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

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

Source: Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert, eds. (1995), India: A Country Study (PDF), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, p. 571

Statement in source: "There was some opposition to this move within the cabinet by those who did not agree with referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN. The UN mediation process brought the war to a close on January 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war."

Discussion: Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#6000 casualties figure

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit

Summary: This is a highly partisan topic and is subject to DS. The talk page discussion started by questioning Pakistani casualties quoted as 6,000 killed, citing Globalsecurity.org and a figure of 1,500 killed. There is no consensus as to the reliability of that source but it actually cites India: A Country Study (the subject of this post). The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was initially fought by proxy until the ultimate engagement of both national militaries. It is unclear from the other sources cited precisely what they are reporting as casualties (ie national military casualties v total combatant casualties). The other sources are not great, in that they are largely Indian in origin. The subject edit would add the 1,500 figure to both sides. However, the reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) has since been questioned, citing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Question: Is the subject source (India: A Country Study) sufficiently reliable to support the edit made to the infobox in respect to casualties.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I have no ties to either country.

Comments (India: A Country Study)

• Not a reliable source for the purpose.
  • That being said, what is the end-game? A majority of men employed by Pakistan were irregulars supplied with arms-stashes and money; who had recorded those casualties? There is a reason why even semi-official histories (see Shuja Nawaz et al) skips mentioning casualty-counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• The time of the event is around late 1940's. This makes it very difficult to gather enough information on the casualty figures. Wikipedia was earlier quoting an indian figure which seems to have no official source and was not reliable enough. The 1,500 casualty figure estimate is the most neutral source on the internet neutral source at page 571 and is quoted by global security.org . It is also cited in some university work. No concensus can even be reached on global security.org not being suitable for being quoted. It has been cited in over 25,000 articles and also by Reuters and new york times as well as Washington Post which are considered reliable sources and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar. It is only logical to quote both the 1,500 and 6000 figures as an estimate. Going by what TrangaBellam, that would mean removal of all the casualty section as this argument will even apply for the 6000 figure, which also it not a sure shot reliable source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.

So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The India country Study states 1500 Indian soldiers died, so it's off by 397 from the Indian History of the War. However, it's unclear whether it includes the J&K/AJK/GB/Chitral forces for either side and if it does, it would indeed be off by a wide margin. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There may be some confusion of terminology. Casualty is killed+wounded. It's apples and oranges to compare 1,500 killed with over 3,000 casualty. -- GreenC 03:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• This source doesn't rule out that the 1,500 figure is wrong. The 6000 Pakistani casualty figure and 3000 indian casualty figure still turns out to be an indian claim. The 1,500 comes out to be a seperate estimate of casualties, not related with }}. No official pakistani casualty figures were released and thus the source cannot be ruled out. Your source only suggests thats the indian killed figure be changed to 1,500-3000 and Pakistani be kept at 1,500-6000. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The question that is being discussed is whether it is reliable for the purpose. I gave evidence that proves that it is not. The best you can do is to quote it verbatim in the body. It is nor reasonable to split it up into pieces and format it in whatever way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• For the sake of including a neutral perspective I agree with using it. Currently, the article cites Indian figures. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with including it, as a range. The source is widely cited by other reliable sources as noted by Truthwins018. Furthermore reliable sources are not required to cite their sources to be reliable. A research division within the Library of Congress is not faultless, I doubt any numbers are definitive, but it would require more than Wiki editors disagreeing with the numbers to exclude it from the article, particularly when given as a range. -- GreenC 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• Unreliable for the purpose. The source which is India: A Country Study is clearly not widely cited. The assertion that it is, is based on a different website called globalsecurity.org quoting it. The website globalsecurity.org which looks like a group blog, is the one being used as a source for an opinion in one NYT article and produces 25k+ results on google scholar (every result after the 8th is from the website itself). This is very marginal use in RS, not to mention its use is irrelevant to the actual query here. Searching for India: A Country Study itself produces similarly barebone results. The subject of the source is an overall profile of India and is not specific to the military history of the Kashmir Conflict. The topic area needs specialist academic sources, especially for things like casualty estimates. On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wide citation of global security.org has already been mentioned by SpicyBiryani on the talk page of 1947-1948 indo-pak war.The founder of the website is John Pike. John Pike is one of the worlds leading expert on defence in the world and more can be read about him in the sources cited.Global security also has a reputed range of staff with wide experience in the field of defence.Global security has been cited in Reuters by an article worked upon by Reuters Staff. It has been cited in CNN . It has been cited in Washington Post here, here ,here. It has been cited by NYT [1], [2]. Some of the book citations are:

  • Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.
  • Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.
  • Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf

All the book citations may be viewed here. It has been cited in numerous books on National Security. [3]

As for the subject issue, The book does concentrate on one of the participants of the war. The killed figures are given in a seperate National Security section. We till date are not equipped with accurate figures of the casualties from the war. An indian version of figures are available. A neutral version is established from this source. It is only wise to continue with an estimated range of casualty figures which gives all the figures Truthwins018 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see merit in the arguments of those who esteem the source unreliable for the purpose for which it is being used on the main page. There is hardly any correlation between the reliability of a source and the magnitude of hits it gets on a search engine. The tangible criteria are enumerated and enunciated at WP:RS and there is no indication that this source, which uses a broad-brush to coalesce the two countries' casualties under a single sentence with unwarranted brevity, measures up when the yardstick of WP:RSCONTEXT is applied. Kerberous (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• It definetely fulfils on the criteria of WP:RS. Your opinion WP:OR is irrelevant in the present criteria. The source directly cites the material and its under a seperate section of Natural security. Vaious citations of globalsecurity.org does increase its reliability especially by already considered reliable sources and none of the discussion was aimed at " magnitude of hits"Truthwins018 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had come here to seek opinion that was hopefully independent of the topic. By and large, this has not been the case so it is substantially just a rehash of the opinions being offered at the original discussion. Perhaps though, the most telling comment is that of Tayi Arajakate: On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. It would strongly suggest that the solution is: "remove one, remove all". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that would be one way to go about it. Although a better solution would be to find independent specialist scholarly sources and replace these sources with them. To give an overview of the sources, I can see 3 books published by Lancer Publishers which is the in-house publisher of the Indian armed forces, a Pakistani newspaper article, one book authored by Ved Prakash Malik, one commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and an article from an Indian military think tank. This reminds me of a previous discussion arising from a similar dispute, and the article in question appears to have more or less analogous issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CR request made. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this purpose. Similarly I don't see how globalsecurity.org make the estimate more credible. It is not reliable as well. The number of hits on google does not correspond with reliability, as pointed out by others already. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC on apa.az use for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh articles

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

Consensus was reached that www.apa.az is not a reliable source in controversial cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Is www.apa.az website a reliable source for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh related articles? --Armatura (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC) The reason why apa.az got scrutinised is this talk page discussion. --Armatura (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

• No as the opener of this RfC. Examples from its publications:

1. Armenia's crimes condemned in Los Angeles-VIDEO
2. Armenia continues “mine terror”-ANALYSIS
3. Reasons and purposes of Armenian provocations on border-ANALYSIS
4. International media and journalists in crosshairs of Armenian terrorism - ANALYSIS
5. Illegal visit of German MPs to Khankendi: Armenia is committed to the ideology of fascism - ANALYSIS
6. Why Armenia, in a difficult situation, is resorting to provocation? - ANALYSIS
7. Finally, apa.az is happy to present what happened in Khojali as Khojali genocide (no wide international consensus for this term) without quote marks and yet it is so-called “Armenian genocide” in quote marks for widely recognised genocide that only Azerbaijan and Turkey deny. (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not familiar with the topic area, but the impression I got from the three examples I read is of consistently strong bias and propaganda and poor journalism. I am not sure I would consider anything published by this site as reliable on this topic, unless supported by another completely independent source from another country not involved in the conflict. They also appear to be badly translated, or written by someone with a poor command of English, which could be part of the problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. They are not used by RS and Eurasianet writes that they get instructions what to write directly from the Azerbaijani government. Alaexis_¿question? 06:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - Based on the language that the website uses, I think it's pretty safe to say that it shouldn't be considered RS. The extreme bias, COI and advocacy just speaks for itself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Depends on context. In general, Azerbaijani and Armenian sources cannot be trusted on Nagorno-Karabakh related issues, as both are engaged in propaganda due to the conflict between the two countries. But if this news agency reports simple facts as, for example, inauguration of a railway station, or construction of a school, or a visit of a country official or his public statement, I see no reason why it should not be trusted. Grandmaster 13:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree regarding simple facts about Azerbaijan. The RfC question is however about its reporting on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Alaexis_¿question? 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. In general, "news analysis" pieces are just opinion pieces with a different label thrown on them. Using these sorts of pieces are subject to WP:RSOPINION and the principle of due weight, but they should not be treated as news reporting. Reading through the website's news coverage in English, it seems like the site is just relatively low quality all-around. I can't say the same for its Azeri or Russian reporting, as I can't read either of those languages, so I can't comment more broadly on the site. I am seeing 580ish uses in articles on Wikipedia currently, ranging from Death of Michael Jackson and Occupy movement to Steve Cohen (politician) and 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I haven't had the time to look into this source yet, but I would note the last two examples look to be APA quoting the Azerbaijani President, and so don't speak to the reliability of the source. I will say though that the Eurasianet article suggests there are significant problems with using the APA group, as well as Trend News Agency, Axar, and Sas. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - This is not even disputable. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Depends-Only for non controversial facts. Else No. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (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.

Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

The Dispatch – Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

What are the implications of the CCP exercising increased control over Chinese media on Wikipedia coverage of Chinese topics? Does it contribute to increased systemic bias against topics local to China, and if so, how can we mitigate this? feminist (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. It will increase problems with using Chinese sources because those Chinese sources will have an increased Systemic bias. And there is no way to mitigate this, we cannot weaken our sourcing rules to allow outright propaganda sources to be used for statements of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We can mitigate it by not using sources that are under the grip of Xi Jinping. We do this to some degree, but nowhere near enough. See WP:XINHUA for example. We try to distinguish areas where China "may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation." News flash: we are not omniscient. Also, see WP:SCMP. The South China Morning Post was once a terrific source, but Hong Kong's freedom is rapidly coming to an end. See Jimmy Lai.

There is also the problem of academic "research" that is under Xi's thumb. In that area, we haven't done anything. We should. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We already have a strong systemic bias in Chinese-related topics, in the opposite direction from what you're suggesting. Ruling out Chinese sources will only make that systemic bias even worse.

Ruling out high-quality sources like Caixin, which is an excellent finance and investigative journalism outlet, would leave Wikipedia in a worse position. Caixin's reporting on China is often of a much higher quality than that of major Western outlets, and Western outlets often rely on Caixin for basic reporting. The same goes for SCMP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I see Caixin has been gagged.[4] Being excellent is apparently not allowed. As a general matter, I agree that sources that have been banned by Beijing have a better chance of being reliable. Apple Daily is another example. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The article you linked does not indicate that there's any problem with Caixin's reporting. In fact, it says that Caixin has reported critically on issues inside China.

If we go along with what you're proposing and ban all Chinese sources, we'll lose Caixin's excellent, well informed reporting. We'll end up relying heavily on outlets that often have less informed coverage, and which have their own strong biases.

See, for example, Bloomberg's irresponsible reporting back in March 2020 on conspiracy theories about vastly inflated death tolls in China. Bloomberg took an accurate, non-sensationalist report from Caixin, mixed it with conspiracy theories from Chinese social media, and uncritically presented crazy death tolls. And it's not just Bloomberg that did this. A bunch of outlets did it too: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Scientific research into both excess mortality and seroprevalence ([10] [11]) in China has debunked these conspiracy theories. Why did these outlandish conspiracy theories get such wide play in the media in the first place? Because they played to the biases that these outlets have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of domestic Chinese topics are mundane, which Chinese state media is still reliable for. The topics where CCP have a reason for misinformation are generally already widely covered by Western sources so we would already typically be using them instead. Jumpytoo Talk 04:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post is no better than the rest of Chinese propaganda media outlets and is arguably more sinister because it is tailored to a broader, more international audience. The recent decision by their *newsroom* chief to publish a bizarre video comparing press freedom in China/HK — i.e. the lack thereof — to the Assange case says a lot about the decline of HK media in general and this newspaper in particular. Normchou ^💬 01:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not write off the SCMP just yet. Comparing China/HK's press freedom to US press freedom is certainly bizarre, but less so in the context of the Assange case, and I think newspaper editors should be allowed to express their own opinions on Twitter. It was SCMP that reported that secret Chinese government documents put November 17 as the date of the first confirmed COVID case, even though the Chinese government claims it was December 19. Of course, I do wonder why they haven't released the Chinese government documents to the public, in the way AP have (see below). We will just have to watch them very closely. LondonIP (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The implications are that Chinese journalism is biased towards a Chinese government's position on the issues by virtue of the fact that they exist in a state that has heavy media censorship. This has always been the case in mainland China and is also now starting to become the case in Hong Kong/Macau. No offence, but this article demonstrates no meaningful change in Chinese press freedom. The WSJ article the linked piece is based on explains it pretty well as "Many of the restrictions described in Friday’s draft have existed in some form for years, according to media scholars, but China’s large internet companies have long operated in a legal gray area when it comes to online news content." This isn't a radical change in the Chinese media environment, but a further clamping down over dissent.

All this being said, I do believe we have a heavy pro-Western bias and we should not rule out Chinese sources by virtue of the fact they're Chinese. Like WP:XINHUA, China Daily, or whatever else, it's possible for us to take a middle ground on these issues. Mitigating systemic bias would mean that we can use these sources to present China's position on many issues while clarifying that these sources are state-run or potentially biased. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Mitigating systemic bias would mean that we can use these sources to present China's position on many issues while clarifying that these sources are state-run or potentially biased
I 100% agree with this view. We should A) describe the controversy, but also B) fairly represent the Chinese academic view as the scientific view given that the academic sources and the government sources help us frame the current scientific consensus. We can then describe the fact that many outlets find these sources questionable given the risk of government censorship. All of this is fair game, and none of it should be entirely excluded, but rather proportionally represented. This is also what WP:BESTSOURCES tells us to do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Chinese media is generally unreliable (prime example being Global Times). Media like SCMP is as of now more or less reliable, but its quality is rapidly deteriorating and this statement may not be true a year or two from now.

Best practice would be to not use state media as a RS unless it is absolutely necessary.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

AP: Xi Jinping restricts publishing of COVID-19 data and research

According to internal documents obtained by the AP, any data or research on COVID-19 must be approved by a new task force managed by China’s cabinet, under direct orders from President Xi Jinping. These orders affect the Chinese CDC, as well as independent scientists, both of whom have published papers in international journals, some of which are being cited to argue that contentious claims. We may need to discuss this gag order and how it effects the reliability of Chinese scholarship on COVID-19, just as we would with its reliability for Traditional Chinese medicine and The Three Ts. LondonIP (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This may affect some studies but if a study is peer-reviewed, including by non-chinese scientists, then the study is as good as any other peer-reviewed study. also please do not duplicate discussions. Xoltered (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No. It does not make sense to expect them to present a neutral and fact-based summary of the events but rather a pro-Chinese government view that will deflect from reality. NavjotSR (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You provide no justification for this ridiculous view, as previously stated, peer review is a process that prevents this. Xoltered (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Except that peer reviewers wouldn't be able to tell if data has been completely misrepresented, so long as the data is internally consistent as if it was actually collected that way. So a paper being peer reviewed in such a case doesn't mean the data or results are inherently reliable. Silverseren^C 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand how peer-review works, if this was actually the case, it would be a common issue throughout science, but it is not. It would be helpful for you to think through your points and see if they immediately fall flat before making them. Xoltered (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I consider this remark to be complacent. Peer review can work well, with referees taking a sufficiently broad perspective to recognise all the reasons why the data might not be representative, but it often doesn't and this should not be surprising. The Chinese government putting their thumbs on the scales in this way is something we should take into account in evaluating research that depends on data coming from China. Cf. the remarks of Michael Eisen, First, and foremost, we need to get past the antiquated idea that the singular act of publication – or publication in a particular journal – should signal for all eternity that a paper is valid, let alone important. Even when people take peer review seriously, it is still just represents the views of 2 or 3 people at a fixed point in time. To invest the judgment of these people with so much meaning is nuts. [12].— Charles Stewart (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• it would be a common issue throughout science, but it is not
• Except it is. Elizabeth Bik's entire (recent) career is based around calling out the numerous cases of bad and outright falsified data that was published and went through peer review. It happens all the time and, in most cases, the journals refuse to retract or do anything about the studies even when the falsification is pointed out. Silverseren^C 18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411, Mx. Granger, and Novem Linguae: Also pinging some people who this was linked to by another editor Xoltered (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick tip: A good neutral way to alert both sides to discussions like these is to leave a {{Please see}} on a relevant talk page.

This is like the 5th page I've seen this "is China fudging their COVID statistics" debate overflow to, and it must be a bit exhausting for the participants to keep making the same arguments over and over. Would be nice if editors would stop WP:FORUMSHOPping this and just hold a proper RFC somewhere, such as at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19.

In case anybody is curious, I still 100% agree with Thucydides411. He has read the scientific papers, understands them, and makes convincing arguments that they are trustworthy (e.g. international peer review, the various types of data agreeing and supporting each other), despite the Chinese government's attempts to influence the media. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

e.g. international peer review, the various types of data agreeing and supporting each other

That is a meaningless statement. Chinese researchers were already caught falsifying data and publishing in international journals and getting through peer review just fine. Over 400 papers published in a wide variety of journals and scientific fields. Here's the full list and you'll note that only about half had any sort of "expression of concern" or retraction done about them. And that's just from one paper mill. Silverseren^C 18:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To paraphrase: Some scientists from country X did this bad thing, so we should disregard all research done by scientists from country X.

