Asian and Hispanic) differences in intelligence are entirely due to environment, the hypothesis they refer to as the 100% environmental hypothesis, cannot be maintained.
2. They propose an alternative "default hypothesis" that the Black-White difference is 80% due to genetic differences. They base this conclusion on the observation that within Whites intelligence test scores have a heritability coefficient of .8.

Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one.

This part of Hunt's textbook is available at Google books. I strongly encourage everyone voting in this RFC to examine the full context of the excerpt quoted above, including Hunt's preceding summary of the hereditarian arguments he is reviewing here, and evaluate for themselves whether "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position.

This issue was recently discussed at the No Original Research noticeboard. The consensus in that discussion, as I understand it, is that the disputed sentence is required by the outcome of last year's RFC regardless of whether it is supported by its sources or not. Some recent examples this argument being used to shut down WP:Verifiability based objections to the material can be found here, here, and here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey (race and intelligence)

• Option 2: controversial but not fringe.

The race and intelligence article is under a sourcing restriction that allows only "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers", and prohibits misrepresentation of sources. Of the eight sources that the "fringe" classification is based on, there are only three that satisfy this requirement and were published in the past twenty years: the Joseph, Smedley & Smedley, and Weiten sources. As noted in the second collapsed section above, in the case of Weiten's book the previous RFC quoted an outdated (2004) edition of this book, and every subsequent edition of Weiten’s book does not support the argument that was cited to it. The sourcing restriction technically only applies to the article itself, not to talk pages and RFCs, but it is going against the spirit of the restriction to use these sources as a basis for removing or excluding material published in eighteen peer-reviewed journals (Personality and Individual Differences, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Intelligence, PLOS One, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience, Scientific Reports, Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki, Human Genetics, International Journal of Neuroscience, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Journal of Biosocial Science, Mens Sana Monographs, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Human Nature), as well as from six books published by Cambridge University Press (Hunt 2010, Sternberg 2011, Flynn 2012, Rindermann 2018, Sternberg 2018, and Warne 2020).

Sources presented in more recent discussions to justify the removals have mostly followed a similar pattern: older sources, newspaper opinion articles and blog posts, and passing mentions of one or two sentences in sources that are mostly about something else (such as a single sentence in this 2017 editorial). This is roughly equivalent to classifying a physics theory as "fringe" based primarily on decades-old sources, blog posts, and books and articles from popular publishers, and then using that decision as a basis for removing all support for the theory that had been cited to recent physics journal papers and textbooks. I think that the standard of sourcing applied to other Wikipedia articles about science topics, which are based primarily on the most up-to-date and high-quality sources by professionals in the relevant fields, should be applied to the R&I topic as well.

With respect to the WP:Verifiability issue, I agree with the summaries given by by Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph and Stonkaments that the contested sentence misrepresents the sources it cites, and that the argument made by Hunt's textbook in particular (quoted above) is very close to the opposite of what Wikipedia is citing this source to say. I also think the editors who are preventing this sentence from being changed have tacitly acknowledged that the wording "there is no evidence for a genetic component" does not represent this book's actual position, because when the same editors removed most of the material cited to this book, they justified some of those removals on the grounds that Hunt’s book is in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint.

Past discussions have repeatedly concluded that this sentence cannot be changed or removed as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, so if this sentence in fact violates the verifiability policy, these violations cannot be corrected unless the outcome of last year’s RFC is overturned. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Per Ferahgo the Assassin. I hadn't previously been aware of the comment in which NightHeron argued (with the support of many other editors) that the material from Hunt's book had to be removed because this book was a pro-hereditarian source. That comment is quite damning, in light of the subsequent arguments that "there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position. Removing citations to a book on the grounds that it is a pro-hereditarian source, and subsequently claiming the same book supports the statement that there is no evidence for the hereditarian viewpoint, is an example of trying to have your cake and eat it.

Over the past year, whenever I or other editors have complained that this sentence is not supported by its sources, one common aspect of the response has been to add more sources, which usually are also misrepresented. My comment here explained how the sentence is not supported by any of its original four sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan), and I pointed out here that one of the more recently added source does not use the phrase "no evidence" or any similar phrase. (It also is a paper that was published 51 years ago.) The statement now cites nine sources, the most recently added being a Vox blog post which fails the article's sourcing restriction.

If this approach continues at its current pace, eventually no Wikipedia editor will have time to sift through every one of the sources that have been added for this sentence, and point out how each one is either misrepresented, unreliable, or far too be old to indicate anything about the present consensus (or some combination of the three). The editors defending this material will be able to simply say, "your objections aren't valid unless you can explain how all twenty of the sources are misrepresented or unreliable." This brute-force approach should not be an acceptable way to win a sourcing dispute.

I may add more to this comment later. There is something I know about last year's RFC and its results that seems like it ought to be mentioned here, and I need to decide whether I should mention it or not. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It is Hunt, not me or other WP editors, who is "trying to have his cake and eat it". On the one hand, Hunt makes several statements that there is no scientific evidence showing a genetic component in the Black/white IQ difference. On the other hand, he says (without evidence) that the view that 0% of that difference is genetic "has virtually no chance of being true". He gives his personal opinion that a small amount, perhaps as little as 3% (a value he claims that opponents of racial hereditarianism would not object to), of the 15-point advantage of whites over Blacks is due to genetics. Despite Hunt's acknowledgment about the lack of evidence, for ideological reasons he seems intent on positing a white-over-Black genetic advantage (although not a large one) in intelligence. He also says that Jensen and Rushton are not completely wrong. So, despite what Hunt says about the lack of evidence, he's normally classified with the scientists who support hereditarian positions. Hunt's somewhat contradictory views were discussed at great length at last year's RfC, on the R&I talk-page, and elsewhere.

Hunt's speculation about 3% genetic influence would mean that, if it weren't for a genetic racial difference in intelligence, the Black/white IQ difference would be only 14 1/2 points rather than 15 points. What I find strange is Hunt's tacit assumption that a small, not-yet-detected racial genetic difference would necessarily favor whites. Why isn't it equally likely that, if it weren't for a slight genetic superiority of Blacks, the racial IQ difference would be 15 1/2 points rather than just 15 points? How does he know that the tiny, undetected difference doesn't favor Blacks? In other words, if whites rather than Blacks had been subjected to 350 years of brutality, slavery, whippings, rape, lynchings, segregation, police brutality, inferior schools, and so on, perhaps the average white IQ would be less than the Black IQ by more than 15 points. NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There is something I know about last year's RFC and its results that seems like it ought to be mentioned here, and I need to decide whether I should mention it or not. It's probably worth calling out how profoundly inappropriate it is to throw around vague insinuations like this. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 makes the most sense of them all. Yes, it is controversial, but that does not mean it has no evidence whatsoever. Nerd271 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Mainstream. All respect to Ferahgo the Assassin for her efforts to address the problem of excluded and misrepresented sources, but she is under-selling her point. Ultimately, judgments about what is mainstream or not mainstream can only be based on the balance of viewpoints that exist in reliable sources. Looking at reliable academic sources published on this topic over the past few years, option 1 is the only defensible position. (By "on this topic" I mean reliable academic sources that discuss the topic in some depth, not in only a few sentences.)

Here I'll focus on books published by Cambridge University Press as an example, because even though other academic publishers have also covered the topic, CUP is the only such publisher where a clear consensus has been established that its books on this topic satisfy WP:RS. In the past four years CUP has published five books that discuss race and intelligence:

1. The Neuroscience of Intelligence (2017) by Richard Haier
2. The Nature of Human Intelligence (2018) edited by Robert J. Sternberg
3. Cognitive Capitalism (2018) by Heiner Rindermann
4. Human Intelligence: An introduction (2019) edited by Robert J. Sternberg
5. In the Know (2020) By Russell Warne

The Sternberg 2018, Rindermann 2018, and Warne 2020 sources all are currently disallowed as sources due to their including of material in favor of the hereditarian view. The Haier 2017 source has not been discussed in that context, but it is mildly in favor of the hereditarian view as well. Of the five books related to this topic published by Cambridge in the past four years, only the Sternberg 2019 source is critical of the hereditarian view, arguing that the available evidence supports environmental causes over genetic ones, but that "the 'perfect data' that would definitively prove either conclusion do not exist." In summary: looking at sources published on this topic in the past four years from this reliable and high-quality academic publisher, three of the five sources are currently classified at Wikipedia as pro-hereditarian, one is mildly in favor of the hypothesis, and only one is against it.

The same pattern exists in all academic journals that cover this topic with some amount of regularity and technical detail, such as Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences (both published by Elsevier) and Psych (published by MDPI). In every journal that regularly covers this topic in depth, scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view outnumbers scholarship against it. The response by Wikipedia editors has typically been to try to declare these journals unreliable sources, although the only sources to support this classification are a few popular magazine articles in the case of Intelligence, and no sources at all in the case of Personality and Individual Differences and Psych. (Not to be confused with OpenPsych, which has an entirely different publisher and editorial board. Numerous sources have called the reliability of Openpsych into question, so that journal apparently does not satisfy WP:RS, but as far as I'm aware no published sources have claimed that Psych is similarly unreliable.)

Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Last year's RFC has resulted in an explicit rejection of that policy in this particular topic area, but perhaps that problem can be addressed now. --AndewNguyen (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I just spot checked those books, and at least two of them explicitly argue against the genetic explanation. Both include passaged explaining why it's a meaningless hypoethesis, not founded in real science. The ones that don't are written by walled gardeners, so I didn't bother, as I already know what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume the researchers you are calling "Walled gardeners" are Haier, Rindermann and Warne, so that the two books you checked are the two Sternberg books. If that's correct, see the discussion here. The Sternberg 2018 book contains chapters by Richard Lynn and Linda Gottfredson, who have been explicitly disallowed as sources due to being hereditarians. You can verify this for yourself here; Gottfredson is the author of chapter 9 and Lynn is the author of chapter 16. I have no idea what part of the book you're referring to by "passaged explaining why it's a meaningless hypoethesis", but at any rate whether you think the material from this book deserves to be disallowed as pro-hereditarian is beside the point. In the case of this source, that's the decision that has already been made. --AndewNguyen (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. The Rinderman book deconstructs the underlying assumptions behind your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if you think it does, that source (along with all of Rindermann's other work related to this topic) has also been classified as pro-hereditarian and declared therefore unreliable sources. See here: "My understanding of these discussions is that Rindermann's work is seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence." --AndewNguyen (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not ready to cast a vote myself as I don't know enough about the topic, but a cursory glance at the previous RfC shows it was quite controversial and definitely not a WP:SNOWBALL. Therefore it appears that a new RfC to gauge the community's consensus is legitimate, considering the significant effect the old RfC has had. Alaexis_¿question? 11:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Nature of Human Intelligence (2018), edited by Robert J. Sternberg is a collection of essays from the most cited researchers in the field of human intelligence. Sternberg invited all these scholars to contribute, even if they disagree with one another on certain points, which is inevitable given that human intelligence remains an active research topic. These people are professionals and they acted professionally. It would be nice if we were to include information on both environmental and genetic effects. It does not make sense to categorically or religiously reject expert opinions just because we happen to disagree with it. This is understandably a controversial subject, but that does not mean it should be censored on Wikipedia. We just need to attribute the sources properly. People are not sheep and we are not their shepherds. We have no business telling people what to think; we should only expose people to information and let them think for themselves. Nerd271 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I fundamentally disagree that the community can say that publications that advocate for a link between race and intelligence are unreliable because they advocate for a link between race and intelligence. Arguments for fringe positions can be reliable, the community simply must expect a stronger burden of proof. On the other hand, the suggestion that because there are "45 sources", some must be reliable is hokum and bunk. Some of the authors (Rindermann is the one I am most familiar with) in those sources are not people I would consider reliable. One of the papers mentioned, [104] is not research, it is Rindermann saying that many of his friends agree with him. Regarding the question: I've never heard the exact phrase hereditarian hypothesis (which is a redlink) but it seems to refer to the claim that there are measurable differences in intelligence between populations caused by hereditary factors. There certainly isn't convincing evidence for the theory. There is some evidence against it, but not so much that I am convinced there is "consensus" that the hereditarian hypothesis is false. My view based on sources I have read is that we are unable to measure intelligence well enough to make a truly definitive statement on the topic, though there is certainly no obvious difference in intelligence (by comparison, there is an obvious difference in the average skin color of various populations). As a result, I oppose everything in the RFC. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC. There is a clear consensus for this below but it may as well be stated here as well. This RFC is patiently non-neutrally-worded (nor is it brief, but the fact that it laboriously makes the argument for a clear position - to the point of essentially presenting key points of the dispute as fact - is more pertinent.) To be clear, a neutrally-worded question would be something like Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?, as in the previous RFC - it may require some slight tweaks to its wording, but it should not be substantially longer than that and should not make any arguments or present any evidence whatsover in favor of either position; that is what our !votes and comments are for. Furthermore, while this RFC is framed as an WP:RS question by placing it here, it actually requests that we decide a WP:FRINGE question (in fact, it is directly asking us to overturn a consensus reached at WP:FRINGEN); holding it here smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP, since outside of very obvious cases WP:RS generally doesn't do such in-depth examinations of how a source is oriented in the larger landscape of its field and how much weight ought to be accorded to it as a result. WP:FRINGEN is generally far more cautious about accepting sources that may be fringe, and is frequented by people who are more likely to recognize fringe journals or authors on sight - as Ferahgo is, I suspect, well-aware, having participated in a previous RFC there where her position was rejected. Holding the discussion a second time in a different (and plainly far more unsuitable) venue is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think this is incorrectly framed and posted. It seems to be framed as a content dispute (wrong place). However, if this is really about sources (and therefore posted here), then I can only suggest to follow WP:Verifiability. This is clearly not a medical claim, and therefore WP:MEDRS would not be applicable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC / Oppose. Per Aquillion and 力 above (and numerous comments below, including my own). Generalrelative (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I just requested that an uninvolved admin close this RfC, preparatory to someone opening a new RfC at the R&I talk-page. Hopefully the formulation of the new RfC will be very clear, neutral, and simple, for example, yes or no on the following statement in the close of last year's RfC: 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. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (race and intelligence)

Please use this section for all threaded discussion and/or comments on the !votes. Also, please remember that this RFC is not about our personal opinions on the scientific merits of the hereditarian hypothesis - it is about whether the consequences of classifying this hypothesis as a fringe theory are compatible with WP:RS and WP:V.

---

There is a recently published paper that addresses the quality of some of these sources: "Cognitive Creationism compared to Young-Earth creationism".

This paper does not take a position on the cause of group differences in average IQ scores, except to say there is no consensus about their cause, but it brings up several of the sources that the "fringe" classification was based on. It mentions the Saini, Kamin, and Gould books, as well as the Sussman and Gillborn sources that were cited later in the discussion [105] to discredit one particular hereditarian author. It points out that these sources all reject basic concepts in the fields of differential psychology and behavioral genetics; they argue that major figures of the fields such as Robert Plomin and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. are racists even though none of their writings discuss race (in some cases going so far as to compare these researchers to Josef Mengele); and some of them argue that the scientific method itself cannot be trusted.

This recent paper discusses the overall pattern of the arguments made by these types of books, but many of the same issues have been previously pointed by authors such as Bernard Davis, [106] Eric Turkheimer, [107] and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate (which discusses the Gould and Kamin sources, along with another one of Kamin's books). Turkheimer's review of the Jay Joseph book is particularly significant, because Turkheimer is quite opposed to race research, so one might have expected him to approve of these books; the harshness of his criticism is a good demonstration of how far removed these sources are from the psychology and genetics mainstream.

It remains to be discussed whether the older sources—including the Kamin and Gould sources, as well as contemporaneous writings by hereditarians such as Richard Herrnstein, Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen—should be considered reliable sources for more than just historical perspectives. Whatever is eventually decided about that question, it is important that any standards of recency be applied consistently to all sources across the board. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in half a mind to close this thread outright. This is a blatant attempt to relitigate a well attended RfC from March last year Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence that found the hereditarian position to be fringe. What does opening this thread accomplish? Hans Eysenck is not a credible authority on anything, given the recent retractions. User:Hemiauchenia 22:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Eysenck isn't one of the sources whose removal is at issue here; I only mentioned him as an example of my point about applying a consistent standard about whether sources from the 1970s and 1980s should still be considered reliable.

If you'd been following the history of the articles over the past year, you might understand why this RFC is necessary. Classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has resulted in some sourcing problems that couldn't have been anticipated a year ago. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, THIS looks like the thing that I've been waiting for over the past year. Depending on the outcome of this RFC, perhaps it's time for me to become active again. --AndewNguyen (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure more forum shopping after you've already gotten a definitive answer, had that answer confirmed by the community, and then had objections to that answer rejected, will finally accomplish your goal of making Wikipedia make statements that are directly and explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• (ec) This RfC is improper for several reasons. Instead of a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue per WP:RFC, we get a wall of text giving a lengthy, highly partisan presentation of the issue before listing the choices. The OP was an active participant not only in last year's RfC [108], but also, when the outcome didn't go their way, in arguing at WP:AN [109] to overturn the close, and right afterwards participating in a complaint to ArbCom (initiated by another no-voter on the RfC) about the conduct of the RfC's yes-voters. This improper RfC is the latest example of refusal to accept consensus, forum-shopping, and civil POV-pushing by opponents of last year's RfC who want to give credence to racialist hereditarian views. NightHeron (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• To the above highly pertinent reasons why this RfC shouldn't exist mentioned by Hemiauchenia, MPants and NightHeron, I'll just add that it seems quite improper for Ferahgo to have started it without informing any stakeholders (other than a single sympathetic one [110]) or the community at e.g. FTN or R&I. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The actual situation is fairly straightfoward, and I'm going to say what I think [[User::Ferahgo the Assassin|

Ferahgo the Assassin]] is being a little too tactful to say in so many words: Wikipedia has it wrong. Science is not subject to voting. Scientific cnclusions are reached by scientists, and we have to follow current science. The consensus that Wikipedia has adopted is either completely besides the point or absolutely upside down. what we have adopted as the scientific consensus is the consensus from 1950 or 1960. It's what I was taught, it's what everyone was taught. That was 70 years ago. The sciences of anthropology , and especially of genetics have found out a good deal in the last 70 years, and it is that there are significant difference between human groups due to heredity. (It would in fact have been rather impossible ift here were not--everything humans do is fundamentally controlled by their evolution, by their biology, and this includes the way they organize society. We are just the same as all other animals that way. if genetics weren't true, we wouldn't be here. If genetics was as we imagined it to be rather than what it is, we wouldn't be the humans we are.) The view of the 1950s that some WP ignorantly thinks is still correct, that there is no significant heritary factors, is old science, now superseded. It was superseded by the hypothesis that looking at overall h is not relevant, and one must look at individual genes. That's what I thought twenty years ago; its what most biologists probably thought. That was pretty much the scientific consensus at the end of the 20th century.

This is not the twentieth century. Much to the surprise of many biologists, we can now already look at number of individual genes and know what they do in terms of neurochemistry. . We can look at their effect individually, we can look at the overall genomes. The consensus of the 1990s is also old science. If we claim to be scientists, we must follow the scientific resutls as they are, not thee results we had been taught in the past, or the way we would like them to be.

I'm not going to explain the science. Ferahgo knows it better than I, and knows how to explain it. She's done a start above, and her references will lead you further. That is, they will lead you further, if you look at them. MjolnirPants, have you looked at them? If you have, what do you think is wrong with them? If you have not, why do you think you are qualified to make a judgment? You , and others who will be making the same argument, are arguing we should continued to say what we have previously agreed to say, because we have previously agreed to say it. It doesn't seem to matter that it might be wrong. WP can decide what scientific truth is, not scientists. WP can decide which scientists are still correct, even though their results have been superseded. WP can teach people who come here for verifiable science, what used to in the past be the state of science, even though it is no longer.