I'm sure everyone sees what the problem with that sort of thinking is. We're talking about peer-reviewed research in leading journals like The BMJ, The Lancet and Nature, and ruling out these sources when the authors have a certain nationality would be repugnant. I'm surprised and disappointed that we're even having this conversation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think you're making a straw man. I don't think we are at the point where the evidence of interference is of the sort that would justify 'ruling out these sources when the authors have a certain nationality' although I can conceive of interference that would lead me to recommend exactly that. What I am saying and I take Silver seren to be saying as well, is that there is evidence of interference and this does justify caution. I think we should generally be a bit more cautious about trusting the imprimatur of publication in empirical fields where replication rates are not high, although that's another kettle of fish. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Additionally, this isn't just "some scientists", this is hundreds of scientists. As the article from Science that I linked noted, there are no common authors between these papers. They're all "independent" groups of scientists across all the hospitals in China. It encompasses most of the top level physicians who work in hospitals in the country. Furthermore, the bigger point I was making is that this directly shows that peer review in international journals doesn't mean anything at all in terms of inherent reliability of the data. Because peer review can't see through completely fabricated data, as the consistency in the data is only within itself. Saying that the data is consistent between the different papers put out from these research groups, as Thucydides411 has been using as an argument, means nothing if that data is wholesale fabricated and distributed to be consistent between them on purpose. Silverseren^C 00:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's a pretty serious claim you're making here, that the data in all these papers in leading international scientific journals is faked. That's the kind of claim you should either justify or retract. Better yet, you should call up the editors at Nature, The Lancet, The BMJ and all the other journals and tell them about your startling revelations. Once you get the journals to retract these papers, as I'm sure they will if there's any basis to your claims, then come back and let us know. Until then, however, everyone here should disregard your speculation about mass data-faking in leading scientific journals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  UPE farms have been discovered and dealt with on Wikipedia. Does the discovery of one UPE farm invalidate our entire encyclopedia? Also, the fact that these fake papers were discovered is actually a strong argument that fake papers WOULD be caught. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and I strongly agree, this discussion should be at one page, and not 5 different ones. Xoltered (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of this order, I would treat all such sources as having a severe conflict of interest. According to the order, people who don't comply will be "held accountable". The unfortunate fact is that for the authors, disclosure of information the CCP wants to hide would come at tremendous personal risk. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe China's zero-COVID policy worked, just like it worked for Australia, eastern Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and China isn't hiding anything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that the AP's document is not genuine? Or that it's not a smoking gun of hiding information? If they "aren't hiding anything", why did the WHO say China didn't release the list of early patients, Wuhan blood samples, and swabs? And why do I get a 404 at [13]? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like 1) the Chinese government ordered its media and scientists to present information a positive light, and 2) China had an excellent response to COVID-19. Believe it or not, these two things can occur simultaneously. I understand that #2 is suspicious due to #1, but if upon examination no evidence emerges that #2 is fake (and no evidence has emerged, as Thucydides and the scientific papers he quotes indicate), then this hypothesis that #2 is fake due to #1 should be dropped. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds very much like #2 is due to #1. We know from this AP report that Xi ordered these restrictions and we know from Bloomberg why he might be doing this, so we should not be naive about Chinese "scientific" publications. I made a list of sources questioning China statistics on the China Government Response page and I would like to see how scholarly sources contradict them. Can you make the list? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of the citations from Chinese government response to COVID-19#Case and death count statistics likely fit your criteria. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

An "excellent response" like silencing doctors who knew by New Years' day that it could be transmitted from person to person, forbidding said doctors from wearing PPE in the early weeks, reporting a disease of "unknown cause" when they had the viral DNA sequence, delaying the release of the viral DNA sequence, going ahead with their 40,000 person gathering on Jan. 20, 2020?, without warning people that they could get the pandemic, which they were still pretending was unlikely to be spread from person to person.[14] Adoring nanny (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

China can both, make mistakes very early on in the pandemic and do a very good joh controlling the pandemic in the months after, again these statements, like the ones previously made, are not in contradiction. It's also irrelevent to this discussion, which is about if the sources are reliable, which we already explained how they are. This is why we should not have 5 different pages to discuss one thing. Xoltered (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, it seems as though the view broadly expressed here is China's government did bad things, so we should not believe they were good at controlling COVID-19 and getting low case counts. This is not how Wikipedia works. We do not care how moral or ethical the actions of governments are (the Chinese government was neither in this instance, imo). We only care about what the sources say, and fairly summarizing those sources in our articles. Sometimes that means wikipedia is wrong. But we are not trying to tell the truth, we are trying to summarize the state of existing knowledge through a very particular lens. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable. The CCP document obtained by the AP is perfectly clear on this.[15] The order said communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like “a game of chess” under instructions from Xi, and propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.” Adoring nanny (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nature, The Lancet and The BMJ are some of the most highly respected and competitive scientific journals. Just blanket saying "The sources are not reliable" is unserious. You're essentially arguing that we should throw out virtually all scientific research on the infection rate and mortality in China, because Chinese scientists have done most of that research.

The scientific sources are extremely clear on the extent of infection and mortality in China during the pandemic. If the scientific sources clash with your perception, that's not a reason to rule out the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read the responses to what you've said Adoring nanny? This has already been addressed countless times, please stop taking the discussion in circles. Xoltered (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's worth recalling that The Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research suggesting a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Although the GMC found problems with Wakefield's work quickly and Brian Deer published evidence of fraud five years later, it took the editors another seven years before they retracted the study, waiting until after the GMC found Wakefield guilty of malpractice. We can't avoid taking account of reputation, given how the publication game works at present, but that doesn't justify having illusions about the fallibility of peer review even at the best journals and the reluctance of most editors to admit and correct errors. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly serious. If an order said that Propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.”, I believe the order. To answer a question above, I routinely read the responses. The issue is not the prestige of the journals, it is the accuracy. There is a long history of prestigious sources publishing lies in situations where accuracy might offend powerful governments, i.e. Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda, published in the NYT in 1933. And here we have the smoking gun. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would say the big difference is that Wakefield's study had high profile rebuttals ALSO published in academic venues. It was a primary source. And the secondary source response from scientists in academic journals was swift, concise, and disastrous. It does not take one long to find secondary MEDRS reviews which discuss how wrong the Wakefield paper was. [16] [17] [18] [19] Large scale studies were conducted showing the link between vaccination and autism was spurious: [20] [21]. In this case, like many others, Science was self-correcting. Sometimes it takes a year (or several) to really get that conversation going, but it does happen. And that is part of why Wikipedia's work is never done. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Apologies for the late reply, Shibboleth, I missed this at the time. I think this substantially misrepresents what happened. While the BMC and scholars quickly pushed back against the wider conclusions Wakefield was drawing from his study, far from the reaction being "swift, concise and disastrous", the three articles you cite that were published before 2004 did not claim there were problems with Wakefield's study and instead 'taught the controversy' and increased his bibliometrics. Instead, the fraud was uncovered by a Sunday Times journalist, Brian Deer, who was driven to do actual investigative reporting because of his interest in Wakefield's anti-vax activity. Sometimes scholars are driven to do effective investigations in this vein, but it seems likely to me that without the spadework of this journalist, the full truth would not have been revealed. I think a little less faith in the self-correcting nature of science is called for: eventually, if scientists sustain their attention to a question, they tend to cast off illusions, but if the institutions are not working well, lies can thrive for a generation or more. Ignoring what investigators say out of overzealous faith in some hierarchy of reliability of sources hinders us in creating Wikipedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Chalst: I think you meant to ping @Shibbolethink: here. Regarding if the institutions are not working well, lies can thrive for a generation or more, I think we need to be careful to remember not to try and WP:RGW. WP:PAGs tend to favor the institutional mainstream for good reason, even when they're wrong. If they're wrong, then investigative journalism can and should be welcomed to correct it. But Wikipedia should be following those corrections, not leading them (again, WP:RGW). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bakkster Man for fixing my ping. Personally, my editing on the lab-leak hypothesis has been cautious reflecting my own uncertainty about the evidence and the awareness that, to the extent that there are biases, they cut both ways; it's pretty clear that there are a lot of people out there who want to use the pandemic as an opportunity for propaganda in their campaign against China. Because our ability as WPians to do original research is for most of us necessarily limited to understanding existing sources, we are forced into a certain amount of conservatism with regards to sourcing; what I'm attacking isn't this, but instead a few more subtle issues, including less awareness than we should have that rules that attempt to ensure that we use only the best sources can reduce the quality of the judgements we make about sourcing and a tendency not to treat 'good' sources with appropriate caution. I think MEDRS suffers from both problems, but I'm struggling to come up with proposals for improvement. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xoltered: please be mindful of WP:CANVASS. You should have pinged all participants from the China COVID-19 pandemic discussion . CutePeach (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No, given the amount of pressure exerted by the chinese government to ensure the compliance with their POV.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Can Chinese academic publications be considered independent on subjects censored by the Chinese government?

Editors above dispute the reliability of Chinese academic publications on subjects censored by the Chinese government. Does the community think Chinese academic publications are WP:INDEPENDENT on subjects censored by the Chinese government?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

CutePeach (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Can Chinese academic publications be considered independent on subjects censored by the Chinese government?

• No since Chinese scientists are restricted by the Chinese government on what they can publish and must "coordinate" with a special task force to make sure anything they publish suits their narrative. Some Chinese scientists have even promoted Chinese traditional medicines as a treatment for COVID-19, which suits their narrative. Those who dissent face harsh punitive measures. CutePeach (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• No relative to "on subjects censored by the Chinese government." On other subjects these sources might be used. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Loaded question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Indeed an incredibly loaded question, as it implies the publications are all censored despite discussion above. CutePeach is also forumshopping by posting this same thing on multiple pages, I believe in an attempt to find editors who have not fully looked into the discussion to read the loaded question and say no. Xoltered (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I can't give either a yes or no answer here. Either would be a problematic oversimplification. Many academics outside China lack the kind of integrity and willingness to put questions of career aside needed to be truly regarded as independent and many scientists in China clearly have remarkable integrity. "Independent" is too tricky a concept for this RfC question to be useful. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Postscript: It is both the case that high quality research on Covid-19 has been done in China that does not raise alarm bells and there is evidence of pressure from the government that does. I think there is a need for increased caution, but sources need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I don't regard this RfC as helpful because I think it discourages looking at sources on this case-by-case basis. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chalst: I agree with you on a meta level, but this RfC was born out of a discussion where editors decided to delete a section in Chinese government response to COVID-19 about the accuracy of China's COVID statistics, citing studies from Chinese scientists and even reports from Chinese government websites. That discussion and the The “2021 academic study are what precipitated this RfC. The only caveat that can be added is whether Chinese scientific publications can be used as WP:BALANCE reports like this one from the SCMP on the first confirmed case being traced back to Nov 17, or the reports of excess deaths in the early outbreak [22] [23] [24]. LondonIP (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• What exactly is a Chinese academic publication? Written by a Chinese person? Written by a Chinese person outside of China? Written by somebody in China? Published by a Chinese publication? This RFC question is so incredibly broad that it is meaningless. nableezy - 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Withdraw RfC as embarrassing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would encourage those who view this RfC to come see where this discussion originated, COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China though it has spread to 5 other places now with some editors (including the one who made this RfC) seemingly forum shopping to find somewhere which will support their view. Xoltered (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Isn't CutePeach in violation of their TBAN by launching this? Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'd support this assessment. The loaded question seems like just a way to interact with the topic of "Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    I disagree. The intention of the TBAN was to allow continued editing in the broader COVID-19 topic area. The locus of this dispute is not related to the zoonosis v. lab leak discussions that led to the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers 17:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'm generally against crucifying users for incidental violations of TBANs. If a potential TBAN violation has resulted in disruption in a related area, then that defeats the purpose of a narrowly defined sanction. Whether or not disruption has occurred is not clear to me. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn Do they have TBAN regarding this? If so that is very concerning as they have been making extensive edits on numerous pages regarding this topic for quite some time now. Xoltered (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they have an indefinite topic ban from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed.. [25] Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Xoltered they have a TBAN with Origins of COVID-19, see editor's talk page notice. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... their !vote is a clear violation EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, it seems they are not heading the warning provided with their notice. Xoltered (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so the t-ban is on the origins of COVID-19. This is not a violation of that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BROADLY construed being the key. At least one admin determined this got close enough and placed a temporary ban. With the source of the sanctions revolving around a lab-leak (and subsequent cover-up by China), it's not a stretch to say "Chinese censorship of COVID" is the kind of 'edge nibbling' broadly construed topics are meant to cover. Or at least, close enough to seek clarification prior to editing on the topic, as WP:BROADLY recommends. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I suppose I would ask you: "Does this RfC also affect the TBAN'd area?" I think its up to interpretation, and the "broadly construed" is very clearly debatable. If this RfC passes, then many many publications on covid-19 origins pages would be affected. Does that not implicate CutePeach in violation of their TBAN? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibboleth: Fair question. In my view, the outcome of the RfC possibly affecting origin-related sources is not a t-ban violation here because all of CutePeach's recent edits suggest the impetus for the RfC is about COVID-19 treatments. Further, I don't think a hypothetical removal of Chinese scientist authored publications on the origins of SARS CoV2 would substantially change the descriptions about its origin (assuming that the "lab leak" theory is what CutePeach was promoting/being tendentious about). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It would preclude the future use of any publications about the origin which are based on mainland Chinese scientists who find closely related coronaviruses in the wild, further drawing a taxonomy in support of a natural origin. Because these publications would be "tainted." I agree that the impetus probably comes from a combination of COVID treatments and national death statistics in this case. But I wouldn't call the implication on origins papers to be a "happy accident." I don't know if CP has considered the implications, but the implications clearly are not good. In the end, though, I trust your judgment, EvergreenFir. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Many of the highest-impact papers on SARS-CoV-2 have been authored by Chinese scientists. Here are two, just off the top of my head:

• Shi et al., Nature, 2020, "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". This paper has nearly 16,000 citations. It's the paper that first described RaTG13, which was, until recently, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2.
• Huang et al., The Lancet, 2020, "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". This paper has nearly 39,000 citations.

Ruling out these seminal papers, because of the nationalities of the authors, would definitely impact Wikipedia. These papers have been judged important enough by the scientific community that they've been cited tens of thousands of times. We Wikipedia editors really have no business overruling that judgment, especially on broad arguments about certain nationalities of scientists being compromised. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What an elaborate straw man. No one has a problem citing Shi et al. or Huang et al for non contentious claims. The problem is citing low quality primary sources to counter reports from high quality RS like the BBC, Foreign Policy and Bloomberg. LondonIP (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original dispute (and wording of the RfC) appears to be broader than just low-quality sources and contentious claims. The RfC refers to "Chinese academic publications", but the dispute seems to revolve around mainland Chinese authors publishing in English-language international journals like BMJ. And that's the line where I think we disagree. In principle yes, Chinese sources subject to a gag order or government interference should not be considered independent. My disagreement is over whether this makes peer-reviewed research in major non-Chinese journals (not subject to Chinese oversight) unreliable, or if it's attempting to use wiki to WP:RGW. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@LondonIP and Bakkster Man: The Foreign Policy article does not draw any conclusions, and actually begins by acknowledging that the official death toll from China could be correct: Those numbers could be roughly accurate. The Foreign Policy article merely says that it has obtained a database that might, with further analysis, shed light on the question. As far as I can tell, in the 21 months since Foreign Policy published this initial article saying they had obtained the database, they have never published any follow-up. You're free to draw what conclusions you'd like from that, but my suspicion is that Foreign Policy never found anything particularly newsworthy in the database.

I'll add that Foreign Policy is not even a reliable source for this sort of information. It's a lay publication, written by people without any training in the relevant fields: epidemiology and public health. We have far stronger sources to go on, like peer-reviewed scientific papers in The BMJ, The Lancet and Nature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Let's be absolutely clear about what CutePeach is proposing here. CutePeach is proposing that before we cite papers from leading scientific journals with peer-review and rigorous scientific editing, such as Nature, The Lancet or The BMJ, we should look at the nationalities of the authors, and if they appear to be Chinese, that we should reject them. CutePeach wants us to overrule the scientific editors (normally senior scientists in a related field) and peer reviewers (normally leading international experts in the given scientific subfield that the paper deals with), because we supposedly know better than them. It's worthwhile looking at what motivated this proposal from CutePeach. A number of editors have expressed their personal belief that China must be hiding its true death toll. When confronted with the fact that their personal belief is contradicted by a mass of scientific research into excess mortality and serology in China (and among people evacuated from China), they've gone over to arguing that we should ignore virtually all the scientific literature on the subject. Instead, they'd rather we relied on news articles published nearly two years ago that discussed conspiracy theories about massively larger death tolls (e.g., the infamous "urns" conspiracy theory from March 2020). It's getting tiring trying to explain the scientific literature on every single talk page on which the same group of editors bring this subject up, so please take a look at this for more details. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If what is meant by "Chinese academic publications" includes Nature, The Lancet or The BMJ because the author is Chinese, then gtfo yes. nableezy - 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the proposal to mean Chinese publications, as in publications that are controlled by the Chinese government because they are located in China and subject to Chinese censorship. I agree that nationality of an author publishing in The Lancet is totally irrelevant. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what i meant when i said above "CutePeach is also forumshopping by posting this same thing on multiple pages, I believe in an attempt to find editors who have not fully looked into the discussion to read the loaded question and say no." Xoltered (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• No They inherently can't be. And it's a major problem. Thucydides411 above is trying to just claim that they would all be reliable no matter what because they're peer reviewed papers. But that is an inherently self-defeating claim, as all of the journals (and many others besides) have published studies with falsified data before. And sometimes it took years to find out about the falsification. What makes it more difficult in this case is that the already verifiable crackdown by the Chinese government on what sort of information gets released about Covid, including what sort of scientific data is published, means they could quite easily control the very basis of what data is collected. They could ensure any actual case numbers are not recorded properly, that any deaths are not included in the data, ect. And that sort of data collection would not be something peer reviewers in the journals would be able to determine is incorrect. Because the falsification is happening on the very collection of data level. Silverseren^C 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that peer-reviewed scientific sources are unreliable just because they might later be falsified is ridiculous, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and what you are saying could be applied to all peer-reviewed studies as the studies in question are no different than any other peer reviewed studies and are published in reliable sources. Xoltered (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• If we have a reliable source that the results of major studies were censored, let's cite them. If reliable peer-reviewed sources publish studies, it's up to them to retract them if they're faulty, not up to us to WP:RGW. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are two such sources [26] [27]. The problem is we don't know which sources are being censored, and the AP report says it goes beyond censorship. Publications must be "orchestrated" like a "game of chase". ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to reliable sources disputing peer-reviewed studies in generally reliable journals. My interpretation of WP:RGW and WP:V places the benefit of the doubt on a journal like Nature or Science not accepting studies if their results were subject to faulty collection methods, and we should be incredibly cautious in second-guessing their publishing. So caveat these studies with other WP:RS pointing to potential flaws, rather than marking these Science/Nature studies themselves as unreliable. Seems worryingly close to WP:OR. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Check my list of RS questioning the accuracy of China's statistics. There isn't anything in Nature of Magazine articles that invalidate these RS, so that's just a giant red herring that has been used a lot in those discussions. We should take care of the WP:INDEPENDENT problem first. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As stated probably over 100 times now, popular media speculation does not overide reliable peer-reviewed scientific studies published by reliable sources, and representing the scientific consensus. Simply mentioning that some popular media have questioned it is not the (original) thing in dispute. Xoltered (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Loaded question, and too broad. This RFC is the culmination of the dispute "Is China fudging their COVID-19 statistics?" Recommend closing this RFC and crafting a more specific question that is directly applicable to that dispute. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How would you frame the question? Haven't editors on your side cited Chinese academic sources to put down a question that Chinese censors don't like? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum, a new RFC question should be more specific. "Are Chinese academic papers on the topic of COVID-19 statistics in China reliable?" But even that has issues. How do we define a Chinese academic paper? Is a paper published by The Lancet a Chinese academic paper? Seeing as the Lancet isn't Chinese, I think there's a strong argument that a paper published in the Lancet isn't Chinese. Or if we don't go by the nationality of the journal, what do we go by? Our original research on the nationality of the paper's authors? Honestly I think the difficulty crafting a good question here shows the weakness of the argument. But assuming good faith, some workshopping of the question beforehand could likely lead to a better RFC question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ScrumptiousFood you appear to be new around here. Editors don't have "sides" and to say that they do is truly edging towards "us" and "them" territory in a very unhealthy way. We are all guilty of this, but I would urge you to avoid such arguments in the future. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. I watched the discussions on Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China where two completely different sets of editors suggested including significant views from reliable sources questioning the accuracy of China's statistics. In both discussions, the same group of editors are claiming that Chinese academic papers "prove" that the Chinese government is right, and ignore/deflect when asked about President Xi's gag order on Chinese scientists publishing COVID-19 data and research. When I posted a list of RS that question the accuracy of China's statistics, they counter with citations to Chinese scientific publications. Earlier in the discussion they even cited a Chinese government website to disprove something the BBC says! ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The gag order does not make peer-reviewed studies published in reliable sources such as Nature, The Lancet or The BMJ unreliable, also your claim that the discussions had "two completely different sets of editors" is not true at all, many editors on both sides of the discussion participated in both articles, though those who oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus and instead support popular media speculation have repeatedly brought the discussion to page after page, perhaps in search of editors who will agree with them. Xoltered (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Its a loaded question but as stated the answer is clearly "No" the problem comes with ascertaining what is and what isn't a subject censored by the Chinese government as there is some level of censorship in *every* subject in China even if some are censored to the point of the entire subject being censored (for example history and international relations). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The stated answer is not "clearly no" as nearly all editors who responded but did not give an answer disagree with the implications of a simple "no" answer Xoltered (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Too vague to be answerable in an RfC. I suggest a speedy close and starting a new RfC with a clear question. What is meant by a "Chinese academic publication"? An academic publication published in China? An academic publication published outside of China where some of the contributors are in China? Where some contributors are Chinese citizens? Chinese government officials? Overseas Chinese? The RfC is impossible to answer in its current form. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I also suggest a speedy close for the reasons above, I also suggest those who agree make their agreement explicitly known, as Granger and I have, to avoid some users mistakenly thinking the consensus is no. Xoltered (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Xoltered please stop WP:BLUDGEONING. I see no good reason to close this RFC with any consensus. Most RFCs run for at least a month. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The reasons are stated above by many editors, including quite clearly by Mx Granger. Xoltered (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Loaded question and Poorly formed RfC. - Recommend speedy close. We have plenty of examples of mainland chinese citizens courageously speaking out in ways that the Chinese Government would find counter-productive. Li Wenliang [28], Shi Zhengli [29], Zhang Yongzhen [30]. and others. If this RfC were decided as "no," then publications by these individuals would be considered unreliable. Many mainland chinese scientists, if not most, do their jobs for the sake of scientific progress and bold inquiry. Scientists are, by and large, loyal to the scientific process above and beyond the influence of any government actors. This is part of why Mao's cultural revolution targeted scientists, engineers, journalists, etc. Because their loyalty to their craft superseded that of the party. Why would we buy into any narrative that paints Chinese scientists with such a broad brush? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