There are those who deny the validity and relevance of science. I think Ferahgo has discussed one analogy. There are many others, going back centuries and continuing today, who think that what ought to be true is true, and that this can be decided by their own opinions, or by general opinions, or by looking at a sacred text, or treating one source, however old, as if it were a sacred text. They think that the world is determinedby their internal feelings, and that those feelings are a better guide for human life than the objective world of science. I suppose people have the right to believe that, but an encyclopedia does not.

I assume that the peoplee here at WP do want to try to write a true encyclopedia . Then why do they think that what used to be true remains true, without looking at the evidence and without seriously trying to determine what the present consensus of actual scientists is? There are 3 possibilities: For one, they might think that they personally know more than the experts. For another, they have the reluctance to change that is sometimes a feature of moribund academic science, and stay with what they learned in college, and see no needto think about in again (see Thomas Kuhn for further analysis along this line. For a third, they might be choosing what scientific results they believe by what they want to believe for social reasons (and that might have been true even in the 50s, when it may have seemed that the need to combat Naziism and racism was so important, that one could choose the science to meet the social need, just like Stalin and Khrushchev adopted Lysenkoism ). If I weren't a scientist, I too might prefer to select results to match my politics. But if I thought that way, I'd have no business trying to write an encyclopedia to teach people science. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Science is not subject to voting. Science has consensuses. The consensus on this subject was the subject of 1995 report by the APA, in which it stated in very clear terms that the "hereditarian" position is the one least supported by evidence. That same consensus (that genetics does not explain it) had been referred to directly as early as 1970, and as recently as 2017, by widely acknowledged experts in the field. The question of the scientific consensus is, as you say, not subject to voting by Wikipedians. But, (and this is, contrary to what some here insist, good news about Wikipedia) when we put it to a vote, we agreed with the consensus. Not one source has been presented from a widely acknowledged expert in the field claiming that the scientific consensus is that the difference is predominantly genetic, or even that there's convincing evidence that the difference is partially genetic. In fact, no such expert has ever even proposed a mechanism by which such a genetic component might operate (rather unsurprisingly, given how little we know about genetics and intelligence).

Moreover, one thing almost all (approaching 100% of those outside the walled garden of scientific racism, that is) experts agree on is that race is a biologically meaningless convention. The total genetic difference between two typical individuals of the same race is greater than the mean genetic difference between two races. The "races" as we know them are defined by collections of traits, none of which are exclusive to any particular ethnicity.

The likelihood of ever finding some genetic, or even an epigenetic component that's not related to environmental factors is highly unlikely, and grows more unlikely every time we learn something new about genetics.

And that's a serious problem with this suggestion. Because the arguments presented aren't actually arguments that we've misinterpreted the scientific consensus. They're arguing that the scientific consensus is wrong, and that is absolutely not something that has any business being litigated here. We follow the sources, and not only are the best sources quite clear on the question of what the scientific consensus is, those few which are actually used to argue that it's somehow different are all the products of a relatively small group of scientists who've shown time and time again their unwillingness to admit their mistakes, and their willingness to engage in dishonesty to win the debate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG, the argumentum ad Kuhniam is essentially nihilistic. The issue here is that those who purport to study racial determinance of intelligence have never come up with a racially neutral measure of intelligence. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

This comment is to respond to the edit that conflicted with my last comment.

MjolnirPants, have you looked at them? Yes, multiple times is some cases.

If you have, what do you think is wrong with them? It varies from source to source.

• Hunt 2010 It's being misinterpreted. Hunt cites 3% as an example that would not alarm anyone: 3% of the difference between black and white IQs is smaller than the expected difference between two almost-identical IQ tests taken by the same person at the same time. It's nothing more than an artifact of the normal heritability of IQ.
• Sternberg 2011, Flynn 2012, Rindermann 2018, Sternberg 2018, and Warne 2020 No claims about what they say are given, so I can't comment on them. As for the general claim that they support the genetic hypothesis: Flynn has been one of the more vocal opponents of it. Whatever quote is being cited is thus almost certainly either cherry-picked or misinterpreted, a la Hunt 2010.
• Tezuka 2020 Completely off topic. This argument is pure WP:SYNTH. As if that weren't bad enough, it's not even clearly an RS, as this is a brand-new journal made specifically for publishing fringe views with no reputation to speak of. In fact, I can't even say for certain that Tezuka exists, as the journal permits pseudonymous and anonymous publication.
• Davis 1981 No claim is made here, but this source explicitly refutes numerous axioms of the genetic hypothesis.
• Turkheimer 2015 This is a non-sequitur. It's entirely possible to critique work that purports to support one's own view of the science.
• Pinker 2003 No claims are made about what this says, so I can't evaluate them, but Pinker has stated "My own view, incidentally, is that in the case of the most discussed racial difference – the black-white IQ gap in the US – the current evidence does not call for a genetic explanation."
• general references to Herrnstein, Eysenck and Jensen This rather undermines the rest of their argument, given what we know about those figures.

I would note that all of those sources have one thing in common:

None of them argue that the scientific consensus is anything but the environmental view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You might take a look at [111] "Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment" from Nature Genetics. That's what really convinced me. -- (& as a (former) biochemist, I found especially interesting but not directly relevant, the supplementary material section 5 , Biological mechanisms. )

I agree with you that the material on traditional races is extremely surprising--very different from when I last taught this material in 1975. It's so unexpected that it certainly needs to be confirmed by other approaches, though it does not contradict the current views on human migrations and gene flow. (But that's not the central point here. )

But Ferahgo can explain most of this much better than I. She's the next scientific generation. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The source from Nature Genetics convinced you of what? The R&I article agrees with it. The section "Heritability within and between groups" states that "Psychometricians have found that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations." Within-group heritability is not what last year's RfC or the current RfC is about. The same section of the R&I article also explains why within-group heritability does not imply any genetic cause of inter-group differences at all. The source that convinced you has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races. NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You might take a look at [112] "Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment" from Nature Genetics. Let's ignore analysis of this source for now and assume this is, in fact, evidence for a genetic cause. The fact that a fringe claim is not 100% devoid of evidence does not answer the question "what is the scientific consensus." It doesn't even address that question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I think you got the number of negations wrong here. Didn't you want to say "None of them argue that the scientific consensus is the hereditarian view"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't get the wrong number of negations, but I absolutely got the wrong word (a critical mistake, no less, and one corrected now). My point was that none of these sources argue that the scientific consensus is anything but the environmental view. Most "hereditarian" sources which have been presented in these countless discussions argue for the hereditarian view, while occasionally acknowledging that the environmentalist view is the current consensus. This question about the scientific consensus is a red herring. The pattern of argumentation (and a large number of direct statements) establishes quite clearly that editors supporting relitigating this are actually pushing to make the article agree with the hereditarian view, and it's my opinion that we should always reject any motivated reasoning in discussions on how to run this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Last year's RfC lasted 5 weeks and about 50 editors participated. Sources, including numerous ones proposed by opponents of a yes-vote on the fringe question, were discussed at length. Before the RfC, the R&I article was heavily reliant on sources that promote racial hereditarianism. In the version at the beginning of 2020 Jensen's name appeared in the text or reference list 61 times, and Rushton's name appeared 36 times.

The OP's explanation for "why this RFC is necessary" is the claim that "Classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has resulted in some sourcing problems that couldn't have been anticipated a year ago." This makes no sense. Participants in the RfC obviously knew, or should have known, that a consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe viewpoint would have a major effect on the sourcing of the R&I article and related ones. Per WP:FRINGE, sources that promote homeopathy, creationism, or climate change denialism are not RS for most purposes related to those topics, and the same is true for sources that promote the view that some races are genetically superior to others in intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Ferahgo the Assassin: The RfC statement is not "neutral and brief", as required by WP:RFCBRIEF. Could you please revise the RfC statement to meet this requirement? Also, could you please explain why this RfC is on the reliable sources noticeboard, when the question in the "Summary" section asks editors whether this topic is a fringe theory, and not whether one or more sources are reliable? — Newslinger talk 09:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ferahgo the Assassin: further to that, saying that the RfC statement is "not brief" is a serious understatement - it is ridiculously long. From the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp there are almost 26,500 bytes, and Legobot (talk · contribs) simply cannot cope with it and has given up trying; indeed, this is by far the longest RfC statement that I have ever seen. It needs either to be cut right back to about 5% of its present size, or a suitably short timestamped (or signed and timestamped) statement inserted between the {{rfc}} tag and the existing overlong statement. Otherwise, it will not be shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, should notice of this RfC be added to Centralized discussion and VPP, or has it already been added? Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

​I think so, although it would be best if the RfC statement were amended to meet WP:RFCBRIEF before adding this to WP:CENT. This RfC might also need to be moved to a different venue. Since this RfC is asking a question that is similar to the one in the previous high-participation RfC at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70 § RfC on race and intelligence, I believe the best venue would be the fringe theories noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Y Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I opened this discussion at the RS noticeboard because the details of the RFC are entirely about sourcing. As I said in the initial RFC question, there is a consensus that classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has a specific meaning with respect to what sources may or may not be used, and also with respect to the necessity of including material that appears to misrepresent the sources it cites. For example, as mentioned here, here and here, one result of last year's RFC is that all work by Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann related to this topic is now considered unreliable regardless of where it's published. The question that needs to be answered by the current RFC is whether these decisions are compatible with WP:RS and WP:V, and the RS noticeboard seems the most appropriate place to ask about that.

I recognize that since this RFC relates to multiple issues, it was a subjective decision whether the most appropriate venue was this noticeboard, WP:NOR/N, or WP:FTN, but I consider the issue of otherwise high-quality sources being declared unreliable to be the central underlying issue. So my preference would be to keep the RFC where it currently is, with notifications posted at the other two noticeboards, as you've posted at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard already.