None of the people you've listed seem relevant to the issue at hand? I had thought they were going to be examples of Chinese scientists speaking out against the censorship of their government against publishing negative news regarding Covid, but none of them are that. So they don't seem relevant to the current issue as noted by the Associated Press that the Chinese government is directly controlling what data and studies can be published and what information is allowed to be included in them when published. It is the reliability of this data that is of concern here, since if the data is manipulated from the very point of collection of it, then there's no way peer reviews even in international journals can tell that the data isn't accurate. The verified control over that data that the AP has notified on is the problem here. Because it brings into question whether the scientific data on Covid, particularly on Covid numbers and deaths, coming out of China is actually the true data. The government there could even do it in a blinded way and prevent even the Chinese scientists from accessing the accurate data and so they are only publishing on what they have been allowed to access, which is a biased data set. The scientists themselves could think they're doing proper science and be unaware of the selective data the government is letting them access. Since, again, we have verifiable reports that the Chinese government is controlling what data is allowed to go out. Silverseren^C 21:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had thought they were going to be examples of Chinese scientists speaking out against the censorship of their government against publishing negative news regarding Covid, but none of them are that. They are scientists who spoke out about COVID in ways the government didn't like. Li Wenliang spoke out about COVID-19 and death tolls in Wuhan and human-to-human transmission when the government was very quiet about the issue. Shi Zhengli spoke out about the coronavirus' origins in Hubei province when the government wanted no one to talk about it at all, and instead support the idea that it originated in the US. Zhang Yngzhen's lab published the genome of the virus when the government wanted everyone to coordinate and publish together in support of a specific government-favored narrative. They did so in a way that benefited the world and put the needs of the many (7 billion) over the few (Chinese government's image). How is that not relevant? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think the only way to obtain death data in China is to go through the government? Do you understand how deaths are counted in America? It very often isn't done through the government. (E.g. see the public health whistleblower in Florida who was harassed by state officials when her counts didn't match up [31] [32]) There are many ways to estimate covid deaths with varying involvement from government data resources (from complete to very little), and not all of them are equally accurate either: (such as excess death estimates [33], machine learning using GIS data [34], [35]). It's bizarre to hoist these criticisms on China while not looking inward. I would actually call it xenophobic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But, again, we know that they're actively clamping down on the information right now, as reported:

The government is handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to scientists researching the virus’ origins in southern China and affiliated with the military, the AP has found. But it is monitoring their findings and mandating that the publication of any data or research must be approved by a new task force managed by China’s cabinet, under direct orders from President Xi Jinping

The Chinese government, because of their societal structure, is much more capable of actively silencing dissent and controlling information reaching outside or even having it be obtainable by scientists there. It isn't comparable to Florida whatsoever. And, also, the situation in Florida did make us here on Wikipedia have to re-evaluate how we included information on Covid in the US and regarding Florida because of that. Shouldn't we similarly change how we cover information on China when we have verifiable information that the data is being suppressed and controlled for review by the Chinese government? Silverseren^C 22:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not if the conclusion is "we shouldn't trust any publications which come out of China." If the conclusion is "we should be careful and only use publications which are peer reviewed and edited by international scientists who are experts in these fields" then yes, I would support that. Otherwise our answer is not only xenophobic, it is short sighted and frankly wrong-headed. It will not help us more accurately cover anything, or be closer in line to the scientific consensus. It will drive us further from it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we similarly change how we cover information on China when we have verifiable information that the data is being suppressed and controlled for review by the Chinese government? We should document the controversy, that these accusations exist in RSes. But we should not ignore things that Chinese scientists publish simply because of this suspicion. To do so would be ignorant, xenophobic, and wrong. It ignores the very fundamental reasons why we value academic research publications: their peer review and editorial processes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How is peer review by others going to properly deal with the situation? If the data being allowed for release by the cabinet task force is purposefully biased, peer reviewers aren't going to be able to detect that. Since the issue isn't internal to the studies, but due to the data being collected from the beginning. I already noted a similar issue earlier in the thread above where it took years to identify that hundreds of papers being published by hundreds of top level physicians in China in every major hospital in the country were using falsified data. It was only identified as a problem in 2020 and some of the studies dated back to 2016. Worse still, the majority of them haven't even been retracted from the top level journals in question or even given a notice of concern on them. If that sort of thing can get by these peer reviewed international journals and take years to discover and that was just the medical researchers themselves working together to falsify the data, what sort of level of misuse can be done when the Chinese government is involved in controlling the data released? Silverseren^C 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, it only took 4 years to figure out the problem? Wow, that's pretty fast. I'm glad science is such a self-correcting process with international input from a wide variety of contributors, peer reviewers, post-reviewers, and editors. Wikipedia as a project is never "done" so I'm not sure why that is an issue of enough importance to greenlight systematic bias against any laboratory that happens to be located in China. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, your examples are from early 2020, whereas we're discussing government control of data that is being reported on right now, in addition to a government crackdown on news organizations and what they're allowed to report on, which is also happening right now and in the past 6 months especially. Silverseren^C 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you think the timing matters. Scientists who felt that way about the government in 2020 are very likely to still feel that way today. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The situation is very different now than it was in early 2020. The Chinese government has spent that time period ensuring greater control over what information gets distributed and who has access to it. Silverseren^C 22:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the kind of argument which fuels conspiracy theories. It is non-falsifiable. Not saying it is a conspiracy theory, only that it is the sort of circular logic which can lead us in that direction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy theory here. Just direct reporting from the Associated Press on the cabinet task force being set up to control what data and studies are allowed to be published. Unless you think the AP journalists are lying and making it up? Silverseren^C 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I think they're acting in good faith, just like I think most Chinese scientists are acting in good faith. I'm trying to be very cautious before we institute a consensus which perpetuates a systematic bias, and actually institutionalizes and codifies it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bad question with worse implications. Context, the specific source, and the specific material being supported all still matter. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: Per responses from Chalstnableezy, Jumpytoo, VQuakr, and shibbolethink. How is even thinkable to ban sources from a country? Of course we still have to take into account the context, background etc. of a source, but that's not new. If the consensus on this question was to be yes, than what would happen? Would every single source originating from the PRoC have to have proof it's not censored? There is an extreme amount of anti-China bias in the US and west in general, and generally reliable sources publish articles on how China is generally censoring free speech. One result on this would be extreme PoV pushing in articles against the Chinese government as a lot of sources with info that might make the PRoC seem good would simply be unable to be used. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No: China is noted for exercising top level censorship. Any publication that is related to them or went through their inspection should not be considered reliable or independent. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. Reasons have been provided by editors above-Note that this refers to Chinese publications, not authors. That would be xenophobic.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• If the authors are under the physical control of the People's Republic of China, no. First of all, we need to be clear about what is and is not a problem. No problem with Taiwanese authors, for example, or ethnically Chinese authors who live in the USA. The issue comes with authors who are under the physical control of the PRC. At that point, we can't rely on them. It sucks, but it is what it is. Peng Shuai now says she was not sexually assaulted. Right. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If Nature (journal) says X article by Y Chinese scientist meets our standard for publication then it meets our standard for use as a reliable source. Israel has a military censor. Does that mean that any Israeli newspaper or scholar writing in a non-Israeli journal, as being subject to that censorship, is unreliable? Of course not. And that isnt even addressing the issue of ruling out highly regarded publishers on the basis of the location and/or ethnicity of the author. nableezy - 00:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: you're assuming that we're talking about a Nature (journal) article that actually says X. I've asked Thucydides411 to quote the exact text from the Nature, BMJ and Lancet articles that they claim counter reports from the BBC, SCMP and Caixin about how China tallies COVID infections and fatalities [36] [37], but so far they haven't been able (or willing) to do that. Since you're taking a stand here, perhaps you can read the discussion and the Nature article in question. LondonIP (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, Im not, Im basing my view of this off of the RFC question that is so insanely broad as to be meaningless, and the claims above and below. AN is arguing that even sources that cite Chinese sources should not be usable. You finding fault with my argument is because the RFC question is faulty. nableezy - 01:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  You are taking a stand and you are holding up a source which doesn't even exist. The question of this RfC came up when editors brought up sources from Chinese scientists that even WP:FT/N put down as WP:PRIMARY and not WP:MEDRS [38]. Please read the sources that are being discussed here. LondonIP (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, I am answering the RFC question as asked. But as far as your request, The BMJ. When presented with this and other sources, the response was You need to find independent western sources which lacks a WP:COI in the study and debunks these sources. If there is some specific source youd like to discuss then you should bring that. The problem with this RFC, and many RFCs at RSN tbh, is that it makes such a gross generalization that you have to consider the consequences of that question. If you see my initial answer I said I have no idea what a Chinese academic publication means. Down below you have a user complaining that when we cited Western sources that relied on Chinese data that we were VeryWrong™. You may be arguing something else entirely, but the question as posed is wide that it invites such answers. Make a better RFC question and you may get a different answer. nableezy - 02:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: my question focuses very narrowly on 1) Chinese academic publications and whether they can be considered 2) independent sources on 3) censored subjects. Granted 1 and 2 can be narrowed down further, but taking these three criteria, my question is not insanely broad. I modeled this question on the one directly below #Are student newspapers considered independent RS when assessing notability of fellow students at the same university?. I don't see anyone there refusing to answer that question and attempting to speedy close it with spurious reasons. CutePeach (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is a "Chinese academic publication". Everybody understands what a student newspaper is, it is a newspaper staffed by students at a university or college that largely focuses on campus matters. There is not any ambiguity there. What exactly do you mean by a "Chinese academic publication"? nableezy - 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, a "Chinese academic publication" in the context of my RFC question is any paper published by any Chinese academic on any subject censored by the Chinese government, and my question is narrowed down further asking if they should be considered WP:INDEPENDANT. Taken alone, "Chinese academic publications" may seem broad, but as Silver seren explains above, international journals are not able to check if a submission has been censored in some way, and as I told to AlexEng above, these journals have collaborated with the Chinese government's 中共中央宣传部 office to censor politically sensitive subjects. Taking all three criteria of my question, this RFC would affect only a handful of papers and how they are used, such as the BMJ article - discussed below - which was used to counterbalance reports from the Financial Times and other HQRS, and even WP:POVDELETE them [39] [40] [41]. Please don’t break the criteria of my RFC question to make it broader than it actually is, or that it would affect any more than a handful of papers, which are being used in the wrong way. CutePeach (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"... any paper published by any Chinese academic ..." ← right, well we can close this now because papers published by an academic are self-published and not reliable. I thought you were talking about papers published by publishers (academic presses and the like) which were authored by chinese academics. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No I am obviously not referring to self published papers, as those were not even proposed. Hopefully the closer of this RFC will read the WP:RFCBEFORE discussions and understand which papers are being referred to. They are the papers published in BMJ, Nature and the Lancet, are all primary, and not usable for refuting high-quality secondary sources. CutePeach (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all, because you haven't said what you mean and when you try, you write nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You are the only editor to ask about self published sources, even though they have never been proposed, and you just got your answer. Please strike your uncivil comment. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. The OP referred to "any paper published by any Chinese academic". It seems now they didn't actually mean that, but this is part of the problem: incompetence and imprecision. This is why this RfC is such a fucking mess. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will say, "published by any Chinese academics" is ambiguous, and I too interpreted it as referring to WP:SPS. The process of editorial oversight and peer-review is very key to this question, and it's important to note that the OP is referring to articles which are not SPS, but in fact have been peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed before publication by an independent international journal. These papers are authored by Chinese academics. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think what the OP might mean is "Any paper where any of the authors has a Chinese-sounding name". Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Does your definition of "Chinese academics" include Chinese citizens who are working as academics abroad? Does it include non-Chinese citizen authors who are working in China? Does it include journals which are run by non-Chinese citizens? Does it include non-Chinese citizen authors who live abroad, are ethnically Chinese, and have immediate family in China? These are just a few of the many many questions that are raised by your broadly phrased RfC. At this point, so many editors have responded to the vague wording, and different interpretations have sprung up, that there is probably very little we can do to narrow the scope. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Poor question The standard for determining whether a source is reliable is its acceptance in reliable sources. If other academic publications use its facts and findings,then it's reliable. What do we do if the information works its way into a textbook? Are we going to reject new discoveries on the far side of the moon because the Chinese found them? TFD (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, as Academic freedom in China is severely limited, and even more restricted for COVID-19 research. I would have preferred an RfC in WP:OR/N as the BMJ, Nature and Lancet articles that are being tirelessly flashed around do not counter the claims of the BBC, SCMP, Caixin and the many other high-quality sources questioning the accuracy of China's COVID statistics. To address the question of this RfC, Chinese scientists cannot be considered independent, and I do not agree with Adoring nanny's point directly above, as Chinese scientists with family in the mainland may even be under duress when abroad, or they may choosing to self censor (as is common in China). Case in point: Shan-Lu Liu. LondonIP (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC, suggest speedy close with no action This is getting into very dangerous territory here, where we are starting to discount sources just because of the authors nationality, regardless of all other circumstances. Florida has been accused of censoring COVID data (source), so does that mean all Floridan COVID academic studies are unreliable? No, that's ridiculous. If one wants to counter the sources by Chinese scientists, then they should provide other high quality academic sources with an opposing viewpoint. Not go make an RfC to try to get what you don't like blocked from Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 02:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  No one suggested sources should be discounted for the nationality of the authors. To do so would be xenophobia and I would strongly condemn such a motion. The problem here is that some scientists are subject to a special gag order on a specific subject (COVID-19) in their country (China). LondonIP (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Without a clear definition of "Chinese academic publications", I have to go with the broadest possible meaning, because people will definitely use a "No" consensus to discount anything associated to a Chinese scientist, even if they are not in China (for example, to quote yourself: I do not agree with Adoring nanny's point directly above, as Chinese scientists with family in the mainland may even be under duress when abroad, or they may choosing to self censor). This alone makes a bad RfC. Jumpytoo Talk 03:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we follow the logic in the quote you've given from LondonIP, we'll have to discount any work by anyone who even has family in China. That would rule out a very large fraction of ethnically Chinese scientists around the world. This is just such a toxic proposal, and I'm a bit ashamed that we're even discussing it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  we'll have to discount any work by anyone who even has family in China. Don't you get tired of this straw man argument? I didn't propose discounting sources wholesale. I don't consider these sources to be independent, and I think we need to exercise caution with them, and use attribution. Please don't put words in my mouth. LondonIP (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  You just said that everyone with family in China is suspect: Chinese scientists with family in the mainland may even be under duress when abroad, or they may choosing to self censor How am I supposed to interpret that? You can't write things like that and then claim that No one suggested sources should be discounted for the nationality of the authors. You're going beyond arguing for discounting sources based on the nationalities of the authors. You're saying we should take the nationalities of their family members into account as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• No Least trustable sources as history has repeatedly proven. TolWol56 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• NO: Chinese academics are restricted from publishing data on COVID-19 and must "orchestrate" their publishing "like a game of Chess", according to government documents leaked to AP [42]. CNN and SCMP also reported leaked documents showing that the Chinese government concealed information about the disease and suppresses the freedom of Chinese academics. We should also not consider Chinese academics as independent source on Xi Jinping Thought. Dhuh! Francesco espo (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Bad (loaded and too broad) question with worse implications, poorly formed RfC, and suggest speedy close with no action per Bop34, Jumpytoo, Mx. Granger, Nableezy, Novem Linguae, TFD, Thucydides411, Shibbolethink, Xoltored, et al. — of course, censorship must be taken seriously and in account per Jehochman, though such sources may still be usable in context and with attribution, but this is not the way to do. As things stand, there are way better ways to improve things like attributing the studies, find better or equally reliable academic studies, and include the societal context, rather than dismissing the relevant and cited academic studies without no evidence yet they have been falsified (if they have been, I am sure it will come out but we should not right great wrongs until academia does it for us) because they are Chinese. Chalst and Xoltered have it right that both things can be true but it does not justify outright removal, rather than simply being more cautious or use attribution, and adding the societal context.

Davide King (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not Wikipedia's role - The suggestion goes beyond normal source evaluation expectations. WP already avoids obviously unreliable sources and retracted articles and it is careful with the use of primary sources. It also cares about higher quality sources where relevant like WP:MEDRS. Not about the origin of the participants in normally high quality sources, on the assumption of a conspiracy. The current Indian government is known to promote AYUSH but that's not a valid reason to reject reliable sources with Indian participants. The US government also filters academic publishing to some point for national security concerns. —PaleoNeonate – 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, at least for any publications related to politics, history and COVID-19. Speaking about publications in natural sciences though, this is not so simple. For example, First Departments in the former USSR did not allow certain works to be published, but they did not modify any content of specific scientific publications, simply because KGB censors did not understand any science, unlike politics, history and fiction. So, whatever passed through their filter and was published in natural sciences was generally an independent publication. But the censorship in China with regard to COVID-19 was too serious to ignore [43]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Especially after this whole Covid episode it would be unwise to say otherwise. NavjotSR (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Far too broad "Chinese academic publications" is so open to interpretation as to render any close to this RfC worthless. Recommend speedy close and specification of question per above. BSMRD (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Running tally/summary: As of right now, we have 12 "no" and ~16 "too broad/speedy close" comments. This thread, like many in the lab leak/COVID-19 FRINGE space, has become bloated with multiple concurrent running threads and discussions which become small battle-grounds for various disagreements. The more this happens, the less and less likely a succinct/effective closure becomes. I would suggest to everyone that they take this thread as a lesson in how not to write an RfC that you actually want closed. Narrow questions get narrow responses get effective closures. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: please leave the job of closing to the closer, and remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and that closing is not just about tallying. Rushing to close this RFC on the claim that my question is too broad smacks of WP:STONEWALLING and even WP:POVRAILROADING. When taking all three criteria of my question together, it is not broad at all. There are only two editors who are not involved in this topic who say it is broad, and I have just answered them. By involved, I mean in Chinese politics, including Uyghur genocide, where the same tactics have been employed. CutePeach (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would take this accusation as an avoidance of the substantive questions and concerns that many many editors have expressed here. I count many more than 2 “uninvolved” editors who have expressed those same concerns, but as you’ve said, this is not a vote. And it is absolutely appropriate to summarize the current state of the discussion and to have a running tally. Many editors have invented add-ons and scripts to do just that. Would you suggest all those scripts should be deleted? The important part is that votes/tallies should not be the ‘’only’’ factor in a close. I have no intention of closing and have not suggested I would close, as I am certainly “involved.” You have not provided a “neutrally worded” summary that includes all the relevant facts of the situation, which is required when starting an RFC. Particularly with regards to which disputes are involved, how this dispute developed, etc. When asked to do so, you have not complied. It’s entirely appropriate, then, to dispute this RFC as malformed. As many “uninvolved” and “involved” editors have done. Many editors have suggested the negative implications of a broad RFC question which is not neutrally worded. You have yet to address these concerns. At this point, there’s no going back. Too many people have responded to your prompt. We’re now stuck waiting for this RFC to either somehow be closed (by some brave soul) or (more likely) to expire and be archived. My suggestion would be to withdraw the RFC and ask a truly neutral entirely uninvolved 3rd party to step in and write a more narrowly phrased RFC. Good luck… — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you didn't participate in the discussions that precipitated this RfC, so let me summarise them for you. In the "Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths" and "2021 academic study" discussions, the independence of Chinese academics sources was rejected by some editors due to China's gag order on them publishing their COVID data and research (which includes the Chinese CDC). In this diff an editor suggested we discuss it here on RSN, worded very closely to the question of this RfC, but with specificity to international journals. In both these discussions, editors elevated primary sources from Chinese academics to refute claims from secondary sources like the Financial Times, The Economist and Time Magazine, and another 20 sources that ScrumptiousFood kindly listed. The only comment you made in any of those discussions is to say Scrumptious's sources are not reliable for analysis of epidemiological data, without commenting on any of the sources offered in their stead. Your only participation in this RfC has been to put it down, and you haven't even commented on the primary source being discussed below, or suggested better wording for the RfC. Please don't talk about avoidance. LondonIP (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that no one was asking me to do those things, and I never started any RfCs that required me to do those things. If CutePeach had provided this amount of background at the beginning of the RfC, and had done so in a more neutrally-worded manner (such as describing the primary sources as peer-reviewed, etc), then we wouldn't have this problem. I assess your summary here as biased as well. You neglect to say the primary sources are peer reviewed and published in international journals. You neglect to mention the MEDRS-compliant government body sources. You emphasize the number of sources and the venues of the sources that you prefer, and do not mention the number or venues of the sources that you do not prefer. All of this creates a biased picture in favor of your view. It's also a biased summary of my participation. First you say I have not participated, and then you describe comments I made in the aforementioned discussions. Which is it? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that the "20 sources" being touted here are almost all of very low quality.

The only scientific source in the list does not support the claim that China covered up its case or death count. It's a paper that tries to estimate the total number of infections in Wuhan, by applying an epidemiological model to Chinese data from outside Wuhan. The authors do not accuse anyone of deception, and state right at the outset,

For quite a bit of time, the current number of people infected was unknown. In fact, e.g., authorities in China found severe uncertainties regarding the dynamics and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19.

The authors actually assume that official data from other parts of China outside of Wuhan is accurate (presumably because those regions were not overwhelmed by cases). In virtually every country on Earth, official case counts are only a fraction of the total number of infections, because in general, most people who get infected do not get PCR tested (this problem was particularly acute during the initial outbreak in Wuhan in January-February 2020, when PCR testing capacity was extremely limited). It's entirely expected that far more people were infected in Wuhan than were diagnosed, and even the China CDC has published an estimate that is a few times the official case count.

The rest of the sources on the list are from the popular media. Some of them are from March/April 2020, and describe a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media about the number of urns supposedly delivered to crematoria in Wuhan (there are many things wrong with this theory: it ignores the fact that people die of causes other than COVID-19, and it contradicts virtually all scientific studies into mortality and seroprevalence in Wuhan). Some of the sources are just pure speculation, some are opinion pieces, many are of the "We're just asking questions" variety. These are the sorts of sources that we're being asked to use in place of scientific sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:, you haven't shown how these sources are contradicted by scientific sources, and I haven't seen where it was asked that they be used in place​​ of scientific sources, so that appears to be mistruth. In the case of the story about the urns, it is in at least four high quality sources [44] [45] [46] [47], and it is well known that China covered up the early outbreak of the virus, a fact which is not contradicted by any scientific sources. If you have any sources contradicting these sources, please provide them here, so we can see what they say and if they are WP:INDEPENDENT. CutePeach (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained to you several times that the scientific mortality and seroprevalence studies are wildly inconsistent with the urns conspiracy theory from Chinese social media. None of the four sources you link to above is a reliable source for any claim about epidemiology: they're all popular media. Even still, the Caixin article does not advocate or even mention the conspiracy theory. The other three news articles discuss the conspiracy theory, but the fact that a conspiracy theory was discussed in the media does not mean that it should be included in the article, especially when the theory is at odds with scientific publications. Why are you trying to insert a random, 2-year-old, incorrect conspiracy theory from social media into the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Instead of explaining​​ things in your own words, pelase provide the sources​​ and text you say refute these RS so that we can discuss them here. The original Caixin article, including the original in Chinese, [48], gives figures cited by Bloomberg, SCMP and Time in their reports about those questioning the accuracy of the Chinese government's figures. For the benefit of the closer, please keep your response short and to the point. CutePeach (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Loaded Question/Malformed RFC Absolutely ridiculous way of framing the question, as per above. Parabolist (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment do any of the editors saying this RFC is too broad have any suggestions about narrowing it down? The AP reported that the Chinese government ordered CDC staff not to share any data, specimens or other information related to the coronavirus with outside institutions or individuals [49]. How exactly do you want to narrow down "Chinese academic publications" when the Chinese government censorship on publishing COVID data is this expansive? LondonIP (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. Pick a diff that was being edit warred and caused COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China to get full protected, then start an RFC where folks are asked to pick version 1 or version 2 of the text being edit warred. Not saying we should start yet another RFC, since RFCs use a lot of community time and this one is not even closed yet, but after reflection, if I was given a time machine and able to redo this particular RFC, a narrow question like that is how we should have approached this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Describe in detail which sources are being used, and have editors pick between the versions relying on Source A or Source B. Pick a particular source and ask: "Is this reliable for this content?" Those are the narrow sort of RfC questions that actually get answered. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Subjects censored by the Chinese government" is way too broad to be useful. That could stretch from almost anything (Great Firewall) to much less depending on one's interpretation. I do not share the concerns of other editors about clarity in terms of nationality; as I see it, any academic publication published in China would be covered, and any academic publication not published in China, even by Chinese authors, would not be (though the very fact there is debate on this means it can't really be considered clear). That being said, such a blanket ban is just wrong, even ignoring the absence of clarity. The Chinese government is not omnipotent, and editors are responsible enough to evaluate the extent to which a source is influenced by the Chinese government. The vast majority of sources may in fact be influenced by the Chinese government in a way that compromises their reliability, but a blanket ban across a country of 1.4 billion people is just too draconian. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, but we're going to need a much better standard for determining what constitutes a Chinese publication than just: "do these names look Chinese?" Probably going to need a separate RfC to tackle that issue given how heated this one has become. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Bad question — Here's a specific example of why this RfC in its current wording would harm otherwise useful editing, from someone who frequently uses Chinese research in articles. In my current overhaul of the Taiwanese Mandarin article, I make use of plenty of mainland Chinese sources that discuss the differences between that dialect and standard mainland Chinese, (Putonghua). These sources invariably toe the party line on Taiwan, calling it 台湾地区 'the Taiwan area/region'; none ever say that it is, for example, the "national language" of Taiwan, even though it is, because that would imply Taiwan is independent. Saying so would absolutely get them in trouble and would never make it into publication. So there's an example of a specific form of censorship with a pervasive impact in mainland scholarship that should unquestionably not be excluded from articles but very well could be under the wording of this RfC. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• No — Chinese academic sources can be very reliable but they are never independent from the Chinese government censorship. It is a feature of the Chinese publication systems that "All the examinations and approvals from the different administrative levels ensure that journals comply with the national ideology."[50]. China was known to even pressure foreign journals to censor articles. [51] Sgnpkd (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem runs deep. Here is an example where we got pretty much everything wrong, not by relying on sources that are under Xi's control, but by using sources that used sources that are under Xi's control. It is a paragraph from the article that eventually became COVID-19 pandemic, from a version[52] dated January 8, 2019: As of 5 January 2020, 59 cases have occurred with seven in a critical condition, 163 contacts commenced monitoring and there were no reported cases of human-to-human transmission or presentations in healthcare workers.[6][8] Affected people have presented with fever and sometimes difficulty breathing, common to several respiratory illnesses at this time of year. X-rays of the chest have revealed signs in both lungs.[6][7] The cause of the pneumonia is currently unknown; however, viruses like seasonal flu, SARS, MERS and bird flu had been ruled out.[8][7][9] No new cases have been reported since 5 January 2020.[10] The outbreak has not shown signs of escalation.[6][7].

Let us count the ways in which this was wrong:

1. The case counts were suspect
2. there were sick healthcare workers by then
3. the cause was known
4. it was a SARS-like virus whose DNA had been sequenced
5. new cases were occurring daily
6. the outbreak was escalating.

Adoring nanny (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Please provide an RS demonstrating those case counts are suspect, from that time. We cannot judge what they knew then with what we know now. Because much of what we know now, the Chinese govt also would not have known then.
2) I'm not sure any sources anywhere exist to demonstrate this point as true. AFAIK, Liang Wudong was the first HCWer to die of COVID, period And he died on Jan 29. Li Wenliang may have been one of the first HCWers to get infected, and he got infected on Jan 8th. Where do we have sources showing there were already sick HCWers at that time? And do you have any proof the Chinese govt was actively censoring that fact?
3) We had sources showing this from Chinese nationals by then, they just weren't used [53] [54] (and various WeChat posts which would not qualify as RSes). And much of this delay is due to the fact that we didn't have a MEDRS showing this, we didn't have any "true" RSes showing this, which makes sense because it takes time to show the modified Rivers' criteria for a novel virus [55]. It took time for SARS too [56]. I'm not sure I want to be using lower quality faster sourcing for something like that.
4) It's RNA, and the sequence was only verified by Jan 10th [57]. They were still vetting its accuracy with independent samples, a common practice. We actually know there were errors in that original sequence because they rushed it a little too much. [58] (there's actually been 3 revisions)

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. An outdated paragraph with outdated sourcing (and lacks the really really low quality sourcing that would be needed to show the other things you've indicated) is not indicative of any cover-up. It just means someone needed to update it with the sources that were out there, if any. The sources from Chinese nationals existed already which would have proven some of these points. And most of all, most of these "false" facts weren't sourced from scientific publications, were they? So would this RfC really have solved anything back then? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to mistake our purpose here with being correct as opposed to documenting what other sources say is correct. We were wrong because the sources were wrong? Yeah, sounds about right. If there are better sources they should of course be used, but the idea that because a source uses information from China that makes it unusable is nonsensical, mostly because we rely on those sources to decide what is accurate, and if they are wrong then so to will we be. nableezy - 01:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. Breaking news stories are frequently inaccurate, which means that our articles on breaking news will be frequently inaccurate and is an excellent argument against rushing to create or update articles in response to breaking news events. Conversely, we're a volunteer encyclopedia and sometimes verifiably dated information will persist for a while. None of this is novel, unique to China or COVID, or warranting of changes or exceptions to our policies. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite right. If anything, this example illustrates why we should cite retrospective studies in high-quality journals like The BMJ, when available. They are likely to be more accurate than early news reports. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like y'all want a focus on academic sources. Fine. Behold "The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science". The title doesn't say "China", but the content is about Chinese academic fraud mills. And this is before the additional layer of lying imposed by Government authorities. [59] But Nature has tallied 370 articles retracted since January 2020, all from authors at Chinese hospitals, that either publishers or independent sleuths have alleged to come from paper mills (see ‘Fraud allegations’). Most were published in the past three years (see ‘Chinese hospital papers on the rise’). Publishers have added expressions of concern to another 45 such articles. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And here are some Western examples of fake papers: The Atlantic: wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals The Guardian The researchers say some of her work is still being cited and accessed, even though she was barely literate in science and unable to recognise basic formulas taught to first-year chemistry students., The MMR & autism study It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud.”1 Never has this been truer than of the 1998 Lancet paper that implied a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and a “new syndrome” of autism and bowel disease

There are many papers that are fraudulent, but we should not be trying to WP:RGW ourselves here by (quoting Thucydides here): look[ing] at the nationalities of the authors, and if they appear to be Chinese, that we should reject them. As people noted below, we can try to use review and secondary sources over primary academic sources when available. And if you have true concerns about a paper, go to the journal and make your appeal. This is disregarding how poor this RfC question is, as I've said before, how is "Chinese academic publications" defined? Is just having one Chinese author "too Chinese"? If there is even just one international author, does that make the paper "not Chinese"? Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The state of this RfC is deplorable. People are talking past each other, and there are numerous complaints about the formulation of the original question. @CutePeach: please immediately clarify what you mean by "Chinese academic publications". Please give examples. You have been asked numerous times, often directly, to elaborate on the question, and you have not done so. As evidenced by the above survey responses, many editors take this to mean "Chinese journals", while many others take it to mean "contributions by Chinese scientists to any journal". Whatever the result of this RfC, it should ultimately be considered invalid unless there is actual consensus on what we are even talking about. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find an example directly below. It's one of three papers cited to refute allegations from high quality secondary sources. The accuracy sections of the China government response page was deleted to make way for praise and pomp. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The state of this RfC is deplorable. People are talking past each other it's indeed invalid yet a successful attempt to make noise... Both sections have had their reasonable answers and should probably be closed to prevent more disruption and waste of community time. —PaleoNeonate – 01:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: it is very hard to WP:AGF with some of the editors questioning the definition of "Chinese academic publications", when they use the same tactics to argue that the Uyghur genocide can’t be defined as a genocide. The Chinese government has complete control over all publishing, so it would not be hard for them to control academic publishing, and they can now even censor Western academic journals publishing in China [60]. This RFC affects only a handful of papers that were debated in the WP:RFCBEFORE] discussions, which I mentioned in my answer to Nableezy below. This is a very unique case, because few countries invest as much as China does in censorship, and according to this report [61], they invest anywhere between $6.6B and $13B in internet censorship alone. We cannot ignore the effects of this censorship on the coverage of censored topics here on Wikipedia. CutePeach (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an editor who is very unclear about your definition of "Chinese academic publications" but I would simultaneously emphatically agree that the Uyghur genocide is clearly defined as a genocide. Please don't create strawman arguments that those who disagree with you are being unreasonable. There is good reason for confusion with the phrasing of your question, and how others are interpreting it to mean different things. E.g. above, londonIP broadens it to include people who are living abroad but have family in Mainland China. Do you intend it to be interpreted this way?

That link you provide to the case of China Quarterly has very little, if any, bearing on this discussion. China requested certain articles be inaccessible when surfing the internet in China, behind the Great Firewall. No actual edits were made to any articles. Since all of the English Wikipedia is already blocked in China, the horse has kind of already left the barn on that one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I don't know why you're raising the article Uyghur genocide in a discussion of reliable sourcing on COVID-19 mortality. It seems to me that you're bringing in an unrelated political issue, simply because it involves China. Is every discussion about China-related sourcing going to end with a litmus test on participants' views on Xi Jinping, Xinjiang, Tibet and the Opium Wars? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the specific study this discussion originated with (BMJ) reliable?

• Liu, Jiangmei; Zhang, Lan; Yan, Yaqiong; Zhou, Yuchang; Yin, Peng; Qi, Jinlei; Wang, Lijun; Pan, Jingju; You, Jinling; Yang, Jing; Zhao, Zhenping; Wang, Wei; Liu, Yunning; Lin, Lin; Wu, Jing; Li, Xinhua; Chen, Zhengming; Zhou, Maigeng (2021-02-24). "Excess mortality in Wuhan city and other parts of China during the three months of the covid-19 outbreak: findings from nationwide mortality registries". The BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.n415. ISSN 1756-1833.

The discussion on this page has been confused, with poorly phrased and biased RfC's regarding this, so I created this section to simplify it, hopefully we will find consensus and the original page will be unlocked. Xoltered (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes It is peer-reviewed and published in the BMJ, a reliable journal. Xoltered (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it's as reliable as any other peer-reviewed primary study in a high-quality journal. Which doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be incorrect or refuted/challenged by other sources (as a result of potential source data issues cited above, part of the reason any primary study has limits to its use), but we shouldn't be in the habit of second-guessing the reliability of peer-reviewed studies per WP:RGW and WP:OR. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: you say this source can be refuted/challenged by other sources but do you think it can be used to refute/challenge secondary sources and even omit them? I'm not sure if you read the discussion in the China COVID-19 pandemic page, but that is what this dispute is about. Here are the omissions from Mx. Granger [62] and Thucydides411 [63] and restoration by Encyclopedia Lu [64]. Do you agree with these omissions and use of primary sources, or would you like to change your mind - and your !vote? CutePeach (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I got here through FTN, and the entire extent of the dispute is just not something I want to devote time to diving deep enough to weigh in on the original dispute. I'd prefer to weigh in specifically on the source question, which I'm concerned might be trying to make too-broad conclusions in the context of a too-narrow dispute. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: You're not providing reliable secondary sources on epidemiology. You're providing popular magazine and news articles written by non-experts, and not subject to any kind of peer-review or rigorous scientific editing. Many of these articles are just discussing the urns conspiracy theory, which comes from social media.

The sources that I and other editors are pointing to are peer-reviewed papers on mortality and serology in China, published in leading international journals.