With respect to the length issue, I can try to reduce the length of my summaries, but I don't think I can remove either the lists of sources or the quote from Hunt's textbook, because both of those are completely central to what this RFC is asking about. It isn't unprecedented for a RFC question about a complex issue to be this long; see the initial RFC question here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/RFC_on_medical_disclaimer Would it be a workable solution for me to split the initial two paragraphs into its own statement, and turn the subsequent detailed explanation into a separate statement, as Redrose64 suggested? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The medical disclaimer RFC that you link did have a brief statement (although I'm not keen on the big boldface styling of the question, it's kinda WP:SHOUTy) - at the time that the {{rfc}} tag was placed it was only 805 bytes, including timestamp. It did not change throughout the RfC's 30-day period that it was listed, and it displayed just fine in the listings until it was eventually delisted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

​RfCs are only different from normal discussions because they are advertised in the category listings and through the feedback request service, so it is essential for the RfC statement to be compatible with Legobot. One way to address the length issue would be to move the "Summary" part directly under the {{rfc}} tag (without the "Summary" heading) and keep your signature at the end of the summary – this shortens the RfC statement, which is defined as the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp. The remainder can be placed into a new "Background" subsection, with a new signature at the end. You may also want to move the "During last year's RFC [...] a decision about sourcing." and "I'm deliberately not notifying [...] article's talk page." parts to the "Background" section. — Newslinger talk 15:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I restructured the RFC question in the way you suggested. Thanks for the advice, and sorry about the length. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP's claim that the revised formulation of the RfC now conforms to WP policy (brief and neutral) is absurd. It's not brief. Moreover, the OP states the central question in bold type as follows: "Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented?" That's about as far from neutral as you can get. Then the OP gives editors three choices for voting that are related to the fringe question, not to the question in bold type. NightHeron (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: Neutrality aside, the statement is now down to 3,157 bytes - which is still too big. Try halving it - or better still, get it right down to 50 characters. RexxS (talk · contribs) was a wizard at writing a neutrally-worded RfC statement in no more than six or seven words. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Really sorry about this—I pared back the intro the best I can. Hope it's readable now, as I will be afk tomorrow. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Now 2,307 bytes - still way too big. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely you must realize not everything can or should be reduced to the level of consumer plastics or soundbites. This is a big and controversial topic, so of course she is going to need a lot of words to explain herself properly. Nerd271 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't make the rules: I am trying to explain why this RfC was not being processed by Legobot, and so was not described at WP:RFC/POLICY and similar pages. WP:RFCBRIEF is not something that you can say "oh, it doesn't apply to me" about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia states there are no firm rules. It therefore follows that we can relax certain restrictions if doing so helps us improve or maintain Wikipedia. Our ultimate purpose here is to inform the general public, not to follow rules. She is working on improving her case. That's good to see. Nerd271 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

But those rules are in place for very specific reasons; ignoring them here has nothing to do with improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Specifically, you are not supposted to present an argument for any one position in the RFC statement. For example, a simple, neutrally-worded summary of the question here would be Is the position that there is a genetic component to racial differences in scores on intelligence tests WP:FRINGE or not? - or words to that effect. Everything else that Ferahgo added is an attempt to - as you conceded yourself! - make her case in the RFC statement, which taints the RFC and renders it invalid from the start. Given that it has already attracted significant discussions it is certainly no longer salvageable. --Aquillion (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• The existing consensus on the weight that should be given to these sources has indeed made it harder for advocates of racial determinance of intelligence, to reflect their views as fact in the article. This is a feature, not a bug. Theere is no agreed objective racially neutral measure of intelligence, and at that pointt he scientific discussion more or less ends, apart from a handful of activists who we decided to minimise as fringe, and who the OP now wants to ask the other parent if they can include again. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The existing consensus on the weight that should be given to these sources has indeed made it harder for advocates of racial determinance of intelligence, to reflect their views as fact in the article. This is a feature, not a bug. I want to second this. This is both a deliberate and a damn good thing, and these attempts to relitigate it are disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone needs a source for this, see this 2020 statement by a group of prominent scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina, which discusses the question of why we see so few actual geneticists publishing research on the topic of race and IQ: [113] It is worth quoting at length: [W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. For this reason, the raw quantity of published studies is an extremely misleading metric; serious scientists have pretty much all moved on. This view is summed up by a 2019 Nature editorial titled "Intelligence research should not be held back by its past" (coordinated to comment upon a meta-analysis in Nature Genetics published on the same day): Historical measurements of skull volume and brain weight were done to advance claims of the racial superiority of white people. More recently, 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. [114] The idea that the observed gap in average IQ between black and white people can be attributed to genetic differences is false. Full stop. Let's all now drop the stick and walk away from this stinky, stinky corpse. Generalrelative (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The OP's reason for "deliberately not notifying the dispute's major parties (on either side) of this RFC" ("this RFC" means last year's RfC on R&I that the OP wishes to overturn) is: "because as much as possible I would like the outcome to be decided by uninvolved editors". This is highly irregular. In the first place, WP policy is to encourage widespread notification so as to have as broad participation as possible. In the second place, the OP's notion of "uninvolved" is strange. The OP was involved in last year's RfC and in other discussions of the topic and seems to have a strong vested interest in it.

In some of the past discussions of this topic (for example, at FTN and AfD) there's been a problem of on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing by civil POV-pushers. If that occurs here, that tactic will be much more effective if few legitimate editors have been notified.

Unless this ill-conceived RfC is withdrawn or closed on procedural grounds, I propose that the OP be asked to notify all participants in last year's RfC (except IPs, blocked users, and those who are already here). Anyone could do this, but it's really the job of the OP. NightHeron (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

She did inform at least one editor sympathetic to her cause [115]. I am also curious how AndewNguyen heard about this after almost a year away from the project [116]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the RfC from last year consisted of a large number of the "yes it's fringe" !votes being based solely on personal opinion, and didn't even consider the plethora of sources provided by people arguing it was not fringe. The closer of that RfC then carefully crafted a "self-review" (archived here) that focused heavily on a misleading claim that he was involved (which I can't see how he was simply for writing an essay). The close review should've focused on the fact that those !voting yes in a significant number of the !votes actually never even commented based on the sources provided against - because Tony did not, in closing that RfC, make any comment on the strengths of the arguments on either side. I think the best thing at this point is for this to be closed as not at the right place and for a new RfC to be opened and carefully controlled so that the SPA/non-established editor problem doesn't happen, and for any !votes which are not substantially based on the sources and do not clearly articulate a sources-based argument to be discounted. I think it was unhelpful to start this RfC before crafting it in such a way that it not only can be discussed adequately, but can be controlled and useful. I don't think it's useful to rehash the past usually - but while consensus can change, I don't see how anyone can read last year's RfC as being a change in consensus rather than simply shoving something through that at its core allowed some editors to put their personal vendetta against anything potential racism above science and sourcing - which is really a failure of the closer to adequately view !votes in light of that obvious purpose. As an example, some comments from people who !voted that it was fringe include: Race is a sociological construct; It is well known that racial categories don't have genetic basis. To claim otherwise is fringe; race (whatever that is supposed to mean); Race is a social construct; the concept of "race" is a failed hypothesis; Away with the apologetics - these 6 comments make clear that those !votes were not primarily based on analysis of sourcing, but based on those people's personal opinions as to the topic - which means they should've been discounted and at best a no consensus result found. And unfortunately, we are seeing the same type of comments in this discussion - which are derailing it again. I think DGG puts it well in his comments here, and on last year's RfC having read it - it is not encyclopedic to put our personal opinions on a topic ahead of actually looking at the sources and evaluating them on their own merits - and not from the eye of "this source disagrees with me personally so I must find a reason it's not acceptable". I won't comment in this RfC because I think it's crafted very poorly and should be worked on by a number of editors before it's "published" - compiling sources, forming arguments, etc. But I do think that the result of last year's RfC is not a "consensus", but a failure to "weed out" activism and actually evaluate the merits of an argument - and as such I don't see it disruptive at all to attempt to revisit the topic now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There is, in fact, not a single "yes" !vote that references personal opinion, directly or indirectly. Every single one either makes new arguments, repeats previous arguments or reference previous arguments.

However, here's an actual true claim: The vast majority of "yes" !votes came from a broad swathe of mostly experienced Wikipedians. The vast majority of "no" !votes came from sockpuppets, SPA accounts and accounts which have (before or after) sanctioned for their editing in this topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add my concern about the format of this RfC. It is shorter now, but the framing still emphasizes Option 2, which is supported in the description of the option itself by a WP citation and an exhortation to an overturned consensus, unlike the other two options. I also agree that this noticeboard is a confusing placement for this RfC, since RSN usually considers whether a single source of publisher of sources "are reliable in context", not comparing reliability across sources, which the RfC question seems to call for. —Wingedserif (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are some dreadful scientific inaccuracies being peddled above. The widely acknowledged problems with IQ scores and their ilk have been discussed by others, so I want to focus on a specific issue here; the conflation of race with heredity. It is true that the extent of influence heredity has on intelligence is still a matter of debate, and the argument that there's some influence is a mainstream one. The trouble is the leap from there to arguing that racial gaps in IQ scores have a hereditary aspect. That is a completely fringe argument, not because a link between heredity and intelligence has been disproven, but because race is a social construct that frequently has only a tenuous link to heredity, and because racial biases in intelligence testing are widespread. The assumption, repeated above and in previous RfCs on this subject, that hereditary differences may be used to argue for racial differences, is utter nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've been checking sources since this was posted, and there's a rather telling fact that's become clear to me. The majority of the sources presented by those pushing for the acceptance of the genetic explanation don't support their arguments. I just want to make this clear. If you are reading these arguments and finding them convincing, check the sources, so you can understand just how poor and dishonest this argument is. It's also worth pointing out that I haven't seen a single source actually supporting the argument that the genetic hypothesis is the scientific consensus. Just a couple sources arguing in favor of the genetic explanation, and a whole bunch of source which people claim argue for the genetic explanation, but actually don't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be extra clear about this, since there has been some confusion on this point, by "genetic explanation" we are talking about hypothesized genetic explanations for differences in average IQ test performance between racial groups. Such explanations are rightly considered WP:FRINGE. Genetic explanations for at least some of the difference in IQ test performance between individuals, on the other hand, are considered mainstream science. Anyone unsure as to why this isn't a contradiction should read Heritability of IQ (and, if skepticism persists, the articles it cites). Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a RS question