These two classes of sources are not even remotely on the same level. The popular media articles are junk in comparison to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fails MEDRS so not reliable for any claim in the realm of WP:Biomedical information, and while it may be "reliable" for other kinds of claim, as a primary source these would almost certainly be POV/UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's a peer-reviewed study in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. In what world does it fail WP:MEDRS? This is the single best source available on mortality during the outbreak in China, by a very wide margin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's primary research. Wikipedia generally wants secondary sources for biomedical material. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I dont think thats true, the raw data in the mortality registries is the primary source there, the analysis of it is secondary. nableezy - 19:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's true. From the data the authors selected the method and produced a novel result ("research"). For medical secondary sources in journals we typically want review articles, meta-analyses or systematic reviews. These all offer overviews of multiple pieces of primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Whether or not you consider this "primary" or "secondary" research, it's clearly the highest quality source available today on the subject of the death toll in China's initial COVID-19 outbreak. The question being discussed in this thread essentially boils down to: should we throw out this peer-reviewed study because of the nationalities of the authors, and replace it news articles from March/April 2020 that discuss social media speculation about vastly larger death tolls? This study is clearly on an entirely different level of reliability than those news articles, when it comes to making statements about the actual death toll. It would be great if we had a meta-analysis or review article of different mortality estimates, but what we have now is a peer-reviewed paper in a highly prestigious medical journal, and that's pretty darn good. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  95% + of peer-reviewed content in medical journals is research and completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, which is meant to be a reflection of "accepted knowledge". Once research has been validated by additional layers of verification (review article, etc.) it becomes eligible for our use. The problem with nearly all of this discussion about author nationality etc. is that it's irrelevant. A lot of research is just wrong so editors here deciding to use it are in effect indulging in WP:OR by deciding for themselves it's correct. Wait for truly reliable sources: there is no deadline. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is throwing out the baby with the bath water. In an attempt to improve source quality, you're arguing against using the highest-quality source available. The consequence will be that absolute junk (news articles discussing a social media conspiracy theory that is wildly inconsistent with all research on the subject) will be substituted in its place. Review articles are preferable to research articles, but research articles are still high-quality sources. In this case, this is clearly the highest-quality source available, by a wide margin. Not every scientific subject gets its own dedicated review article, and sources of this high caliber are used regularly in MEDRS articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is what we call POV-pushing. You've decided some claim needs to be included, and then (despite the lack of RS) try to find a way to include it. NPOV means representing what reliable sources say, not adding stuff to articles editors want. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's an absurd allegation, Alex. I'm just arguing that we use the highest-quality available sources. You should try to understand what the context of this discussion actually is before you wade into it. This discussion is about whether or not we will rule out peer-reviewed scientific papers on the basis of the nationalities of the authors and replace them with news articles that discuss social media speculation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  If the "highest quality" is an unreliable source, stay silent. Silence is better than misinformation. As to the question, I do understand it. I have answered the (stupid) RfC question; and now this just-as-stupid question about whether a source (without context) is "reliable". I also appreciate the political shadow-boxing taking place. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  In this case, the highest-quality available source is not unreliable. You can argue about whether to classify it as primary or secondary, and what amount of attribution to use (e.g., "According to a study published in The BMJ, ..."), but this is not some speculative paper based on in vitro experiments that makes wild claims. It's a standard analysis of mortality data done by a third party, which has been subjected to rigorous peer review (5 reviewers, in fact, whose reports you can read on The BMJ's website) and published in a highly prestigious journal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  You need to read WP:MEDRS. For background, WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ are useful. This is just a replay of the same arguments the "lab leak" proponents tried to push to get their favoured research in. You either follow the WP:PAGs, or you don't. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm already familiar with WP:MEDRS, and I don't agree with your interpretation of it. If we follow your interpretation, we will have to remove virtually all mortality estimates for all countries, including the CDC's estimate of COVID-19 mortality in the US. I think it's entirely reasonable, based on WP:MEDRS, to attribute the excess mortality estimates (to the CDC, to a paper in The BMJ, etc.), but policy does not require us to remove them entirely, nor would doing so be reasonable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As a major medical body, the CDC's position would meet MEDRS. Different thing entirely. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The CDC's analysis is exactly analogous to the BMJ paper we're discussing. Scientists from the CDC published their methodology for determining excess mortality from available data in The Lancet Regional Health - Americas. That's primary research, according to the definition you're advancing (which I do not agree with). We're now citing that mortality estimate on Wikipedia. The analysis published in The BMJ is entirely analogous. Scientists from the major public health institution in China, the China CDC, publish an analysis of available disease surveillance data in a journal with very rigorous standards of peer review (5 reviewers in this case). We're discussing two exactly analogous situations. It's obvious that we wouldn't remove the most reliable estimate of COVID-19 mortality in the US, but if we follow your logic here, we'll have to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  No its not, the Chinese CDC is restricted from publishing any COVID data or research without approval from the Chinese State Council and CCP propaganda office [65]. LondonIP (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we follow WP:MEDRS to the letter as advocated above, the Chinese CDC is the most reliable source available and is the only MEDRS source of all the sources presented, since it is a position statements from national or international expert bodies. Interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I would agree with Novem and Alexbrn here, it's a MEDRS because it's a position statement from a government body, even though it's technically a primary source. Different from academic journal articles of course. Primary sources CAN be used per MEDRS, but there should not be valid alternatives. See WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:MEDASSESS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae and Shibbolethink, I believe Alexbrn was referring to the US CDC, and as LondonIP says, the Chinese CDC is bound by the gag order too. If we believe the Chinese CDC, China’s COVID-19 deaths have been stuck at 4,636 for nearly two years, and zero new deaths in a nation of 1.4B. Do you see the problem here or will we need a new RFC with a question in specific to the Chinese CDC? I personally don't think such an RFC is necessary, but if you are agreeing with a Thucydides411 that the Chinese CDC trumps RS then we may have no choice but to post one here. CutePeach (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Chinese CDC trumps RS: The "RS" you're raising are not reliable sources for this sort of information. You keep saying that we should rely on random popular news articles from nearly two years ago, which discuss a social media conspiracy theory about the number of urns supposedly delivered to Wuhan. These conspiracy theories were never sound to begin with, but they've been completely ruled out by what we've learned since: there were only about 4,600 excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan, and seroprevalence is around 4% in the city (it would have to be essentially 100% in order to arrive any anything close to the death toll the urns conspiracy theory claims). What I and others here are saying is that we should use actual reliable sources, like peer-reviewed studies of mortality and seroprevalence, and national statistics.

  stuck at 4,636 for nearly two years: China has followed a zero-COVID strategy. The virus was entirely eliminated from China (at least from circulation in the human population) in April 2020. There are extremely strict quarantine measures at the border, and every new outbreak is met with mass testing, extensive contact tracing, quarantine and isolation, and targeted lockdowns. These measures have been successful in ending the few dozen new outbreaks that have occurred in various places in China since April 2020. The largest outbreak since April 2020 (the recent one in Xi'an, which took place in December 2021 - January 2022) involved only about 2000 people in total. The fact that China has pursued a zero-COVID policy has been extremely widely reported on in the media and in the medical literature. In fact, there is an entire issue of The BMJ devoted to discussing the zero-COVID policy in China. I would assume that a basic awareness of this policy would be a pre-requisite for editing articles related to the pandemic in China, because I'm not sure how an editor who is unaware of the policy could meaningfully contribute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Thucydides411: I agree with Alexbrn. The best source doesn't always clear the threshold for reliability here. If WP:MEDRS standards apply here (and I believe they probably do), then we can't use primary sources. It would, however, also mean that the "absolute junk" sources couldn't be used either. Whatever the decision (I don't think RSN is the right place), it should be applied consistently. If BMJ can't be used because the information is WP:BMI, then the information might need to be left as unknown. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Bakkster Man: If I go look at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the second sentence gives a death toll drawn from the website, Our World in Data, along with a statement about per capita mortality sourced to a Johns Hopkins University tracker, and the sidebar gives estimates of the death toll from the CDC (there's an associated peer-reviewed paper, which under the definition advanced above would be primary research) and a black-box machine learning model published by a popular magazine, The Economist (obviously not peer-reviewed, not necessarily even created by experts in the field, and which spits out absurd, impossible results for some countries). The paper we're discussing, published in The BMJ, is of far higher quality than any of those sources. In other words, the paper in The BMJ is of much higher quality than the references we're currently using to source similar information in analogous (and much more prominent) articles on Wikipedia. It's highly valuable to not just give government numbers, but to also give scientific estimates of death tolls and infection rates. The BMJ provides a much better source for doing so than is available for other articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Thucydides411: I think that could be a thread worth pulling on (is collating and republishing official data reasonable or not, and are case counts BMI), but I think it probably needs to happen in a better venue (WP:BMI for instance) out of the shadow of this "but China" RfC to give it a chance of actual consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the relevant discussion is that this study's reliability will depend on WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS and whether we consider it primary or secondary (arguably a different noticeboard), not on whether or not the authors are Chinese. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note to closer: the authors are Chinese has not been presented by any editors as the sole criterion for considering the reliability of this source. CutePeach (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn @VQuakr Here is where the paper is currently used, if you want to give your opinion: [66] [67]. Jumpytoo Talk 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll pass. The COVID-19 articles generally are a morass of poorly-sourced content. In years to come they'll get cleaned up. Maybe. All I can do now is try to explain what our sourcing guidelines actually say - though as we can see it's not what some editors want to hear, as this discussion is really just another proxy politics battleground, now isn't it. Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo: it's cited three times in a short paragraph, which is ugly (just cite it at the end of that para), but the info it's used to support isn't a MEDRS issue (it talks about mortality numbers, doesn't give medical advice) and isn't a red flag either: it's consistent with other reliable sources about total COVID deaths in China. Reasonable editors may disagree, but I'm not seeing any issue here and "because it's from China" is a non-starter of a reason to exclude. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable to support what information? "is X reliable" is not a question that can be answered in the affirmative without context. It's a primary medical article, so as Alexbrn notes is fails MEDRS. It's a year old, so the information in it may be dated. BMJ is reliable in most contexts, though. VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No per Alexbrn. Fails WP:RS when we use it on any COVID-19 page. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, the study in question is inarguably the best available source on mortality during the outbreak in China, by a very wide margin. It's a peer-reviewed study in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, The BMJ (formerly known as "The British Medical Journal"). It provides a detailed analysis of excess mortality due to a whole number of different causes in Wuhan, Hubei province (excluding Wuhan) and China (excluding Hubei province). Of particular interest, it calculates excess pneumonia mortality, which is attributable to COVID-19. Here is its bottom line:

  In Wuhan city (13 districts), 5954 additional (4573 pneumonia) deaths occurred in 2020 compared with 2019, with excess risks greater in central than in suburban districts (50% v 15%). In other parts of Hubei province (19 DSP areas), the observed mortality rates from pneumonia and chronic respiratory diseases were non-significantly 28% and 23% lower than the predicted rates, despite excess deaths from covid-19 related pneumonia. Outside Hubei (583 DSP areas), the observed total mortality rate was non-significantly lower than the predicted rate (675 v 715 per 100000), with significantly lower death rates from pneumonia (0.53, 0.46 to 0.63), chronic respiratory diseases (0.82, 0.71 to 0.96), and road traffic incidents (0.77, 0.68 to 0.88).

  Except in Wuhan, no increase in overall mortality was found during the three months of the covid-19 outbreak in other parts of China. The lower death rates from certain non-covid-19 related diseases might be attributable to the associated behaviour changes during lockdown.

The authors speculate that the slight decrease in pneumonia deaths outside Wuhan is due to a decrease in flu transmission during the lockdowns.

The findings of this study have proved to be consistent with a whole number of serology studies published in highly reputable international journals (such as Nature Medicine, The Lancet Regional Health Western Pacific and The Lancet Microbe) that look at infection rates in various regions of China.

The alternative to this study in The BMJ that some editors are proposing we use is literally a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media about the supposed number of urns delivered to Wuhan after the lockdown, which was briefly discussed in some news articles all the way back in March/April 2020 (see more here). The idea that we would run with that social media conspiracy theory but rule out peer-reviewed research in one of the world's top medical journals is laughable.

The fact that this source has even been called into question (purely on the basis of the nationalities of the authors) just goes to show how absurd this entire discussion is. We have to decide whether or not Wikipedia is a place that discriminates on the basis of nationality. I think it shouldn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, in context of this RfC, if this is a suitable article per WP:MEDRS and the primary/secondary argument is something that could be discussed, but the fact the authors are Chinese does not impact the reliability of this piece. Jumpytoo Talk 19:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No per Alexbrn and Xi's "Game of Chess". LondonIP (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, in context of this RfC and also per Alexbrn who says it is WP:PRIMARY. Francesco espo (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No because it fails WP:MEDRS, and this is the case when WP:MEDRS does apply. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• NOTE If the consensus is that the study is reliable but fails MEDRS because it is a primary source, then that means reliable secondary sources refrencing the study ARE reliable. Also as previously noted above, other articles regarding COVID have primary sources for the claims of deaths and cases as typically they are the best source for this, should this also be changed? Xoltered (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, secondary sources citing this study would likely meet MEDRS and therefore be the best available sources on this topic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• No Not reliable due to pro-fringe background. NavjotSR (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If this WP:PRIMARY source was being cited for ordinary non contentious claims, then perhaps YES​​. However, since it is being used to refute/challenge claims from high quality WP:SECONDARY sources like the Financial Times and the Economist [68], it's a NO. The applicable policy here is WP:BALANCE, which requires secondary or tertiary sources to describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. CutePeach (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  The idea that popular media like The Financial Times or The Economist are reliable sources for epidemiological information - but that a peer-reviewed paper on excess mortality in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals isn't - is simply laughable. The Financial Times and The Economist aren't even remotely reliable for this sort of information. They're okay for current events. They have near-zero expertise in epidemiology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. The Financial Times and The Economist are HQRS, but I feel like there's a problem if we rate them as better than a peer reviewed publication in an esteemed publication like The BMJ, on a issue in the journal's expertise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was about to make the very same argument. The Economist and FT are not "High quality" epidemiology journals. They are media outlets which are respected on matters of politics and economics.
  ' — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader and Shibbolethink, contrary to what Thucydides411 claims, the "Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths" is not "epidemiological information", and the BMJ article does not even refute the claims of Foreign Policy, Financial Times and the Economist. I don't think the community has the patience for another massive throwdown at WP:BMI and I don't think your arguments here will persuade any admin to unblock the page. CutePeach (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• No because this fails MEDRS per Alexbrn, the problem here is of course that MEDRS prohibits peer reviewed studies in publications like the BMJ, but thats a known issue with MEDRS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• To those saying this is a primary source, genuine question, what's the difference between this discussion and a recent discussion here at RSN involving analysis of population data, where it was said that novel analysis of results to reach a novel conclusion is considered secondary if the authors didn't obtain the data? (I can't find the discussion at a skim but it was quite well attended IIRC). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: the requirement for the use of WP:PRIMARY sources is that one cannot analyse or interpret them, which is clearly the case here. There is also WP:BALANCE which requires contradictory sources to be relatively equal in prominence and secondary or tertiary by type. CutePeach (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The requirement is that editors don't analyse or interpret the results/contents of the primary source. As far as I can tell, the source obtained data from "China's Disease Surveillance Points" and the source analysed this data. I'm not entirely sure the 'primary source'/'secondary source' classification is ideal for this case, but IIRC previous RSN discussions covering similar situations have held that such cases are considered secondary sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: It's also worth noting that the BMJ paper on excess mortality in China is analogous to the CDC estimate of excess mortality in the US, which is considered the standard estimate for the US. Both are published in very similar ways: they're peer-reviewed analyses of data gathered by various disease surveillance networks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I believe this is what you are looking for. nableezy - 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, that's the one. Thanks nableezy. Having skimmed that discussion again it seems like surely its result should apply here since we have, in essence, the same situation: the papers' authors are using data obtained by another source, and reaching novel conclusions. That discussion found a consensus that this kind of source is considered secondary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader it's not just a primary source, it's primary research. If China is undercounting cases, then it's true figures would be a state secret, and all epidemiology submissions would be thoroughly vetted by a censor, and some papers would be commissioned by propagandists for… propaganda. This BMJ paper does not refute or even challenge the widely varied allegations of many HQRS that question the accuracy of China's statistics, so it's a giant red herring. The Nature and Lancet articles are also primary and don't refute anything. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ScrumptiousFood: If you believe the data on which the paper in The BMJ is based is faked, then please take your concerns to the editors at The BMJ. Five expert peer-reviewers (who deal regularly with this sort of data) and the scientific editors at The BMJ vetted this paper. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear any evidence you have of data-faking, and if there's any merit to your claims, I'm sure they'll retract the paper. We are, after all, talking about one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. But as things stand, this is a peer-reviewed paper in a leading journal, and there's absolutely no indication that the data is faked. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: you said The requirement is that editors don't analyse or interpret the results/contents of the primary source but that is exactly what editors are doing [69] [70] [71]. CutePeach (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Those edits you linked don't analyse or interpret the results but simply mention the findings of the study, what are you claiming is user analysis? Xoltered (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xoltered: the edit summaries in the three edits I showed ProcrastinatingReader's point give an analysis of this WP:PRIMARY source, as if they are WP:SECONDARY sources describing opposing views clearly as per WP:BALANCE. They are not, and those edits are WP:POVDELETIONS. CutePeach (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are simply stating this, if you look at the edits you linked they simply mention the findings of the study, and do not present them as a secondary source. Xoltered (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In the three diffs links above, you and two other editors removed content sourced to RS [72], due to this BMJ article supposedly refuting claims of China underreporting the extent of infections and deaths. Do you understand the problem with your edit and why we are here on RSN discussing this BMJ article and other sources brought to refute widely reported claims? CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Only if there are no good secondary academic journal article sources available per WP:MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:MEDASSESS. If there are secondary MEDRS-compliant sources available which cite these studies, those secondary sources should be used instead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: this discussion is about a BMJ paper which supposedly refutes the claims of RS which you say aren't reliable [73]. Its really not clear from your answer here why you think these RS aren't reliable if the BMJ isn't a secondary academic journal article. WP:BALANCE requires that sources be relatively equal in prominence, and a primary source is never going to be as prominent as a secondary one. Please can you clarify for the benefit of the closer? CutePeach (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are several secondary academic sources which support the conclusions drawn from the original paper in this discussion: [74] [75] [76] [77] That is also a misreading of BALANCE, which actually requires us to write our articles based on the proportion of those views in our WP:BESTSOURCES. The sources you provide do not trump scholarly work, which is what sets the tone here on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Those sources, secondary as they are, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. They may perhaps support the conclusion of this BMJ paper - whatever it is - but they absolutely do not refute or challenge the claims found in over 20 RS about China allegedly underreporting the extent of COVID-19 infections and deaths. Looking at the dataset leaked to the Foreign Policy [78], I do not see where your secondary sources refute this report. There are hundreds of reports in RS that China underreported cases from the very start. It is a fact we can put in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach and Shibbolethink: The Foreign Policy article does not claim that China under-reported cases or deaths. In fact, the article begins by stating, Beijing claims that since the coronavirus pandemic began at the end of last year, there have been only 82,919 confirmed cases and 4,633 deaths in mainland China. Those numbers could be roughly accurate... The article says that FP was obtained a leaked database, and will analyze it. In the 18+ months since this FP article came out, there was no follow-up reporting from FP on this database, as far as I can tell (I've searched and come up empty). That leads me to believe that FP found nothing newsworthy in the database. At the very least, you can't keep waving around this source and claiming it supports your contention that China deliberately under-reported cases or deaths. If anything, this source undermines your contention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• No In particular, I would note their conflicts statement: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: funding for the project through a grant (No 82073675) from the National Natural Science Foundation of China; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The portion about "no other relationships or activities" contradicts the document released by the AP. The authors all have a relationship with the Government of China. The AP document states that the Government of China must approve all publications in this area. This is a conflict, and a true conflicts statement would have mentioned it. Of course this sucks for the authors, who would likely not have been allowed by the Government of China to mention this particular conflict. But for our purposes, the bottom line is that because of the AP's document, the conflicts statement is verifiably false. Therefore, the source is not reliable. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment A further problem with the source, which I did not mention in my !vote above, is that it describes Chinese Government publications on the topic of mortality as "data". However, there is a slam-dunk case that certain deaths are deliberately not reported by their actual cause. See the article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. China does report some executions, but not enough to account for the timely availability of human organs compatible with such a large number of recipients. The upshot is that the publications which the source describes as "data" must either exclude or misclassify some deaths where the cause of death is execution by the Government. Perhaps a user who reads Chinese can confirm this. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to the topic being discussed, this is about COVID deaths and linking to an unrelated article which "The neutrality of this article is disputed" does not improve your point. Xoltered (talk)

@Xoltered: While it proves nothing on its own, I think the fact that the CCP has been known to fabricate death statistics in other politically sensitive areas gives reason to be suspicious that they may also be doing so here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR Xoltered (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• While WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is relevant, I am in agreement with what Adoring nanny said. Azuredivay (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Slam-dunk case: Where have I heard that before? You're pointing to completely unrelated - and extremely suspect - accusations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners to argue that essentially all scientific study on COVID-19 mortality in China is wrong. If you believe that the paper in The BMJ that we're discussing is based on faked data, then you should bring that to the attention of the editors of The BMJ. If you have any credible evidence, I'm sure they will take your complaint very seriously and will publish any needed retractions or corrections. Until you've convinced The BMJ to do so, however, we are all free to reject your suggestion of faked data out-of-hand. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, per Adoring nanny. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, in the context of this RfC, per Bakkster Man and Jumpytoo, as a paper published by the academic press, and the authors being Chinese does not change this. I prefer a case-by-case analysis — we can include the study, while also using the best news sources, though I do agree with ProcrastinatingReader's comments. As for 'refuting', we need reliable sources saying that to avoid OR/SYNTH, so we should use careful wording, rather than decide for ourself such sources, especially if they are those,12 refuted this paper. As for primary/secondary, WP:PRIMARY notes: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." As written by Shibbolethink, it should be a no brainer "if there are no good secondary academic journal article sources available per WP:MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:MEDASSESS. If there are secondary MEDRS-compliant sources available which cite these studies, those secondary sources should be used instead." Davide King (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes its a reliable source, published in a prestigious journal and extensively reacted to. However, Alexbrn is right to call it a primary source. Secondary sources would include things like the peer reports that the BMJ, like most but not all journals, does not publish and the literature that comments on this study. The editors who think that the fact that the article interprets its own data makes it a secondary source are confused. If MEDRS considers primary sources of this quality to be unusable, so much the worse for MEDRS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Postscript - to be clear, the article is a secondary source with respect to its discussion of prior literature. I'm only arguing that it is not a secondary source with respect to its own claims. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• No. Fails MEDRS, per Alexbrn and others. MEDRS requires we use more than just primary source research papers like this one, even though they might otherwise be individually reliable research. MEDRS requires we use reviews and meta-analyses based on analysis of LOTS OF such papers, otherwise OR use of primary sources would rule our medical articles. Editors would (and do) pick and choose which research papers they wish in support of any type of agenda they're pushing. MEDRS blocks such efforts. -- Valjean (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• No fails WP:MEDRS per others above, Adoring nanny has a good explanation. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm at a loss to explain the "fails WP:MEDRS" !votes. What exactly is the medical information being cited here? It makes no comment on treatment, causes, mechanism of infection, course of disease. A statistical analysis of excess mortality is not medical information, and no just using the word COVID does not make something medical information. So yes, I think this is a clearly reliable source on excess mortality in Wuhan and other parts of China covered for the early stages of the pandemic. If other sources dispute its findings then that should be presented. Some amorphous claim that anything from a Chinese author is irretrievably tainted seems objectionable on any number of grounds. Least of which is the B in BMJ is "British". nableezy - 23:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

EP Today

EP Today (eptoday.com) is identified as a fake news site both in a Wikipedia article (Fake_news_in_India#Fake_news_against_Pakistan) and in a report (https://www.disinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20191213_InfluencingPolicymakers-with-Fake-media-outlets.pdf) by the EU Disinformation Task Force. This was discussed briefly in an earlier Reliable Sources discussion without any resolution.