This is not a RS question, it's an UNDUE question. These sources are reliable descriptions of the hereditarian view, but the hereditarian view is, by consensus, fringe, and thus including reliable-for-hereditarianism sources violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a fringe view. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thediscussion here is challenging whether it is actually a fringe view or whether that position is obsolete. The reason there are so any sources for it is exactly the evidence that it is in fact mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blink*... Ideas can be both WP:FRINGE and obsolete, but more troublingly, counting sources from white supremacists is not generally the way we determine what is or is not WP:MAINSTREAM at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG, which has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources. Source reliability, here, is a wholly pretextual argument. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• comment Excuse my ignorance, but I have not been very wiki-active ately, but I'd like to know how and when did Ferahgo the Assassin end up being allowed to edit these topics again, so that she can proxy-edit for Captain Occam - meaning we now all have to take aother round in this R&I circus? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

See this request. I think this RfC is pretty convincing evidence that the ban should be re-instated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

this is basically saying, give a topic ban to the peopley ou disagree with. I agree it has a certain convenience, because you then no longer have to bother even opposingtheir views, you can just ignore them. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No it is not. I believe the idea is that this RfC is improper for all the reasons mentioned above. Whether it calls into question the veracity of claims Ferahgo made about her views and intentions during the unban discussion cited by MPants I will leave to others to determine. Generalrelative (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, it's saying, "Give a topic ban to people who insist on beating the dead horse." YMMV. jps (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: Regardless of what you believe on this matter, I find it hard to believe that you can't see how this behavior is disruptive, especially given that Ferahgo has previously been subjected to a topic ban for exactly this behavior, which they have (falsely, it seems) since promised to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG, it's not about "people you disagree with". It's about people who Never. Ever. Give. Up. An RfC forms a consensus, and, as we see here, one of the losing parties continues the argument elsewhere, ad infinitum. This ends up one of three ways: everyone gets bored and the POV-pusher succeeds, everyone gets angry until they are banned and the POV-pusher succeeds, or the POV-pusher gets topic banned. Which they did in this case, for some time.

Steadfast refusal to accept a consensus that goes against you is antithetical to a collegial approach. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Steadfast refusal to accept that consensus can change is not an objective approach. Unless one is a believer in infallible revelation, nothing is ever final, in the world or in wikipedia.. There is, however, no point in repeating an argument too frequently. This question needs to be revisited, but perhaps this was too soon. If it had been up to me , I would have waited a while longer. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If consensus changes it should not be because a tiny group of dogged editors using all sorts of methods licit and illict eventually manage to get everybody else to give up arguing...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly irregular and problematic RfC

Despite repeated reminders that WP requires the statement of an RfC to be brief and neutral, the OP has refused to revise her formulation of the RfC to make it neutral. In the preamble to the 3 choices given editors, she states that voting to uphold last year's RfC means giving a yes-answer to the following question written in bold type: "Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented?" In other words, voting for option 3 means that you're in favor of cherry-picking 8 out of 53 sources and misrepresenting sources. That's an absurd mischaracterization of what happened in last year's RfC and the subsequent edits of R&I and related articles that implemented the RfC.

The OP's long presentation of the RfC is full of partisan distortions, especially in the claims concerning sources and other issues in the collapsed portions. She presents editors with a straw man to knock down.

Until MPants gave a link to the OP's tban removal appeal in 2019, I had been unaware of the OP's editing history before the 2020 RfC on R&I. The discussion of her appeal is relevant to the problems we're having now. Her tban from topics related to R&I was caused by her inability to separate her strong personal opinions on the issue from her editing work. The tban was lifted, but some editors expressed skepticism about her promise not to resume POV-pushing in disregard of WP policies. Their doubts were caused by her editing history and by her membership in ISIR (an echo-chamber led and dominated by promoters of the theory of white genetic superiority in intelligence). I agree with MPants that this RfC shows that the skeptics were right.

Where do we go from here? NightHeron (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote above, a cursory glance at the previous RfC shows it was definitely not a WP:SNOWBALL. Therefore it appears that a new RfC to gauge the community's consensus is legitimate, considering the significant effect the old RfC has had. Alaexis_¿question? 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that all non-snowball RfCs should be repeated again and again... until the result is different? Or until they become snowballs? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If one discounts !votes from SPAs and socks, it's damn near snowball status. There were maybe 3-4 experienced Wikipedians who haven't been topic banned !voting against the consensus there; compared to well over a dozen !voting with the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The RfC has apparently had a significant impact on the sources in use in the article in question. One year is a long enough period to assess it and make sure that the changes due to this RfC reflect the community consensus. I don't like the alternative of not being able to challenge a past RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 14:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing has been discussed at length on talk-pages, and that's the normal way to determine what decisions on sourcing agree with consensus. Of course sourcing was greatly affected by the RfC, since sources promoting a fringe POV are handled very differently from sources that are accepted by scientific consensus. As in other cases, fringe sources are reliable for describing what the fringe promoters say, but should not be used to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with a new RfC, as long as it's presented neutrally, all participants in last year's RfC are notified, and it's held at the R&I talk-page, where there's EC protection that prevents most socks and prevents SPAs and IPs from being recruited off-wiki. I just hope that such an RfC can be wrapped up more quickly than last year, when the whole process was "expensive" as measured by editors' time. NightHeron (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, A second RfC, and then, if Feragho refuses to accept consensus there, ArbCom. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, How about a second RfC that's held at the R&I talk-page, which is now EC-protected against socks and new arrivals from off-wiki canvassing? If we do that, I should obviously not be the OP again, nor should Feragho. There should also be very broad notification, including all participants in last year's RfC (except IPs & banned users). Perhaps the fairest way for a new RfC to be a review of last year's is for it to consist of a single sentence asking for a yes-or-no vote on the statement from Tony Ballioni's closing of last year's RfC 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". NightHeron (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, yes, that is the correct venue in my view. And conducted on a strict "no hectoring" rule. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

By the time I had read to the end of the RfC, I was wanting to say pretty much what NightHeron has said here. I feel like I should be quoting a folksy proverb about how one cannot trust the fruit of the tree grown in toxic soil. The phrasing is wrong, the venue is wrong ... No good can come of it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

For anyone not yet familiar, we do have an essay about precisely this: Fruit of the poisonous tree. Generalrelative (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem lies in convention, since Wikipedia has an issue neither fringe, controversial, nor mainstream. Consider Frankenstein's experiments. If those experiments violate ethics or seek outcomes predicating on a specific ethical bias, the sources scientific or not will carry biased grammar. If few sufficiently deep ethics apply, then so too will few balancing sources. While reliably scientific, such sources pose an ethical information hazard. Fruit of a poisonous tree, indeed. Unfortunately copy law makes exorcising information hazards illegal in many cases. So what will you do Wikipedia ?

For example, one might want to rewrite my post according to the grammatical perspective of a Wikipedian, for less hazard to Wikipedian agency.

2600:1700:8B85:110:B6D7:E829:397A:CED6 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP's approach is flawed, so is "the hereditarian hypothesis" as it's not a black and white thing. If "the hereditarian hypothesis" is that individual or family or group genes, absent a condition, affect intelligence more than environmental context, it's falsified. If "the hereditarian hypothesis" means that a small influence is possible in individual or family variation, understanding that the environment has more influence, less so. What is fringe: 1) IQ reliably assesses latent intelligence, 2) human genetic variation has a significant effect, 3) that group/population as used here is "race". What's not fringe: 1) IQ can be a useful metric even if understood not to be an ideal evaluation of intelligence, 2) IQ scores can vary between groups, 3) environmental context and population health are understood to have a significant effect on IQ scores, 4) more individual variation exists, 5) IQ scores will vary for the same people or groups over time especially if general health varies, 6) it's not impossible that family heredity could play a minor role. —PaleoNeonate – 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What's so confusing (or misleading) about the term "hereditarian hypothesis" is illustrated by the above comment. In fact, none of these is what the OP is referring to. In this context, the "hereditarian hypothesis" means something very specific. It refers to the hypothesis that genetics explains a significant portion of the observed gap in average IQ test performance between racial groups. This conversation is not about difference in IQ test performance between individuals or families. See the very pertinent comments by jps below on the inherent racism of this whole argument. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If so, that particular hypothesis was falsified by experiments that have demonstrated that environmental factors explained group variation significantly... —PaleoNeonate – 02:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This RfC is the definition of WP:IDHT and refusal to drop the WP:STICK. In addition to the massively overwrought formulation of its question and the fact that the OP failed to notify stakeholders, that's why many of us are questioning the validity of the process here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Where we go from here is simple: ignore the improperly-formatted, clearly-slanted RfC. Policy and guidelines, not to mention tradition and practice, make clear that an improperly-formatted RfC can have no validity for determining consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with just about everyone in this section that this RfC was ill-posed and misplaced, and that this is not repairable after the fact. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is racism

What people don't seem willing to engage with is the weirdness that is the racism undergirding the OP's wall-o-text. There is this fear on this website that actually calling out racism where it is will lead to a form of personal attack, but it is not a "personal attack" to point out when an argument is racist. That is what is happening here. To see this for what it plainly is, just ask yourself why the circumlocution to a "hereditarian hypothesis" is being referred to here. If the point of discussion was about the inheritability of intelligence, the topic at issue would not be race and intelligence.

The WP:MAINSTREAM definition of racism is defined, like it or not, through the social sciences that study it. Like it or not, critical race theory is ascendent and has successfully shown that racist and white supremacist thought has permeated the Western academy to the extent that entire disciplines were invented to prop it up whether by means of scientific racism, eugenics, phrenology, or their relatives. The sources which discuss this topic in context that engage with the scholarly work on race and racism all recognize that the extent to which brain functioning is correlated with specific genes is no more related to the other swath of genes that we associate with racial phenotypes than it is with genes associated with any of the other grab-bag of phenotypes you might choose. For all you white people out there, you might consider how Jane Elliott might ask you to think carefully about Eye color and intelligence. WHAT? A REDLINK?! How BIZARRE?!

And that's the point here. If this were all about "the scholarship of psychometrics and intelligence" or "considering the best scholarly sources", the topic of academic attempts to connect race and intelligence would be of historical interest only. The extent to which various pseudoscientists try to use race correlates to argue for something innate about racism is, well, a racist enterprise, and it is laudable that Wikipedia treats the subject this way since that it was what the relevant epistemic community does. Don't like it? Go out and change the discourse among those who are academic experts in race, but your fight is not supposed to be at this website.

jps (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

ජපස, well of course it is. The root of the race and intelligence debate has always been racism. And the problem has always been trying to tease out what genuine science there is on the side of the racists (because we can't know that every advocate for racial differences in intelligence is doing so to advance a racist cause, only that this is plainly the case for many historical examples).

In as much as Feragho has a legitimate point, it is how much weight should we give to literature promoting a cause beloved of racists and not taken terribly seriously by science generally, which is nonetheless diligently promoted by a handful of individuals with a very prolific output.

In as much as Feragho should be excluded from this topic, it's because he wants to not just increase the weight given to these people, but entirely reverse the weight of the article to represent their views as the mainstream and the dominant view as the minority. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If it all came down to weighing sources on "inheritability of intelligence", the question would not be asked in the context of race and intelligence since those with a "prolific output" are promoting a cause that is not related to race unless you also make the leap that all inheritable characteristics can be tied to race. This canard has been thoroughly debunked, but it may be worth re-emphasizing. I note that racist arguments propose that, for example, because race is used to make risk determinations in medicine, it should be legitimate to entertain racist hypotheses. This is basically a fallacy of the undistributed middle. jps (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that hereditarianism is mainstream based on individual papers is pointless. You cannot assess what is mainstream by cherry picking several dozen papers out of the many hundreds, probably thousands that have been published on the topic, and declaring them to be representative. This is not how science works. A lot of the pro-hereditarianism people aren't arguing for what the actual concensus of psychologists is, but for what they personally believe is true, which is irrelevant. Feragho has a COI as she is on the board of the society that runs the journal Intelligence, a notable promoter of hereditarian views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"a notable promoter of scientific racism" - fixed that for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, fuck, really? I had no idea. That's repugnant. Intelligence is a racist rag. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG Yup, see https://isironline.org/our-board/ , 3rd from left on 2nd row. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A hypothesis that East Asians have a heritable tendency towards IQs substantially higher than those of white people, cannot be a function of 'white supremacy'. Quite the opposite. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:9031:E137:F227:B905 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That depends if your goal is to a)claim there are inherant differences in intelligence between races or b)continue the ongoing primary goal of scientific racism - attempting to say black people are less intelligent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the dumbest argument ever. I know out-and-out white supremacists in real life because I am, unfortunately, related to some. You can speak to any neo-nazi, "great replacement" believer or any other variety of white supremacist about this subject and they will readily admit that Jewish and Asian people might be "slightly" more intelligent than white people right before the launch into a rant about "inherent morality" and "physical prowess" "cultural ascendancy" and other such nonsense that has no basis in reality. Every time someone say that "saying Jews and Asians being smarter than white people proves it's not white supremacy," they're either announcing that they have no idea what white supremacist beliefs are, but aren't afraid to defend them, or that they know damn well what white supremacists believe and are lying to support that cause. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the crux of the problem is that many people falsely equate human intelligence with human worth when in reality, life outcomes also depend on other factors, such as nutrition, education, motivation, and other things. It should further be noted that different groups of humans are different because their ancestors evolved in different environments after humanity migrated out from Africa. There is nothing wrong with humans being different, no more than Darwin's finches being different. Put another way, people are differently talented. Let's not forget that over on the page on the heritability of IQ, the score for the heritability of intelligence as measured by IQ (among adults but not children) is rather high, about 0.80. It is therefore not too surprising that the environment does not entirely shape differences in human intelligence. It of course does not mean that it is 100% genetic. The question should not be 'nature or nurture' but rather 'how much of each'. Nerd271 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

As discussed in our article Heritability of IQ, Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. For an easy-to-understand explainer on this issue, I recommend "Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely" by the geneticist Kevin Mitchell: [117]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the crux of the problem is that many people falsely equate human intelligence with human worth when in reality, This is the very first mention of human worth, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as referring to human worth in this entire discussion. This fact literally only makes sense if you are completely and utterly wrong. I'll tell you right now that I have no trouble grokking that a person with a severe mental handicap is worth the same amount as a genuis, and someone describing the former as "less intelligent" than the latter doesn't bother me in the slightest. Again, this only makes any sense if you are completely and utterly wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271, Bzzzt! You mentioned IQ. Go to the back of the class. IQ is heavily culturally biased. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely can, if IQ is a metric where people from majority-whit cultures score higher. Spoiler: it is.

In the absence of a proven, objective, racially neutral measure of intelligence, this is all in the world of Rick Santorum dismissing Native American culture as insignificant because white Christians all but wiped it out. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that those who are partial to white supremacist arguments think the myth of the model minority is somehow an ace in the hole -- as if their opponents have never heard of the trope before. jps (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Personal anecdotes about the beliefs of individual white supremacists are not relevant here. The race and intelligence debate is global and not limited to racial dynamics within, for example, the United States. A scientist who claims that 'white' people have innately inferior average intelligence to another race or other races (I am not supporting the idea that race is a valid way to categorise humans) is not necessarily promoting a white supremacist narrative. A scientist who claims that as a group sub-Saharan Africans have better motor skills or more fast-twitch muscle fibres than other races, is not necessarily pushing a black supremacist narrative. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:280B:2978:F34F:22F1 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What this person said. Different peoples are different. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. The politics of a certain country is irrelevant. Human intelligence is a general and cross-cultural topic. Nerd271 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Different people are different" is not the same thing as bringing out the canard about fast-twitch muscle fibres and then ignorantly attributing these well-worn racialist theories to "black supremacists" when they function perfectly well within the white supremacist narrative. jps (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a review in Nature linking these two perennial racist canards: "Sports and IQ: the persistence of race ‘science’ in competition" [118] Generalrelative (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish real world experiences from "personal anecdotes" is your problem, not mine. You could confirm what I said just by reading our article on white supremacy, though I know that's too much to ask. As I said, anyone making this argument is either ignorant of what white supremacists believe, but willing to defend them, or being disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a post saying "I am right and anyone who disagrees is racist" has anything to do with Reliable Sources. If you're suggesting that we assess whether sources are reliable based on their political content, I'm afraid I cannot and will not agree with you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To whom is this addressed? jps (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To you. Why is this discussion on this board? It seems to have a lot to do with what you think is "racist", and very little about reliable sourcing. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: When one reads the opinions of people like Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton who are cited as authorities by the opener of this RfC, and the role of the Pioneer Fund in bankrolling these people, it's hard to argue racism isn't involved in this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: Why is this discussion on this board? The entire RfC doesn't belong on this board, and is also very clearly improperly written. Both of these points have been discussed at length above. As far as I understand we're just waiting for someone uninvolved to take it upon themselves to close it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That is what I thought. I saw how Ferahgo phrased their question to be on-its-face about reliable sources, but agree with the crowd above that it was improperly done. I'm not sure why so many people insist on continuing the conversation here, though. other than the obvious detail that the topic is so controversial that it induces comment User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, this shouldn't be closed, it should just be moved, probably to Talk:Race and intelligence. So: "Race and intelligence" is difficult because everything to do with race is politically charged, and everything to do with intelligence is difficult because we are barely able to measure intelligence. Perhaps, instead of race and intelligence, we should first discuss race and height. Will anyone object to me suggesting that genetic factors may explain why Europeans are taller than African Pygmies? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Lol, perhaps that will be a less contentious debate. But if anyone here is genuinely curious as to why the genetics that contribute to determining height are so unlike the genetics that contribute to determining intelligence, see "Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely" by the geneticist Kevin Mitchel (I've cited it above too): [119]. He contrasts the two explicitly and in a way that is very informative for understanding this entire issue. Generalrelative (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that given the other problems (especially the non-neutral statement), a new RFC would be needed, rather than just moving this one... assuming people want to move forward at all. I'd suggest WP:FRINGEN instead of Talk:Race and intelligence, since that's where the most recent RFC took place and this one is asking for that one to be directly overturned, and since the core question is whether an aspect of a topic is fringe or not; additionally, it does have some relevance outside of just that article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: The reason I suggested the R&I talk-page rather than FTN is that the former is now EC-protected, and the latter is not. Given past problems caused by SPAs, socks, IPs, and off-wiki canvassing, I'm hoping that, if we decide to go through another RfC, having it EC-protected would prevent most of the distortions and waste of time caused by the tactics that are sometimes used by civil POV-pushers. I agree with you that a new RfC would make more sense than moving this one. NightHeron (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Arguing that I am causing the issue here when I didn't bring up the white supremacist argumentation is rather rich. If you wanted to close this entire discussion, that would be one thing, but it is clear that the OP is forum shopping to avoid having to discuss the racism inherent in their position, and it seems that pointing this out makes you uncomfortable perhaps because you are afraid that some of your approaches to this subject may be identified as having racist tinges? (N.b. If you think race has anything to do with a comparison between the heights of people, I presume you also have an explanation as to whether and how the same thing applies to blue eyes versus brown eyes.) I dunno, I think my argument is clear and the relevance to sources is unmistakeable to me. jps (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@jps. You either misread or are deliberately misrepresenting what I have written. I specifically pointed out that 'fast-twitch muscle' claims CAN NOT be naturally attributed to black supremacism.