I propose that eptoday be blacklisted.

Currently, EPToday is referenced in 10 articles (one being the Fake News in India wiki article). Some of the references appear to have legitimate sources, but the topics are outside my expertise, so I don't think I'm the right person to fix these references. Using the search term "insource:eptoday.com" the articles are

1. Religion in Pakistan

   The focus of Islamic principles creates a system of institutionalised discrimination that filters down into society. Moreover, the Constitution sets up the Council of Islamic Ideology, tasked with ensuring Islamic ideology is followed in governmental decisions, actions and policy making.

2. Syed Ali Shah Geelani

   After record voting percentage in Kashmir, Geelani, along with other separatists, were criticised by Indian media for misleading people of Kashmir and for not representing true sentiments of Kashmiri people.

3. Fake news in India
4. All Parties Hurriyat Conference
5. Rod Rosenstein
6. Religious discrimination in Pakistan
7. Mark Hendrick
8. Religious Minorities in Pakistan
9. Edward McMillan-Scott
10. Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan

rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

rsjaffe, procedurally this is somewhat of a malformed RfC (see WP:RFC) so the tag should be removed. I also think the scope needs to be broadened, there are a lot of other obscure sites like this one with similar use cases. By the way, the link to the previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § Indian fake media outlets. Looking at it, the idea for blacklisting was brought up before but no one took it up after that. Since then the use case seems to have increased, so I'd think we should go forward with it now. Give me some time to gather a list of the most relevant sites and I'll start an RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. I removed the tag. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In Edward McMillan-Scott's article, it's an external link to an article he authored. At Rod Rosenstein the source was unnecessary and another could be used. I've not looked at the Indian/Pakistan related articles yet. Posting this at RSN was a good idea, as it may also result in an eventual RSP entry if discussed enough. Blacklisting would be more likely if the source was spammed. Deprecation may be possible but is unlikely at a first discussion or if it's easily manageable (there are few citations at current time). —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The external link might be a BLP violation. See the follow-up story from BBC which states, "EU Chronicle was born in May this year when EP Today, a site flagged in the previous disinformation report, was simply discontinued and renamed...A group of MEPs appear regularly in the investigation. One of them, French MEP Thierry Mariani, has written two op-eds for EU Chronicle and was also part of a controversial visit to Indian-administered Kashmir last year...Two other MEPs named in the report - Angel Dzhambazki from Bulgaria and Grzegorz Tobiszowski from Poland - denied having written op-eds that were published on EU Chronicle." So it seems uncertain whether those who have articles attributed to them have truly written them, I'd think this at least needs a secondary source for any kind of inclusion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting read and rather concerning. WP:ELNO has criteria 2 that may justify removing external links as well: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

rfcid=3D8F739

The Counterpunch deprecation RFC appeared to have multiple contributors who were fresh editors/accounts. WP:RFCs have conventionally allowed all contributors, including IPs. Is this appropriate to deprecation RFCs?

• Option 1: Keep open to all contributors, as per WP:RFC.
• Option 2: Require autoconfirmed status from contributors.
• Option 3: Similar requirements to extended confirmed protection: 30 days, 500 edits.
• Option 4: something else.

- David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

• Option 3 for ALL RfCs and AfDs. -- Valjean (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is specifically for deprecation RFCs, but the latter might be an idea - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: If deprecation RfCs are the first type of RFC in the 20 year history of this site to require ECP to prevent disruption, I feel like that says more about deprecation RfCs than it does about non-EC editors. (That's excluding topical discussions, i.e. ARBPIA ones.) In the Jewish Chronicle RfC, the sockpuppets were all EC editors. Clearly there's some disruption going on in deprecation RfCs currently, but I don't think this sweeping restriction is a good way to manage it. And frankly there are many other issues with deprecation and its RfCs, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, that should be tackled rather than disenfranchising even more editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also what is a "deprecation RfC"? Any RfC that has deprecation as a possible option, i.e. the modern standard format for RSN discussions? So an RfC started on the reliability of the BBC (i.e. clearly generally reliable) would also prohibit EC editors, since it would likely contain an option 4 option, even though no editor would seriously vote for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 - this is deep nuts and bolts of Wikipedia stuff. Views of fresh editors might be appropriate to the discussion, but not to the survey - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. RfCs are not a vote, so closers should evaluate consensus based on quality of arguments rather than pure vote counts. Moreover, restricting participation in discussions to autoconfirmed users goes against the founding principles of Wikipedia. – Anne drew 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. But obvious SPAs should be tagged and that should be considered at closing, as Wikipedia:Single-purpose account already advises. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak option 1 - While RfCs are not votes, votes do have unconscious effects on those reading threads. I don't like the idea that editors without ample experience using sources should be able to influence the discussion on the depreciation of sources. However, I'm not entirely convinced of such a heavy restriction, at least for now.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - shocker I know, but ECP is meant to deter socking, or at least that is why it was developed. And things like the CP RFC show why that is needed, especially for any source even tangentially related, as it allows, as another editor wrote in the AC clarification request, ECP-prohibited editors from the IP area can easily skew a discussion on sourcing when it is a general review rather than a close look at what the sources are being used for, because you can argue the broad review of a newspaper isnt covered by broadly construed, but you cant do so when the topic is specifically about IP. So for discussions on sources that are largely used in affected topic areas covered by ECP that prevention of socking basis for implementing ECP holds. But for anything else it does not. Lets say I, newbie editor adding a source to an article that interests me, finds that the source is challenged here and it devolves, as sadly too many threads here do, in to a deprecation RFC. Why shouldnt I be able to participate? The only basis for ECP is to prevent throwaway socks from swaying the content, and for some topic areas it is needed. Largely it is not. nableezy - 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I got your point Nableezy, but I believe an option 3 is still a correct approach under the current circumstances. That may change with time but not now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: What circumstances? Why is it correct? Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2 - My impression is that an experienced closer would take in consideration SPAs and IP addresses, although it's admitedly common for them to generate a lot of noise during discussions. 2 might mitigate it slightly without being too restrictive. This may also be unnecessary since a page can occasionally be protected when required after significant disruption. —PaleoNeonate – 01:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, but note exceptions such as ARBPIA. Under the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-ec editors are not allowed to participate in RfCs in the ARBPIA area. This is an Arbcom ruling that we can't change here. The same goes if there are similar Arbcom rulings in other areas. Zero^talk 01:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - While I recommend that new users get involved in as much as they can, I doubt that a reader or a user with almost no experience regarding Wikipedia's running would have anything major - yet constructive - to say about it. Some kind of loose boundary may be appropriate for our inner workings. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per Nableezy. I understand the rationale for a change, but I think it would have negative un-intended consequences. Often discussions, including RfCs, on this noticeboard concern sources used in specialist areas, where specialist knowledge rather than experience of WP policy is useful. For example, if we were discussing Czech sources, an inexperienced, non-ECR editor who reads Czech and knows about Czech scholarship or Czech media may make a more useful contribution than an experienced ECR editor who doesn't. Excluding the former might lead to a less well informed decision, and also bake in our systemic biases. A decent closer isn't counting !votes anyway, but giving more weight to evidence-based and policy-based comments in determining consensus, so any less well-informed contributions of less experienced editors shouldn't harm the discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• comment Not much more to add, often a new user will waste our time on arguments that are not policy based. This may not be an issue on normal talk pages. But here we really need policy-based arguments. I was going to go for one, but 3 will save a lot of time in explaining why an argument is flawed. But there is also the argument that a lot of experienced editors are not much better (especially where NPOV is concerned). So I am torn between 1 and 3. I guess I lean to 1 as I do not want to see cabals being able to force through what they want.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nope its Option 1 as I am unsure that this thread is a good example of how much better experienced editors are at behaving.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 will weed out the off-site trolls who only have an interest in the supporting/opposing Counterpunch (and future ones), and no interest in its usage in the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - this is an area where the quality of our discussions will improve if the editors participating are required to have a modicum of experience. Levivich 14:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - with sadness. But as said previously, I think it will improve discussions, and I hope, lessen the "deprecation-as-political-proxy-war" feeling that sometimes pervades the place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 but also Option 4 - If we must have these general RSN RFCs then they should be open to as many commenters as possible and it is the job of the closer to weigh the !votes cast per Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. However, it is very obvious that these general RFCs are very often simply opened to declare a source "bad", unconnected to any article-content, and this is the real problem that needs to be addressed. Editors should not be surprised that when they try to declare a source as effectively unusable, often as part of a "political proxy war" where they try to "kill" a source "with fire" (to quote a particularly prominent advocate of these general reliability RFCs), that their supporters come here to defend them. Option 4 is simply to stop having general reliability RFCs unless there is clear evidence of an actual existing article-content problem that is widespread in the encyclopaedia (e.g., the source is cited on more than a certain number of articles, for example 1000). FOARP (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Wikipedia should not become a bubble restricted to those with certain qualifications. I strongly oppose option 3 for that reason. Unproductive comments will simply be ignored by the closer; there is very little harm in allowing ips and new accounts to participate, while openness in our processes and decisions is of the utmost importance. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per David, Dumuzid and Levivich._signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Having read others' arguments and reflected on it more, while I think that Option 3 is preferable to the status quo (or perhaps more accurately, the status quo ante counterpunchum), I'm swayed by arguments that it doesn't make sense to codify essentially unprecedented bureaucracy around RSN RfCs while the very definition of deprecation remains up in the air. We may well want to consider removing the deprecation option from the "standard" reliability RfC, and would suggest that if we're going to keep deprecation as a process, it only be considered in cases where a source has already been subject to multiple discussions (perhaps: multiple discussions with consensuses for general unreliability) and where it's clear that a source cannot be trusted even for basic journalistic integrity (e.g. falsifies its own contributors' work) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 - RFCs should be open to all, including this subset of them. An issue that one finds particularly important might drive them to create an account or chime in without one. Discussions always have and should be open to all. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3, or failing that option 2. There is too much of an indication that they're being targeted by ban-evaders and the like, especially for RFCs on sources that cover controversial areas that are themselves under ECP protection. While it's certainly true that it is not a vote, the reality is that most closers are reluctant to close an RFC against a clear numerical consensus; and many people will not even want to bother to weigh in on an RFC where the numerical consensus seems clear (the sharply different results we're seeing in the previous vs. current Counterpunch RFCs point to this effect.) Yes, we have tools to limit the impact of socking or offsite canvassing; but those require significant time and effort on the part of both contributors and closers. The ability to take overwhelming results as a general indicator is important to avoid wasted energy; if socking and meatpuppetry and the like are at a level where RFCs regularly require laser-tight attention from everyone to prevent shenangians, that's not a sustainable situation. ECP exists specifically to prevent us from wasting energy and effort in those circumstances. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. This seems like a bad idea to me, because it basically amounts to official formalization of a process that isn't even a policy or guideline. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources is an information page. The deprecation process itself is currently under discussion regarding what it actually means, how it should work, and what the outcome of deprecation should be -- if we don't know what the heck a process should be, it hardly seems like an appropriate time to be talking about how to more effectively gatekeep it. As ProcrastinatingReader mentioned above, if deprecation RfCs are truly such a cesspit that we need to adopt some bizarre practice that isn't done for any other type of RfC on the entire project, we should at least consider that it may be the process which needs to be changed, and not the type of editor allowed to participate in it. jp×g 05:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Slatersteven says that often a new user will waste our time on arguments that are not policy based. Unfortunately, such is true of people with over 10,000 edits. ProcrastinatingReader makes a pretty compelling argument that this is not a clear/enforceable question, as "deprecation RfC" is not a particularly well-defined term: the problematic CounterPunch RfC had the same format as ones used to add uncontroversially reliable sources like The Mail & Guardian, which a non-ECP editor may plausibly be able to start. When it comes to disruption like socking at RfCs or AfDs, the problem is not in lacking rules to be able to enforce the situation, but in detection, or possibly in correct assessment of consensus by closers. It has become clear over the last few years that those who go all in with the goal of damaging Wikipedia can pass any new hurdle added (except—that we know of—adminship). — Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I also said ". But there is also the argument that a lot of experienced editors are not much better (especially where NPOV is concerned".Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: consensus isn't a vote, and so bad arguments by new editors shouldn't carry much weight. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 A "Deprecation RFC" should be a straight yes or no open to all following a prior process discussing the source.Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, it shouldn't. See WP:NOTAVOTE. There's no good reasons why this kind of RfC should follow any other format from the usual, time-tested one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, if you define the "the usual, time-tested one" as a "Deprecation RFC", no there isn't.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  RfCs in general (what I was referring to), at RSN or elsewhere, have a well-defined format, and like all other discussions on Wikipedia, it is expected that contributors be able to back-up their "yes" or "no" with proper arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that whether it is a choice of 2 or a choice of 4, its not a vote. I am also aware of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC questions Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 IPs are humans too, and people making bad arguments (in RfCs or anywhere else) is not a problem unique to IPs or even to inexperienced users (see this, from an admin with no less than a 100000 edits!!), nor are canvassing or sockpuppetry concerns unique to anywhere (and when they do happen, it is usually not too hard to address them). This is WP:CREEP based on seemingly one current example (and making rules to address current "problems" is rarely a good usage of time, especially if it is not truly a widespread problem) which serves no useful purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Aside from the fact that this blatantly flies in the face of Wikipedia's standard that discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ANYONECANEDIT, and the whole ideas that editors are equal, I could very easily abuse this process against non-ECP users by just starting a 4-option discussion/RfC whenever I am disputing the quality of source with a non ECP editor, rather than making a regular posting to RSN. Presto chango their opinions don't matter as when I go back to the discussion on the talk page I can point to the "global consensus" they weren't allowed to participate in. There's a saying called "hard cases make bad law" and it's highly applicable here. If we view this in the context of Counterpunch, an extreme outlier, I can see the urge to vote for Option 3. But we're really just telling editors to fuck off from any and all 4 option RfCs on sources and that's the majority of meaningful discussions here.

I also hate this idea that "new editors shouldn't start with internal Wikipedia processes". I started editing through countervandalism and NPP and all the complicated internal policy stuff. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I'd hazard a guess that there are others like me. So what if a new editor wants to start editing by commenting at RSN or AfD? There are other ways to help this encyclopedia than content creation. If they make bad votes the closer can easily disregard them in current practice. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. See my comment in the section below. Let's not get too focused on regulating a process that governs a process. Trust the judgement of the editors making discussions. An editor closing a discussion can discount arguments based on their strength. feminist (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Closers are bright folks. They can assess the consensus and take into account SPA's and new accounts, and decide in context what weight to give their votes. If we are to exclude new editors from engaging in our central discussions, we hasten our demise. How else will we create new editors able to carry the project into the future? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. IPs and new-to-enwiki users may well have considerable expertise with esoteric or non-English sources. The closer should be able to discount or underweight comments that appear solicited or are unsupported by policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Closers can appropriately weight contributions when necessary if there's a need to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 I understand the concern regarding off site sock/meat !votes but I have faith in our closers to keep that in mind. Additionally, a strong argument presented by an IP is still a strong argument and shouldn't be outright blocked even if we should discount unregistered "shows of support". Springee (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. Deprecation RfCs should end. Unfortunately in 2019 RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs did not result in any restriction, but I think more people are starting to realize they're bad, so eventually I'm hopeful we can end them. It won't happen here, but if/when it does this RfC won't matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. I agree with Peter above. It's time to deprecate deprecation RfCs. This has gotten totally out of control. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Counterpunch is an outlier because a large portion of its use on this website is in relation to PIA. The vast majority of sources are not, so putting restrictions on all source deprecation RFCs just to address a single outlier seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, except that the square peg is actually a sledgehammer. Many, if not all of the !votes here for option 3 are in the context of Counterpunch, either explicitly or implicitly. If socking was a serious problem at the Counterpunch RFC (which it may have been, I don't know), then surely there must be another way to address it that doesn't involve banning IPs and new users from all source discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - leave it open. I am also of the mind that common sense and knowing when to use IAR applies to deprecated sources in certain circumstances. Atsme 💬 📧 08:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. We don't restrict participation in other RFC types, so why start here? If problems arise in future RFCs here, we have tools to address them. Calidum 17:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. What specific issue would this solve? We have policies against sock-/meatpuppetry, vandalism, trolling, general uncivility, etc.; RfCs are not majority vote affairs, and why should (auto-)confirmed users make better arguments/be more knowledgeable about sources than new or IP users? The description of this RfC does not clarify why it should be appropriate to restrict participation in deprecation RfCs. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 We already have ways to handle SPAs and such, I see no need to restrict participation. — csc^-1 13:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Flies in the face of WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ANYONECANEDIT. RFCs are not votes. Closers should evaluate the strength of the arguments presented, not sure how socks and new editors can interfere with that. Especially don't like the diminishment of the contributions of new (or just low edit) editors. Pabsoluterince (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Submitting any meaningful RfC does require some experience. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Did you see what Bobfrombrockley wrote above? That specialist knowledge can be more valuable to the discussion than experience on Wikipedia. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Imo, the main reason to go for option 3 is the unclarity around deprecation, otoh that is the main reason why I went for option 1, either way, it needs clarification.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 as we want to avoid the influence from canvassing, off-wiki coordination, political proxy battles, etc. Do we have means to contextualize these? yes. Are these means perfect or even all that good? No, not really. I think we need more precise ways to keep these Deprecation discussions on point, measured, and principled. I respect the contributions of anonymous editors or extremely new editors, but no one can deny these are vehicles for spurious input which may harm the project in these instances. We have demonstrated examples of this happening (e.g. IceWhiz alts, etc) where bad actors have used the system to their advantage, to make a mockery of the project. We must do all we can to avoid such things. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 / weak Option 2 RfC's are not a vote. If it's really just that bad, maybe Option 2 could be used, but it seems that RfC's should be open to everyone, should we restrict them just because it's annoying to deal with certain people? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - This seems to me to be the best option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Option 4: Abolish this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

• I filed this because it seems a good idea to me and some others, but it's a major change in how we approach RFCs, which have long been open to all comers - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP We don't need to have a new policy that ban WP:SOCKs and WP:MEATs from specific RFCs. We already have those policies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Per above, "Deprecation RFC" is an undefined term. We should have a deprecation policy or at least a formal guideline before any more tinkering.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think this discussion should be listed in WP:CENT because it is a drastic change. – Anne drew 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Added to WP:CENT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I should note also, there was also discussion asking to retrospectively declare that ECP applied to the CounterPunch deprecation RFC on the basis of WP:ARBPIA - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, discussions in topic areas covered by ECP should have ECP applied to the noticeboard discussions, including RSN RFCs. And the fact that those RFCs have such heavy socking demonstrates why. But outside of that I cant think of a basis for it. nableezy - 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That gets really complicated in its own way, though, in that... to use Counterpunch as an example, say. Clearly it has taken a strident side on the ARBPIA issue, and clearly (based on, if nothing else, Icewhiz's focus) at least some of the sockpuppetry and the like was from editors whose opinion on the source was decided solely by that ARBPIA issue, which meant they were using the RFC to weigh in on an ECP topic area by proxy. At the same time, though, it's not like that's the sole defining feature of Counterpunch's coverage - people who were only vaguely familiar with the source might not realize it, and even when quickly going over secondary coverage of it it might not come up (eg. when I was searching for academic reactions to and discussions of Counterpunch, their position on Israel rarely came up directly.) There are absolutely situations where editors will eg. judge an entire source based on a handful of things related to an ECP topic area that are not necessarily actually that important in the grand scope of the source as a whole; and that is going to be tricky to apply ECP for on a case-by-case basis. Especially since (for example) Icewhiz is going to be smart enough to not mention Israel when saying why he's taking a position on a source with his latest sock, even if that's actually the only reason he's weighing in at all. Unless we already know it's him (in which case he'd just be banned), how would we prove an editor is taking a position on a source for its stance on an ECP topic? Especially if it's an editor in good standing, who we otherwise AGF about? --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont think it actually is that complicated. The topics covered are, on purpose, defined to be very broadly construed. But just look at the threads IW has been having 4-6 socks at a time involved in. They are sources that are widely used in the topic areas that are restricted. Those topic areas are restricted because of the pervasive socking of people like NoCal100 and Icewhiz. By opening this well its a general review and not specifically about a topic area you are getting played. If you look at many of the past discussions on CP you will find they were often focused specifically on ARBPIA topics. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_181#What_is_the_verdict_of_the_2008_discussion_on_Counterpunch, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#CounterPunch, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_110#CounterPunch_reliability. Yes it covers other topics, obviously, but the reason you have IW and NoCal100 involved is to affect the topics that are EC-restricted. The entire point of EC, when it was first created, was to make sockpuppetry less of an issue in topic areas that have suffered sustained abusive sockpuppetry (and two NoCal100 socks being banned in one AC case is a pretty good example of that sustained issue). I dont think we need to prove anything about any users particular motivation. If the source is widely used in an ECP topic area, the noticeboard discussions should be treated as requiring EC to participate. Because we have seen, over and over, the impact of sockpuppetry has been significantly more disruptive than the positives of allowing unrestricted access. And CP, as well as the Jewish Chronicle RFC, demonstrate that better than I could ever try. That is two RFCs that IW by himself has been able to be a deciding factor in the outcome. There are a bunch of discussions on sources in the WP:APL topic area where the majority of commentators were IW socks. And I for the life of me cannot understand how users are supposedly in "good faith" making it easier for him to do so again. There is a reason "broadly construed" and not "narrowly construed" is how we determine what is or is not covered. nableezy - 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Just to note that GizzyCatBella has applied this policy on this page below, although we have not reached a conclusion. Editors may think this is necessary to protect the integrity of that discussion, which I guess makes it a good example to think with in informing a decision here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats a comment specifically about ARBPIA, and pretending like it does not fall under it is just silly. That has nothing to do with the wider question of should all RFCs be treated as such. So no, GCB did not apply this policy, GCB applied existing policy there. nableezy - 15:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy is in effect as per ArbCom ruling until conclusion is reached. (why are we trying to overturn ArbCom’s ruling again?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I support this RFC, I've unstruck the struck comment, because neither the comment nor the RFC it was made in are covered by ARBPIA. More detailed explanation in the thread. Levivich 16:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That is absurd, the comment is specifically about an ARBPIA topic. Ill take this to AN. nableezy - 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here, let me get the diff for you: Special:Diff/1065201226. I'm looking forward to reading your explanation of which of the words in that diff relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or are you gonna try and argue that if a non-ECP editor links to a source that mentions the conflict, they should have their entire comment struck, even if the comment doesn't mention the conflict, and it's made in an RFC that's not about the conflict? Like, you think 30/500 in ARBPIA means that a non-ECP editor can't even link to a source that mentions the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia without having the comment struck? I don't think that interpretation is gonna fly. Levivich 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The words Israel Shamir. The RFC largely focuses on sources in the Arab-Israeli topic area. See for example my comments about Edward Said or Uri Avnery or Zero's list of sources. The RFC is covered, and I dont want to waste another keystroke discussing with people who so blatantly stick up for obvious socks and meatpuppets. nableezy - 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No one here is defending socks and such accusation is not productive to say the least but more general question should be discussed does CP RFC covered by the restriction or no Shrike (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well besides users restoring comments by people they say no doubt is a sock then yeah maybe nobody else is defending socks. Maybe. nableezy - 17:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"The words Israel Shamir": Are you saying it falls under ARBPIA because the word "Israel" is in his name? Because the quote was about the concept of genocide in an article about Russia, and the overwhelming majority of Shamir's CounterPunch articles are about Russia and Ukraine. This is extending the scope of ARBPIA to extraordinary lengths. Also, I was not "pretending" anything and am getting quite frustrated at the assumptions of bad faith going on here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Im going to assume that this is a serious question and not a bad attempt at trolling, but no, not because his name is Israel (wtf???). See Talk:Israel Shamir for why discussing Israel Shamir is covered under ARBPIA. The topic of Israel Shamir is in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think there is a sock report them, but do not use just your assumptions or accusations to strike users comments. Launch a wp:spi and let admins do it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

lol. Maybe pay attention, the reason it was struck was because it is in the ARBPIA topic area. As far as obvious sock, do you mean I should strike something? Or Levivich saying no doubt the editor is a sock? Or maybe Shrike? jfc. nableezy - 17:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean you do not get to decide who is a sock. There is a procedure for that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And who said I did? nableezy - 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm honest about obvious socking, and you're using that against me. Had I said "can't be sure if it's a sock", you would have used that against me, also. If I disagree with you, that's "defending a sock" or "sticking up for a sock". Can't win with you. It's either agree with you, or else I'm "demanding", "abusing process", "defending socks", etc. etc., ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Levivich 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This is being discussed as AN can we drop this now, and also if you have an issue with users please just report them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Commenters may wish to review this discussion that is likely related. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Closed version of that Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have a hard time discerning what the consensus of arbs was in that discussion, but if it's summarized in this comment by L235: But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. I think CounterPunch is such a source, and I personally don't think that the RSN discussion "substantially relates" to ARBPIA (because it's about general reliability, not about a specific use of a source in a specific article about ARBPIA). But if it's case-by-case, and this is a case, then I don't know how that ARCA helps us figure out if this RSN discussion is covered by ARBPIA? (And if it is, that's a whole separate grounds for enforcing 30/500, than the fact that a particular comment linked/quoted a particular person whose BLP is tagged with ARBPIA.) Levivich 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn’t help. ArbCom didn’t answer the bigger question, the problem I posed in my statement. The general statement they did give wasn’t under dispute or subject to any confusion in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Here we have an RfC discussing who can participate on a subset of RfCs which concern a relatively recently-created internal process (WP:RSP) where the implications remain difficult to understand for many editors. Frankly, it's ridiculously meta and we are better off pondering why we got to this stage altogether. Do editors use bad sources for articles out of ignorance, incompetence, or because it helps the promotion of a particular point of view? And are we starting RfCs on reliability of sources to aid editors in citations, or as a backhanded approach of making the representation of certain viewpoints more difficult? feminist (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This whole thing got started by a desire to "kill" the Daily Mail "with fire" (in the words of one of the main drivers of the DM ban). It was always political and never really about assisting editor in decision-making about sources. You can see this most prominently in the kind of stuff that gets brought to RSN for general reliability RFCs - it's always the subject of a political dispute and has no relation to the number of times its cited on Wikipedia. Indeed often there's no content dispute indicated at all, and no reason at all why we should be applying a blanket ban to that source. FOARP (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP applies. We already have a long-running and well-understood principle that closers can give appropriately reduced weight to contributions of new users when that is justified. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (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.

Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch

Should CounterPunch be deprecated?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

RFCbefore Previous RFC

Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch)

• No unless expert authors who publish their articles in CP may be cited a la WP:SPS, then and only then,Yes. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per the closing statement of the previous RFC. Per my statement in an earlier discussion, I will switch my !vote if it can be established in line with the assertions of some editors that their editorial process consists of little more than accepting or rejecting works as is (no direct control), and that their method of choosing which works to publish does not encourage creators to alter their work to increase their chances of being accepted (no indirect control), but as the evidence currently suggests that these assertions are incorrect I have to support option one per WP:SOURCES, which tells us that the reliability of a work is affected by the reliability of the publisher as well as the creator. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, because other reliable sources routinely cite CounterPunch articles when written by an established expert, and so too should we. For example:
  • Paul Craig Roberts work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
    • Cheyfitz, Eric (2017). The Disinformation Age: The Collapse of Liberal Democracy in the United States. Routledge Advances in American History. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-83908-2.
    • Bonner, Will; Wiggin, Addison (2009). The New Empire of Debt: The Rise and Fall of an Epic Financial Bubble. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-52871-6.
    • Wiil, U. (2011). Counterterrorism and Open Source Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Social Networks. Springer Vienna. ISBN 978-3-7091-0388-3.
  • David Price (anthropologist) work in CounterPunch has likewise been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
    • Miller, Chris (2013). War on terror': The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. Oxford Amnesty Lectures. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-84779-497-0.
    • Bangstad, Sindre (2017). Anthropology of Our Times: An Edited Anthology in Public Anthropology. Palgrave Macmillan US. ISBN 978-1-137-53849-9.
    • Falah, Ghazi-Walid (2008). "Geography in Ominous Intersection with Interrogation and Torture: reflections on detention in Israel". Third World Quarterly. 29 (4). Taylor & Francis: 749–766. doi:10.1080/01436590802052706. ISSN 0143-6597.
    • Brennan, Timmothy (2021). Places of Mind: A Life of Edward Said. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-374-71471-0.
  • Edward Said work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
    • Carapico, S. (2014). Political Aid and Arab Activism: Democracy Promotion, Justice, and Representation. Cambridge Middle East Studies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19991-9.
    • Masalha, Nur; Isherwood, Lisa (2014). Theologies of Liberation in Palestine-Israel: Indigenous, Contextual, and Postcolonial Perspectives. Postmodern Ethics. Pickwick Publications. ISBN 978-1-61097-745-6.
    • Marrouchi, Mustapha (2012). Edward Said at the Limits. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8572-9.
  • Noam Chomsky work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
    • Boggs, Carl (2013). Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire. New Political Science Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-72792-4.
    • Absher, Brandon (2021). The Rise of Neoliberal Philosophy: Human Capital, Profitable Knowledge, and the Love of Wisdom. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-7936-1599-2.

There are countless more examples of CounterPunch articles being treated as authoritative by other reliable sources. There are literal scores of world class scholars writing on CP, most days they form the majority of the columns. Beyond the named authors above, CP publishes work by Dean Baker,^[79] Charles R. Larson (scholar),^[80], Mark Weisbrot,^[81] Vijay Prashad,^[82] Neve Gordon,^[83] and a host of other noted scholars. Yes, CounterPunch has published bullshit by crackpots. They often also publish responses to that same bullshit. Yes, it published Grover Furr claiming Louis Proyect propagated "fascist lies" about the cause of the Holodomor. But that is a response to a column Proyect wrote on CP, and later rebutted, again on CP. But this was presented as though CP preferentially publishes Furr's propaganda, and not as a willingness by CP to publish all sorts of viewpoints. CP publishes a huge range of material, and some of it should not be anywhere near an encyclopedia article. But it also publishes the work of world class scholars, and it publishes material that is often times the very best possible source. David Price's uncovering of the FBI's surveillance of Edward Said is cited in every authoritative biography of Said. They all credit Price, they all cite his CP article. But we have users claiming that our biography of Said cannot include that? Deprecating CP has directly led to the degradation of our articles, the removal of authoritative scholars in their field whose work on CP is rightly cited in scores of other reliable sources. CP publishes bullshit too? Cool, dont cite that. But also dont remove sources so obviously reliable that the only reason anybody was able to present for removing it was by avoiding discussion of those sources entirely and focusing on the crap that nobody in their right mind would cite here anyway. And deprecation is being used by partisan editors who could never challenge a citation to this any other way, and it should not be permitted. If, as users argue in practice, a deprecated source may not be used under pretty much any circumstance, with users removing deprecated sources for mundane details like a person saying they are married, then CP should not be deprecated. It certainly should not be treated as though it grants some reliability to a source, but rather the reliability of any one CP article rests on the expertise of the author, and even then an author may be reliable for some topics, eg Paul Craig Roberts writing about the economy, and not for others, eg Paul Craig Roberts writing about 9/11 or really anything else. And in too many cases that is clearly reliable to deprecate, despite some users tossing out clearly reliable sources written by top quality scholars without regard for the damage they do to our articles. Also, given the extensive socking by Icewhiz and NoCal100 in the prior RFC, and the usage of this source in ARBPIA articles, and that specific examples about the source relate to the ARBPIA topic area, this should be restricted to extended-confirmed editors. nableezy - 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This should probably be in the standard Option 1/2/3/4 format that is conventional for deprecation RFCs on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I find deprecation to be too harsh. It's useful on a case on case basis, based on who is actually the author of the piece. The magazine publishes pieces by authors of varying quality, reliability and bias with no editorial control. It's not possible to make a general statement about the reliability of the publication. Some pieces are of great quality, some are reprinted with permission from other sources where the original might be in a print publication that is less accessible, but considered reliable source. And then there's a lot of pieces by amateur or otherwise unreliable authors. Deprecation should be for sources that are consistently unreliable, not inconsistently reliable. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, though a warning is appropriate. CP sometimes publishes articles of poor quality and we shouldn't cite them. However, the shot-gun approach of deprecation throws out the baby with the bath-water. Editors should be able to judge an article according to the expertise and reputation of the author. It is illogical to block use of a good article on the grounds that a different article is bad. In addition, the suitability of selective citation of CP is proved by its extensive citation in academic publications. The following examples are just from what is on my laptop, without any Google searching.

list of CP citations in academic publications on Zero's computer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ismael Abu-Saad, Palestinian Education In Israel: The Legacy Of The Military Government, Holy Land Studies, 5.1, 2006, 21-56 cites Academic freedom in Israel is central to resolving the conflict’, Counterpunch (21 May), http://www.counterpunch.com/bendor05212005.html Miriyam Aouragh, Hasbara 2.0: Israel’s Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age, Middle East Critique, cites M. Leas (2010) Delegitimizers of Israel, Counterpunch, May. Maia Carter Hallward, Negotiating Boundaries, Narrating Checkpoints: The Case of Machsom Watch. Critique Vol. 17, No. 1, 21–40, Spring 2008, cites Jonathan Cook, ‘Watching the checkpoints: daily indignities and humiliations,’ Counterpunch, 23 February 2007, available at http://www.counterpunch.org/cook02232007.html. David Kean and Valentina Azarov, UNESCO, Palestine and Archaeology in Conflict. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, cites Ehud Krinis, David Shulman & Neve Gordon, Facing an Imminent Threat of Expulsion, Counterpunch (June 22-24, 2007), http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/22/facing-an-imminent-threat-of-expulsion/ . Mona Baker, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames. Critical Studies in Terrorism, 3:3 (2010) 347-364. cites Harris, L., 2003. A note on MEMRI & translations. Counterpunch. 15 Jan. Available from: http://www.counterpunch.org/harris01152003.html Bashir Bashir, The Strenths and Weaknesses of Integrative Solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The Middle East Journal, vol 70, 2 cites Edward Said, “What Price Oslo?,” CounterPunch, March 23, 2002, www.counterpunch.org/2002/03/23/what-price-oslo/ . Neil Caplan, Oom Shmoom Revisited: Sharett and Ben-Gurion (conference paper) cites Vijay Prashad, “The United Nations Equals Zero,” Counterpunch, January 16-18, 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad01162009.html . Anthony Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, Oxford Univ Press, cites Oren Ben-Dor, ‘The silencing of Oren Ben-Dor’, Counterpunch, 15–16 March 2008. Neil Caplan, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Wiley-Blackwell, cites Roane Carey, "Dr. Benny and Mr. Morris: The Historian and the Tvlisted Politics of Expulsion," CounterPunch 19-20 July 2008, accessed 23 July 2008 at http:/lwww.counterpunch.orglcarey07192008.xhtml. Victoria Clark, Allies for Armageddon. Yale Univ Press, cites Greg Grandin, ‘Good Christ, Bad Christ?’, Counterpunch, 9/10.9.2006. and CP 27.07.2006, ‘John Bolton’s Dual Loyalties’ by Tom Barry. Orientalism & Conspiracy, eds. Graf, Fathi and Paul. I. B. Tauris. cites Lavie, A. (2003): “Partners in Pain, Arabs Study the Holocaust”, CounterPunch, 12 February 2003. Ronit Lentin, Traces of Racial Exception. Bloomsbury Academic. cites Neve Gordon and Mark LeVine, “After 50 years, time for a paradigm shift,” CounterPunch, June 8, 2017 Ronit Lentin, Co-memory and Melancholia. Manchester Univ Press cites Ophir, A. (2004) ‘Genocide hides behind expulsion: A Response to Benny Morris’, CounterPunch, 16 January www.counterpunch.org/ophir01162004.html

As well as that, there are several books by non-academic presses which are probably citable. Going to the internet, I won't list individual examples, but I'll note three counts: (1) The library of academic journals JStor cites CounterPunch over 1000 times. (2) The library of law journals HeinOnline cites CounterPunch over 800 times. (3) The Proquest One Academic database restricted to peer-reviewed publications has about 800 citations. In summary, the academic world does not consider CounterPunch to be a forbidden source, and neither should we. Zero^talk 02:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Added: A more systematic estimate for JStor is that there are 700 articles which cite CounterPunch a total of 870 times. Zero^talk 01:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• No - Even the list of CounterPunch citations in academic publications presented above indicates that the source should not be deprecated. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. It is absolutely true that people in the previous RFC identified a few articles whose views were indefensible; but a handful of bad articles do not discredit a source. A source's WP:RS status relies on their general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There is no indication that those articles had serious impact on Counterpunch's reputation; and plenty of reason to think that they were unfortunate anomolies. In addition to the WP:USEBYOTHERS above, see: , an in-depth look at high-quality anthropological research presented in Counterpunch and its implications for the ability to reach beyond the ivory tower; and , lists of progressive / alternative news sources for use in academia that specifically discuss and recommend it; and, for sources that simply use it, . The picture painted by this usage (which, note, largely postdates the objectionable articles that were the focus of the previous RFC) simply do not support the allegation that Counterpunch has a systematic problem that has harmed its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is plainly a biased source and should be attributed; it is an alternative source and that has to be taken into consideration when considering WP:DUE weight. But among such sources it is plainly treated as high-quality in a way that the discussion in the previous RFC does not take into account; and it's baffling that the previous RFC was closed with, as far as I can tell, almost nobody citing any secondary sources. No matter how shockingly wrong any individual articles might seem to us, it is simply not acceptable to take the extreme step of depreciating a source based solely on our personal reading of it, especially since we're not qualified to assess whether such articles are shocking outliers or indicative of a more systemic problem. Doing my own search, coverage of the issues the previous RFC raised seems minimal and largely from partisan / opinion-oriented sources; even there, coverage often unambiguously describes it as an outlier from an otherwise high-quality source. (I don't think that the "journal of 911 studies" is an WP:RS, but the writer is at least academically-qualified and it is one of the few sources that discusses it at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I'm going to quote @Mikehawk10:'s evidence from the original RFC in full here:

• Option 4: CounterPunch has a history of publishing false and fabricated information, including numerous conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated.
  1. As I noted in my comments above, the site's history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories is widespread. A 2019 piece claimed that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.. A 2021 piece endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.
  2. On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)
  3. A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction.
  4. A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps, calling it a bald and barefaced accusation... made with nary a shred of supporting evidence. The piece also denies widespread abuses against Uyghurs in the region, stating that The deluge of fake news from Western corporate media since the beginning of this year seeks to demonize the Chinese government, painting it as a gross violator of human rights, when the truth is the exact opposite. Another 2018 piece described the internment of over 1 million Muslims as wild allegations. Another piece seems to recommend The Qiao Collective's Chinese state media-filled resource compilation on the topic, as well as content from deprecated source The Grayzone.
  5. And, to add on to the above, the website has a troubled history of supporting the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory.
  6. Their editorial process is also rather suspect; the magazine has failed to vet the identity of freelance journalists to the extent that it has, in recent years, published literal propaganda made by the GRU without having a clue that the person they were giving a byline to did not exist. And, on top of that, the magazine didn't know that much of the language in those propaganda pieces had been plagiarized from other sources.