I agree with the above. This is about sources, the rejection of sources, and misuse of sources. This 'racism' section needs shifting.2407:7000:9BC3:C800:280B:2978:F34F:22F1 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You are the one not understanding. This idea is also WP:FRINGE in the sense that the sources which make it are used to prop up the racism of white supremacism. The problem here is that people advocating for the white supremacist position, like whoever this New Zealand account is, either wittingly or unwittingly argue in favor of accommodating sources that are explicitly supporting white supremacy. To me, the irony is the brazenness with which this is done. jps (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any sources we label racist and white supremacist are simply unacceptable. Races are the same because anything else is racist. QED. Furthermore any sources which can be used to support racism and white supremacy must be removed. In fact after this I will be deleting mathematics and engineering articles since these disciplines were used to construct Hitler's panzer divisions. Maximum Justice (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of why, if we hold a new RfC, it should be at the EC-protected R&I talk-page, where SPAs and probable socks such as this one (Maximum Justice has no edits other than the above) can't disrupt the discussion and waste the time of legitimate editors. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. The longer we keep this open the more SPA disruption and meatpuppetry we can expect. Generalrelative (talk) 15:10, 3 May 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.

Proposal to start a new RFC

I'd like to follow up on the suggestion made by several editors above (as well as by the closing admin) that a new, better structured RFC is needed. I agree with this suggestion. A properly structured RFC about the issues raised here will need to address three questions:

1. Is it correct to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, does this require the various sources that give credence to this hypothesis to be removed, excluded and/or declared unreliable?
3. If the answer to (1) is yes, does this require the inclusion of the sentence that various editors have argued is not supported by its sources?

Any of these questions may be re-worded. My main proposal is that a properly structured RFC should separate these three issues into three questions, instead of combining them all into a single question as Ferahgo's RFC tried to do.

Second, I suggest that the correct venue for such a RFC is the NPOV Noticeboard. Question (1) above relates to fringe theories, question (2) relates to RS policy, and question (3) relates to Verifiability policy, but all three questions relate to NPOV policy.

I disagree with the suggestion that the RFC should occur on the talk page of any individual article, because these questions are not specific to any one article. The articles affected by last year's RFC decision include Race and intelligence, Nations and IQ, Heritability of IQ, Flynn effect, Ashkenazi Jews, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and the deleted Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence article. The most appropriate venue to discuss questions that span multiple articles is at a noticeboard.

I am not sure about the details of exactly how a properly formatted RFC on these questions should be structured, so I'm open to advice from other editors about that, especially from Berchanhimez, whose comment above suggests that he has some ideas about how to prevent the discussion in such a RFC from being derailed. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the discussion above? Most of it suddenly disappeared. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Someone tried to archive the discussion and messed it up. I would HIGHLY suggest you hold this discussion on the article talk page rather than here, which is what I stated in the closure I made above. --Jayron32 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice

Questioning the reliability of the source.
(1) Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice. In Croation. Here is the pdf which is available online [[120]]
(2) About the people involved in the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje
(3) Dražen Kutleša prepared/compiled the book for the Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar (translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar) and Bishop Ratko Peric - Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar published it.

(a) Title page translated:

MIRROR JUSTICE -Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar -about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje - Prepared by Don Drazen - Mostar, 2001.

(b) Drazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 of the document and the beginning paragraph translated:

"By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić tried I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."

(4) Bishop Peric (Bishop Zanic before him) oversaw Medjugorje and the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar

(a) Link to the current Bishop of Mostar that took over from Ratko Peric [[121]]. The Bishop oversees :Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar [[122]]

(5) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314).
(6) It is a compilation of interviews and statements of people involved in the Medjugorje apparitions including the previous Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric.
(7) Not independent from the apparitions but directly involved.
(8) It is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Our Lady of Medjugorje Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.
(9) Reliability on Wikipedia is important.
Sorry I forgot to sign.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
(Discussion)

Explanation

The above request was posted by User:Red Rose 13 (who forgot to sign it), and is a referral concerning a dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The source in question is a book in Croatian, published by a Catholic diocesan publisher, under the supervision of Bishop Ratko Peric, concerning the veracity and nature of the visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). The book is being cited as a source in various articles, including Pavol Hnilica, a biography of a (deceased) bishop who was extensively involved with OLM. The question is whether the book can be considered a reliable secondary source, or whether it is a primary source.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It clearly would be a biased source, so whether it is a secondary source or a primary source, it should be attributed - with the usual "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" - if there are conflicting reports or uninvolved analysis which contradict this it should all of course be reported. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Fyi Govenor Sheng is the other person involved in this DRN.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. Kutleša was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, and the book was published by the Bishop's Ordinariate. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [123], [124], [125], [126]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [127], [128], Marijan Sivrić [129], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: [130], Marina Beus [131], Božo Goluža [132], Ivica Šarac [133] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [134], the University of Osijek [135]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

Kutleša as an author was never directly involved in the issue, he is a third-person observer of the Medjugorje phenomenon, a reputable author (as a University Professor), thus his writing in this particular book (Ogledalo pravde) can be considered reliable.

Now, regarding Perić. Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [136], [137] [138], [139], [140], [141]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [142] [143] [144]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [145]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

Note. Ogledalo pravde is not a compilation of interviews and statements, though it includes them. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Deepestsighs.com

Hi all. I'm here because I'm developing a draft article for the next Gang of Youths album, and I've com across this site – Deepest Sighs (named so for the song "The Deepest Sighs, the Frankest Shadows"). I'm wondering if it could be considered reliable, in which case I will obviously use it, or not, in which case I will include it in an external links section. Thanks, Sean Stephens (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like a self published blog-type site. WP:SPS would indicate that it wouldn't be considered reliable. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: That's what I was thinking also. Thank you for expressing your point of view. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wordpress on critical reception from writer already quoted in page

Hey there, I'd like to in include this article on Kaworu Nagisa, Critical reception section. Kraiser is used as reference #97 in a explicative article for IGN. I argued his personal blog could be used again as per WP:SPS but not everyone agrees. The article already has a lot of sources from sites I personally don't have a high opinion of and I think have a very clickbait line for these past few years, with more than a few very inaccurate articles showing opinion or fan theories as fact and making multiple mistakes. So I think this piece of critical reception is acceptable. What do you think?FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is the content you wanted to add:

Writer Vrai Kaiser notes that fans' perception of the character are polarizing, with negative interpretations being "pervasive", and positive ones present him as the single solution to Shinji's problems, disregarding the rest of the cast.

Wordpress is a technical platform, it has no influence on reliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Rotten Tomatoes (RSP entry) includes Kaiser's film and TV reviews in Tomatometer aggregate score when published in The Mary Sue (RSP entry).[146] Considering the context is about rather trivial matters – an opinion about fictional characters – the bar for establishing an author as an expert should not be set super high and hence I would consider the source a reliably sourced opinion for the context. I will skip assessing whether including the content is due. Politrukki (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'm not in a hurry so if anyone else wants to chip in I'll wait before making any more edits as I'm discussing the article at DRN regardless. Thanks again. FelipeFritschF (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RSP wording for SPLC

Right now the RSP wording is:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I believe this should be amended to something more like:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is widely cited by reliable secondary sources as an authority on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article (for example by reference to reporting of SPLC's statements in reliable independent secondary sources) and ensure all content conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis and should be guided by secondary sources, not SPLC's own publications.

I'm not disputing SPLC's authority on hate groups (and anyone who wants to do so has already lost that argument, per the first sentence above - reliable sources see them as an authority, and if that is a problem, it is not our problem to fix). This is about the UNDUE question, and ensuring that we let RS judge whether a particular classification or statement is worthy of note, rather than quote-mining the internet for primary opinion sources, per WP:ARSEHOLES.

• WRONG: $GROUP is a hate group,<ref>SPLC page calling $GROUP a hate group</ref>
• WRONG: SPLC classifies $GROUP as a hate group,<ref>SPLC page calling $GROUP a hate group</ref>
• RIGHT: SPLC classifies $GROUP as a hate group,<ref>$RELIABLESOURCE noting that SPLC designates $GROUP as a hate group</ref>

I'd even be happy with mandating that we don't include it unless it's noted by two or more RS.

We'll never stop people demanding that we exclude SPLC designations on the basis that they reject them. We'll never stop Conservapedia from accusing us of being Zionist liberal cucks because we note that the Family Research Council are considered a hate group. But I thnk we can ensure that any fair-minded reader (if such a thing exists in today's polarised world) recognises that we're not just quote-mining the internet for stuff we agree with. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This sounds sensible. Can you give some examples of groups that would be affected? That's is, ones SPLC calls them a hate group but other reliable sources do not mention it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, all I know is that we have a large number of articles that cite SPLC as a source per splcenter.org  , and I think that number should be in single digits. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG. Btw did you remove "Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics" from the proposed version on purpose? Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, yes, because we don't care about "some editors" but we do care about reliable independent sources - especially since the "some editors" have consistently failed to achieve consensus. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Chesterton's fence, probably there was a reason why it was there in the first place, so I was wondering why you no longer consider it right. Alaexis_¿question? 18:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• all I know is that we have a large number of articles that cite SPLC as a source per splcenter.org  , and I think that number should be in single digits. I think you're forgetting that a large number of those cites are to the SPLC alongside a secondary source, which is entirely legitimate. I'm not a huge fan of citing opinion-pieces or over-reliance on WP:RSOPINION in general without secondary sources, but if we are going to retain that practice, the SPLC seems like a classic example of something that is citable as opinion - they have a strong reputation, large numbers of secondary sources defer to their assessments, and they're one of those few organizations high-profile enough that it's reasonable to say that their opinion on something is inherently worth noting. I would prefer a secondary source wherever possible but if you're suggesting we start scouring it down to single-digit primary citations in the manner we do for depreciated sources, I'm going to have to insist that the only way we could do that is by changing WP:RSOPINION to be much more strict in general - changing A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable to read something like Opinion cited via RSOPINION must be published in sources otherwise recognized as reliable or even Opinion cited under RSOPINION must always be accompanied by a secondary source indicating relevance. Or perhaps more specifically specifying the requirement for biased or opinionated RSOPINION, which is where the problem seems to lie ("opinionated opinion" might sound like a redundency, but the idea is to allow reviews provided they're written by roughly unbiased reviewers - and the objection here seems to be that the SPLC's strongly-opinionated nature calls for more caution.) Because if the SPLC doesn't qualify as RSOPINION then I'm hard-pressed to understand what WP:BIASED sources ever would - certainly, since their expertise in their topic-area is widely-recognized, I would rate them higher than an editorial or opinion-piece by a non-expert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Aquillion, ah, you are doing a masterful job of exposing my muddled thinking here, but broadly speaking, you are spot on with "opinionated opinion". There is far too much of this on Wikipedia right now. My personal bar is high: for example, I would not cite Maddow directly even if other sources note that Maddow has commented on something (exception: her books Bag Man and Blowout appear to be RS, footnoted and published by reputable publishing houses independent of the author or her network).

  The fact that SPLC is considered an authority by RS does nudge the needle towards direct inclusion as a supplementary source. But I am really not a fan of "X said Y about Z, source, X saying Y about Z on X's website" for anything, let alone accusations of being a hate group. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  "There is far too much of this on Wikipedia right now" ← Word. There almost seems to be two Wikipedias, the "let's look in the library and find great sources on interesting topics" Wikipedia, and the "what in today's news can I get into Wikipedia in a way which advances my tribe's cause" Wikipedia. It's doin' my head in. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I partly agree... and partly disagree. There is actually a two step process in situations like this...

1) to mention THAT an advocacy group (such as the SPLC) label “X” as a hate group, we need to cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of both the advocacy group (SPLC) and “X”. The reason for this is to establish due weight. However...

2) once that due weight is established, we can (and should) then cite the advocacy group itself (as a primary source) for the details on WHAT the advocacy group says about “X”.

I would extend this to all “opinion sources”... first cite independent reliable sources to establish weight, then cite the opinion source itself for what it says. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm not adamantly opposed to a primary link after the significance is established, but I'd invite you to consider what this invites in terms of other primary links to opinion sources. Think-tanks, hyper-partisan websites, the Daily Mail and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Yup... and I would apply the same standard. Set an extremely high bar on deciding WHETHER to mention the opinion in the first place (a function of DUE WEIGHT), but IF you do mention it, then we should turn to the original primary source (with attribution) for citing WHAT they say. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• As I said above, this seems to strike at the heart of WP:RSOPINION. If you're going to make it a strict requirement to have secondary sources for biased or opinionated WP:RSOPINION, even in the cases where the opinion's source is well-regarded, high-profile, and has established expertise, I would happily agree... but it would have to be a general rule. I would strenuously oppose changing the current practice for using such opinions solely for the SPLC, which is near the high end of sources that are cited under the current practice. I am envisioning, essentially, a situation where a source can be generally-reliable for facts, but WP:BIASED, and still be citable; and could be WP:RSOPINION without strong biases, and still be citable; but something that is both WP:BIASED WP:RSOPINION would require a secondary source. Is that's what's being suggested here? --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that descriptions of groups and individuals by the SPLC must be attributed in all cases. However I disagree with JzG's assertion that we should only use SPLC when used by other sources. Per WP:PARITY SPLC covers a lot of fringe hate figures and groups that receive little coverage otherwise, and to remove the ability use SPLC directly would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • On the third hand... if the ONLY source to cover a fringe group is the SPLC, I would question whether WP should have an article on the group in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Blueboar, 100%. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, it's a primary opinion source, and it's a strong opinion. To include it directly when not covered by independent sources is a real problem. It's also not that common for a genuinely notable hate group not to have third parties note their listing by SPLC, in my experience. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• As for some above my concerns are that it would serve as precedent to dismiss WP:PARITY in other contexts. In theory, if secondary sources are lacking about a topic, the article should ideally be deleted for lack of notability. When well covered by secondary sources, it would naturally result in content that meets the above suggestion. I admit that there still are cases of articles subsisting despite the lack of independent criticism even where warranted... —PaleoNeonate – 02:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for the additional wording. The reason we typically mention that the SPLC has called a group a hate group is that major news media typically report this in articles about the group. But the same guideline policy for any fact or opinion reported in any article. No opinion is noteworthy because of its source. The proposal is based on a false assumption that there are cases where media don't report the SPLC's categorization, which is dubious at best. Incidentally, saying it is "only an opinion" is misleading. It's an expert opinion, which means for all practical purposes it can be treated as a fact. It's in the same league as the opinion that smoking is harmful. The SPLC is biased and opinionated in the same sense that the Surgeon-General is by advising people not to smoke. TFD (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You can back up claims around smoking with scientific evidence and evaluation under a scientific method using statistical tests and all that, and while there may be underlying political or biases to want to sway the results, there are still fundamental objective determinations that can be established and thus can be presented closer to fact (though I would still think that if the only source for such a claim is the S.G., we'd attribute that to the S.G. until there's further corroboration). Whereas even the SPLC is still using a subjective measure of what a hate group is to classify people and groups into these categories - one that is likely 95% in agreement with what most people think a hate group is but still which they have infrequently gotten flack for excessive inclusion and even backed off in some cases - because there is no objective process to make that determination. Thus while they are an expert source, and one we should include on groups that are in SPLC's classification, it should be treated as an RSOPINION about the group with clear inline citation to the SPLC, and definitely not treated as fact. Given there are legal ramifications around what are hate crimes and related terminology, and the SPLC is not a legal authority here but simply an expert source, we absolutely need to make sure it is clear classification by the SPLC (or similar agencies like ADL) are clearly delineated. --Masem (t) 05:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• On the issue of RSOPINION this comes back to a wholly separate matter I raised long before which had to deal with the Daily Mail and its television and film reviewers. In the area of mainstream British television and major films, there are several notable writers that have spent time at other UK papers but have ended up at the DM and part of the known body of reviewers of contemporary works). If I were looking for sources about a Brit TV episode or a film, their reviews as published by the Daily Mail would easily come up, and one would normally be expected to include their reviews... but we have the DM deprecation in place that would initially say they can't be used. That's basically BS, in that this is exactly what I was trying to propose for RSOPINION to be clear about, that as long as it is clear that for the specific topic area that there are experts that would normally be polled or used for their opinion, it doesn't matter where their opinion is published as long as we are confident it is there work - RSOPINION does not require that a secondary source be present to be able to include what has been determined what are known experts in the given topic area, as determined by consensus. So in the case of British television, these TV reviewers that work for the DM would be experts that could be included (presuming consensus agreed) just simply based on the DM publication. The same analogy works here for the SPLC or ADL. In the area of hate groups or other racist/bigotry etc. they are expert groups, I doubt we need consensus to demonstrate that, so their RSOPINION can be included without the need of a secondary source.

Obviously, when RSOPINION is evoked, inline sourcing is 100% required.

Now, UNDUE and secondary sources that reference the RSOPINION as to back up are important when there is possible significant disagreement. In the case of TV reviews, this isn't an issue - every critic has their own view, there's no majority view so all RSOPINIONS are equal. But for hate groups, we can anticipate hostile counterargument from the labeled group and its allies. If the group is significant, more than likely we'll have multiple RSes re-reporting the SPLC's classiciation and that will drown out the counterargument to a level that puts aside the UNDUE issues. If a group isn't significant, and we have almost no RSes re-reporting the SPLC's classificatoin, we first should probably re-review notability of the group, and if its still notable then, then we have to be careful with how much to talk about it, maybe at most just a sentence or even omission --Masem (t) 06:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do not have an opinion on the wording. Sorry couldn't resist. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I largely agree with this, but I think it should be more clear that any publishing on the SPLC's own website are considered self-published. This would help clarify the BLP concerns with using this as a source. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't believe such wording actually makes much sense. Since SPLC "is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States", the designation will likely appear in RS because people and news media generally respect SPLC's opinion, however imperfect, and they will often say "it has been labeled a hate group by SPLC" in their reporting in what is alleged/considered to be a hate group.

That said, I'd prefer an idea to have both SPLC and a reasonable amount of resources to corroborate the opinion and the rationale (I'd say 2 RSs would be enough, unless that's a particularly notorious group, in which case more can be added). In realistic terms, a majority of readers of Wikipedia will anyway read either the lead only or most of the text but still without going deep into references, so if there is indeed consensus this is a hate group, it will be the best way to show it (if there is not, I'd think twice before adding the sentence). So if I were to write the entry in the RSP, I'd ask to search for both SPLC and RSs.

PS. When citing the SPLC, find the article where they expand on the motives to include the group and not just the heat map. For people who will go deep into references, other references and the body of the article will show whether that opinion (and reasoning) is substantiated or RS actually doubt whether to follow SPLC's advice. And, of course, just as every opinion, it must be attributed whenever used. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced of the need for a change, though I think I can follow the motivations for suggesting it. Perhaps more examples would help: what article might be impacted by the change, and how? XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Techcabal

Hello, I want to know if Techcabal can be regarded as a reliable source or not. Thank you. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 10:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on their aboutpage [147] it's not obvious, and of course context matters. I wouldn't use it for very controversial stuff. It has some on-WP presence, see [148]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, thank you for the response. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 13:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, context... reliability depends on the specific information you are trying to verify when you cite it. It may be reliable in one situation and not reliable in another. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Blueboar:. In conclusion, it should be used with caution. Thank you! The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

ACRLog

• Ad Fontes Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Ad_Fontes_Media#Use_of_ACRLog_as_a_reference

Article content under consideration:

In 2021, an article on the Association of College and Research Libraries' blog explored some of the problematic aspects of the Media Bias Chart. The authors critiqued how the Chart promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political “center” as being without bias, reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes “news” in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn’t already hold a comparable view of the media landscape. The authors argued that trying to capture the complexities of source credibility in a visual chart was an oversimplification, and detrimental to information and media literacy efforts.

References

Is this blog reliable enough for our use for the content above? --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• 1. The webpage does seem to have some review process before the articles are published, so I'd not say it is self-published.

2. The webpage states it was created in order to fulfill some points of ACRL Strategic Plan 2020, so it has endorsement from ACRL, which itself is a reputable organisation of subject matter experts.

3. The authors of the post are themselves subject matter experts (Candice Benjes-Small was president of Va. ACRL division); Nathan Elwood also seems to have some rather good credentials. Scientific articles of both authors are perfectly searchable.

I conclude it is perfectly reliable. Go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)