Taken together, I don't think consider CounterPunch as a source to be something we can use to verify facts, except possibly in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. (And, even with respect to ABOUTSELF, I'd use it with caution given its issues vetting who its contributors actually are.) This publication should be deprecated as a source for facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The first bullet point was more than enough to more than convince me. A source that's claiming planes didn't hit the WTC on 9/11 belongs in the garbage. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Has someone tried to cite it? Zero^talk 11:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, option 4. CounterPunch publishes vile material, like Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier, who writes on CounterPunch on his definition of Genocide:

  ‘Genocide’ is a nasty invention. Just think of it: mankind lived for thousands of years, through raids of Genghis Khan and Crusades, through extermination of Native Americans, slave trade and WWI, happily butchering each other in millions, without being encumbered by the G word. This term was invented (or updated from Jewish traditional thought) by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds. The word is quite meaningless otherwise.

  There are horrible items on CounterPunch. DoraExp (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)— DoraExp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Quote --> non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.[84] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Here we go again, 16 edits.99% sockpuppet profile, as in the last RfC. Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Besides the obvious sock is obvious in having three edits in the last year and showing up to a noticeboard for their first edit in 5 months, this user is not extended-confirmed and is discussing the Arab-Israeli topic area (see the big banner at Talk:Israel Shamir) and should be removed. nableezy - 14:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  This comment has nothing to do with ARBPIA, nor does this RFC fall under ARBPIA, as CounterPunch is not an ARBPIA-focused source. Mentioning Israel Shamir's writing about some non-ARBPIA topic doesn't make this an ARBPIA comment, and the fact that some parts of the Israel Shamir Wikipedia article are covered by ARBIA doesn't make every mention of the guy on any page covered by ARBPIA. Although I'm !voting in favor of ECPing these RFCs, that proposal doesn't have consensus yet, so there is no grounds to strike non-ECP !votes in this RFC. I've unstruck it. Leave it up to the closer to decide how to weigh !votes from new accounts. Levivich 16:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not previously argue for deprecation and still hesitate to do so because it does indeed sometimes publish experts, but I believe it is worse than the sources in the standard "generally unreliable" category. I'd urge anyone joining this conversation who has not already looked at the previous RfC do so (discounting the brief !vote comments made by the socks listed at the top of it, none of whom contributed substantively to the discussion). In addition to the extensive evidence from Mikehawk10 cited above, other evidence presented included the following.
  • Publication of anti-vaxx content, for example by Richard Gale, who is a hardcore anti-vaxx activist[85] who writes regularly for GlobalResearch[DOTca/author/richard-gale] and The Defender,[86] usually with Gary Null, and by Anne McElroy Dachel[87] of anti-vaxx/pro-Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine blog Age of Autism.[88]
  • An active preference for publishing extreme antisemitic and conspiracy theory writers such as Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Alison Weir. (who is Israel Shamir, Counterpunch's resident intelligence correspondent? Alternately known as Jöran Jermas and Adam Ermash, Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of "Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ali Abunimah, Hussein Ibish, and Nigel Parry have warned their fellow Palestinian activists to avoid contact with Shamir--Reason.com 2010; Alison Weir, Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon] are three crypto-antisemites who have been openly circulated in the progressive world, appearing in supposedly leftist publications like CounterPunch in particular... CounterPunch...has published antisemitic writers for many years--Spencer Sunshine, Journal of Social Justice, 2019; CounterPunch keeps citing Global Research well into 2020--Emmee Bevensee, Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right , 2020 (Sunshine lists several examples here; The left-wing magazine CounterPunch has published a significant number of articles condemning Beijing’s repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. However, it has also occasionally featured pieces that deny any such thing is taking place.--CodaStory, 2020. See also Jovan Byford here.)
  • Publication of 9/11 truthers and Obama birthers Paul Craig Roberts [89], Wayne Madsen [90], and Mark Crispin Miller.[91]. On Miller: [9/11 and now Covid truther Mark Crispin Miller] said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio “...I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase [conspiracy theory] in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.”--Observer.com, 2017; On Roberts: "the well-known leftwing newsletter Counterpunch strayed from traditional policy by allowing one of its most popular contributors, Paul Craig Roberts, to air his Truther arguments on their website... Roberts...is a regular a contributor to infowars.com as well as Counterpunch.[92] From 2004 to 2017, Roberts, a right-winger, was one of the most published writers in CP, contributing weekly or more.[93] Our article about him says "Since retiring [i.e. in the period he wrote for CP], he has been accused of antisemitism and conspiracy theorizing by the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Centre and others... In the 2000s Roberts wrote a newspaper column syndicated by Creators Syndicate. Later, he contributed to CounterPunch, becoming one of its most popular writers. He has been a regular guest on programs broadcast by RT (formerly known as Russia Today). As of 2008, he was part of the editorial collective of the far right website VDARE. He has been funded by the Unz Foundation and he contributes to the Unz Review. His writings are published by Veterans Today, InfoWars, PressTV and GlobalResearch, and he is frequently a guest on the podcasts, radio shows and video channels of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Max Keiser and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett. His own website publishes the work of Israel Shamir and Diana Johnstone. In other words, not one exceptional article, but a large part of the publication's content, is authored by someone who writes almost exclusively for deprecated websites.
  • A 2015 analysis done by one anti-Zionist activist showed that the content by significant leftist writers such as Pilger was dwarfed by the quantity of content by white supremacists and cranks, with Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Alison Weir getting a large number of columns, and Paul Craig Roberts and Franklin Lamb being among the most published authors.[94]
  • The "experts" published by editors defending CP here include: Gareth Porter, who says that Assad isn't responsible for chemical attacks in Syria; Ray McGovern, who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and said the DNC hack was an inside job; Tariq Ali, who claimed the White Helmets are actually al-Qaeda[95]; Lenni Brenner, whose work is cited by Holocaust denialists and has been called an "antisemitic hoax";[96] and Diana Johnstone, whose work denies the basic facts of the Yugoslav war and who used her Counterpunch column to say that there's no evidence that Marine Le Pen is antisemitic.
  • They published a number of Russian propaganda pieces by "Alice Donovan" who turned out to be a fake identity created by Russian intelligence. Although they eventually investigated after prodding from the Washington Post, why they were seen as a publication to be targeted in this way, the preference for that sort of content and lack of editorial oversight revealed by the incident are worth considering. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gareth Porter is an expert on the Vietnam War. He is not an expert on the Syrian Civil War. I am not aware of Lenni Brenner being a subject matter expert regularly cited in their area of expertise, same for Diana Johnstone, making that just the latest in a series of strawmen. This is not that complicated. Dont cite people when they write outside of the area of their expertise. This effort to require some sort of purity test on topics outside of a SME's area of expertise in order to cite them within their area of expertise is not in keeping with any of our policies. nableezy - 13:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. Per Nableezy, Zero and Aquillion in particular. The argument for deprecation consisted in selecting a handful of googled items out of over 70,000 published on the webzine, views one can easily deplore, consists of highly misleading cherrypicking, ignoring the fact that the same magazine hosts writers who rubbish those views: numerous CP articles trash conspiracy theories. The same selective bias that vitiated the earlier RfC is being repeated here. Raider cites, for example, Mikehawk on Kremlin propaganda dismissals: the New Yorker dismissed it , but CounterPunch is deprecatable for hosting an article that held the same view. One piece is nipped for display to affirm CounterPunch denies the existence of Xinjiang internment camps, while pieces in CP affirming they exist are ignored in the arraignment; CP reported on the use of white phosphorus in Gaza? so did the New York Times; Counterpunch did not espouse 9/11 theories, though it published one or two authors for that view. Its authoritative creator and editor, Alexander Cockburn dismantled (see also here and here) such garbage as hairbrained nutter rubbish in numerous editorials. No editor opposed to deprecation argued we use such occasional nonsense from CP. To my knowledge, no one has. They argued that scores of top professionals in their fields, scholars, journalists, economists and the like do publish there and their work, evaluated on the strength of their credentials, should not be banned from Wikipedia. Bob. A word of advice. Drop the anti-Semitic insinuations. It just flies in the face of the fact that, thank God, numerous scholars and writers who happen to be Jewish publish there, which they certainly wouldn't do were CP a vehicle enabling hatred of people who have their same ethno-religious background. Evaluating everything in terms of the meme that criticism of Israel is a mask for hostility to Jews is a tiresome rhetorical trope that, in my view for one, by confusing the two, actually can enable anti-Semites, who make the same conflation. That Lenni Brenner's historical work is cited by anti-Semites - that the devil can cite scripture for his own nefarious purpose (ergo the Bible is invalidated and itself antisemitic)- is neither here nor there. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I really hope you didn't read the Israel Shamir excerpt that has been posted, because anyone who doesn't think that is wildly anti-Semitic should not be editing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't note that the quote from Shamir was posted by the expected sockpuppet, i.e. DorExp with 16 edits, and that as before this discussion is being subjected to the same abuse that vitiated the former? I read anti-Semites, just as I read a lot of literature contemptuous to the point of being racist regarding Palestinians regularly hosted in mainstream Israeli newspapers. The argument Shamir makes is stupid and racist, except for one point: the word 'genocide' should have no exclusivity attached to it, or be expropriated to refer to what an enemy does. Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If antisemitism identified by non-ECR editors doesn't count as antisemitism, how about "As the Jews considered themselves being the victims of G (this is an idea deeply ingrained in the Jewish tradition, though quite foreign to Christian thought) they tried to take revenge by poisoning millions of Germans."[97] "Auschwitz gathering is an annual Canossa of Western leaders where they bewail their historic failure to protect the Jews and swear their perennial obedience to them."[98] "While the present western regime is anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, it is pro-Jewish to an extent that defies a rational explanation. France had sent thousands of soldiers and policemen to defend Jewish institutions, though this defence antagonises their neighbours."[99] "Jews almost always win when they go to the court against their denigrators. (Full disclosure: I was also sued by LICRA, the French Jewish body, while my French publisher was devastated by their legal attacks)."[100] "The US is special, as this heir to the British Empire guided by Jewish spirit is the only country ever possessing the unique, expensive and uncomfortable desire to rule the whole of planet Earth."[101] "I welcomed every conspiratorial scheme in this case, as well as in 9/11 case. Not because I believe or even prefer this or other scheme. I see it as a useful device to release minds from the holding power of mass hysteria induced by mass media. It is necessary to sow doubt in order to release minds and regain sanity."[102] "Jews came to the Ukraine a thousand years ago, perhaps from Khazaria... One of the reasons why so many people of Jewish origin do well is that the ruling ethnic groups trust the Jews and rely upon their loyalty to the powerful and lack of compassion for their Gentile neighbours."[103] "No one was persecuted or discriminated because of his ethnic origin (yes, Jews complained, but they always complain)."[104] "Historically, the liberal–Nazi alliance did not work because the old Nazis were enemies of bankers and financial capital, and therefore anti-Jewish."[105] "Jews do not mind Nazis who do not target them."[106] These are just selections from the first Shamir articles in CP I looked at. There's loads more of this. He has been one of their most prolific contributors over an eight year period. Any publication that puts this out is beyond normal "generally unreliable". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you just mistakenly used the present tense of he has been instead of the correct past tense of he had been on accident, and maybe you mistakenly overstated how prolific Shamir was, but he has a total of 55 posts there, the last of which was 6+ years ago. Uri Avnery on the other hand has 579 posts there. Theres a reason why editors shouldnt be cherry-picking things that, most importantly, nobody in their right mind would cite here. All this in attempt to avoid the topic about things that people actually would cite. nableezy - 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes (weak?) - What we want of sources for this encyclopaedia are reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Based on the evidence above, this just simply isn't the case with CP. So much is even admitted by the people voting for no: Counterpunch did not espouse 9/11 theories, though it published one or two authors for that view. A publisher who publishes bullshit and doesn't retract it, just isn't a reliable source, period. The question whether CP is merely generally unreliable, or should be deprectated is an interesting one I haven't made up my mind yet. But in general CP seems to be sub-par. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. So authoritative scholars and journalists in their fields are not 'reliable and independent' and don't check their facts, despite the fact that to achieve that reputation they are trained to do so and repeatedly tested by their fellow profesdsionals precisely in terms of these criteria?Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason for editorial board and peer review . Even top professionals are vetted by their peers. Shrike (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shrike.There is a certain epistemological naivity apparent in the ritual recitation of what we mean by a reliable source and fact checking. The encyclopedia does not deal only in facts: it covers significantly the interpretation of facts, esp. in articles with an historical dimension. Editorial oversight checks reportage for facts, it does not interfere generally with the contributors’ inferences from and interpretations of those facts (opinion). Facts themselves are selectively deployed: some are regarded as significant, others ignored. This is particularly evident in coverage of conflicts. It is obvious that newspapers cited for facts must optimally have editorial oversight. Editorial oversight in newspapers, monthlies or academic books, does not however regulate generally the interpretations of events provided by their contributors. At best they check the factual content. Adrian Bardon in his recent book The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion, (2019) tells us how man is hard-wired not to accept hard evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs. Newspapers in particular, a fundamental source for current events, rarely if ever check an article on conflicts for salient facts that are not mentioned by their contributors, facts whose presence would make the representation of an event far more complex than its readers might be comfortable with. The New York Times is stringently POV in its Middle East Reportage, missing much context and facts: but readers of The New York Review of Books are given a far broader coverage of the facts than the NYTs allow because area specialists write there, not journalists. Counter mainstream sources haven’t the financial muscle to hire a solid team of ‘fact checkers’ or peer-reviewers, and rely on volunteer pieces. Much of their content is just opinion (and none of us need care for that), but with webzines like CounterPunch the prestige of big names, whose professional qualifications bespeak thorough familiarity with the factual record, means deprecation runs close to a hard-wired ideological resistance to evaluating views, expert witnesses that discomfort our general outlook. WP:Due prioritizes a mainstream, quite understandably. It should not be used to make our documentation of reasoned, informed contrarian views even harder than it is. Indeed it explicitly allows for them. And editors of experience do learn to be less ideological in vetting reliability in grey areas by carefully looking at the evidence rather than refusing on principle to read closely.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Even a bit of paper is right twice a day, that does not mean we can use it to tell the time. The fact they publish conspiracy theories as fact and holocaust denial is a serious problem.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

They do neither.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read many of the articles linked to above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that 16 years of reading CP desultorily left me amazed that of 70,000+ articles, editors with no familiarity with its background or nature could convince people that it is infested by anti-Semitic, holocaust-denying, conspiracy-mongering, genocide-denialist articles. A lesson: when you see a diff used to assert some general claim, spend a half an hour on each, examining whether an organ like the CP contains far more articles denying that claim. In every case of these rafts of diffs I examined in the previous discussion, the 'evidence' collapsed under examination. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not have to be infested, it just to have to do it enough for it to be an issue. Does it "deny" these claims within the articles or publish them uncritically? Does it make it easy to tell the BS from actual well-researched facts? The issue is can ALL articles on it be trusted. And if not, how can we tell the difference?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That is certainly not the issue. I for one don't 'trust' any venue mainstream or otherwise, let alone CP. As for CP, the argument is, must we deprecate, for example ideologically Desmond Tutu's writing in CounterPunch, even if reliable academic sources don't, because on a number of occasions CP has hosted fringe controversialists? That is guilt by association, either a recipe for editorial laziness or the use of deprecation to limit our coverage of controversial but legitimate views. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the issue for me, how can I know to trust any given article hosted there. What makes an RS is the fact that I can have confidence that any article I am reading is not likey to pedestal lies, conspiracies or racism dressed up as "questions". If I do not have that confidence its not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You evaluate if the author is an expert in the field they are writing in, seeing if they have academic publications on the topic and how widely cited they are by other sources. The way you would with any other source. Nobody is suggesting CP confers any reliability on a column. Everybody who supports being able to use it acknowledges that it is not itself a reliable source. But we also acknowledge that it contains reliable sources, such as, again this widely cited piece by a noted scholar in the field. nableezy - 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to what Nableezy wrote above, several cited scholarly books and academic journals did not feel the need to ask such a question and cited the reliable piece in question without such caveats. If there is any evidence that CP did not accurately reflect the views of its authors, that would be something and may be a reason for deprecation a la Daily Mail. As things stand, Masem's suggestion to tag "much of what it publishes are RSOPINIONS by field experts recognized by other more reliable sources, and that editors should treat such statements as attributed opinions", including "some of these opinions are towards conspiracy theories and other similar fringe views, but that's something we filter via RSOPINION and UNDUE", seems reasonable. Davide King (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This kind of thing is interesting, the instinctive "Counterpunch? Seriously? No." edit summary used to justify the reversion of an expert opinion. Note that the reversion reverts two cites, one being Fisk publishing in CP and the identical article in the Independent. Notice also that the revert is to a version created by a now blocked sock. Ridiculous.Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No per Aquillion, Nableezy, Zero, et al., Option 2 (experts)/Option 3 (general) — while it is undeniably true that they have published crackpots, and I personally think that is disgraceful, I do not think that is enough to warrant deprecation and its citations in academic publications presented above show why; as long as no evidence is given or showed that CounterPunch falsifies the pieces written by experts, I see no reason not to cite them, of course alongside secondary coverage in light with WP:DUE. Perhaps we may note in its entry that it has published experts and crackpots, and it should only be used and relied on for the former and not the latter. Davide King (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum — WP:COUNTERPUNCH currently says: "Multiple examples were provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site." See my comment about how CounterPunch is not a straight news outlet like the Daily Maily, and Nableezy and Nishidani's comment for how this was misleading and cherry picked. "Many users agreed that the site itself leans towards favoring fringe viewpoints, and publishes such viewpoints preferentially, not indiscriminately." I am not sure the best sources actually support this; they have criticized it for publishing crackpots but they are not the issue of this CP's mess, are they? This academic article says that "the well-known leftwing newsletter Counterpunch strayed from traditional policy by allowing one of its most popular contributors, Paul Craig Roberts, to air his Truther arguments on their website ... ." I believe Masem's suggestions would make a better entry. Davide King (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• It seems as though several users in favour of deprecation think that the publisher makes the author themselves unreliable, and while I may agree on this personally, I do not think this is supported by academic sources and thus it does not convince me to change my !no precisely because if it were deprecated, the usable citations will still be removed because the publisher is unreliable, even though academic sources have had no issue citing the author's primary source article as a reliable source, something that is not done for InfoWars or other false balance examples that can be primarily and overwhelmingly defined by either conspiracy theories or fake news, which is why they have been deprecated or black listed and I do not think applies to CounterPunch; even though I maintain my disgust from the shit they have published, I remain unconvinced that is what they primarily publish or prioritize per Bilorv, Nableezy, Nishidani, Rosguill, and others that have not been debunked or that do not support deprecation as a whole.
• With no evidence of falsification, or scholarly sources agreeing and describing it primarily as a conspiracy theory or fake news website, rather than having hosted an amount of crackpots, not including experts and the editor themselves who have rebuked such crackposs, I do not see why we should not cite the primary article from CounterPunch, plus more reliable sources that make its usage due on a case-by-case analysis, which general unreliability and/or additional considerations apply. We really do need to understand the context and nature of the publication, which is not a straight news website or something that at least attempts to appear to be legitimate; it is clearly an opinion publication. While I personally do question why they would allow to publish that in the first place, the fact they include debunking and rebuttals, and pieces by legitimate experts, something than warranted deprecated sources such as InfoWars and the likes never do, it shows it is more due to their contrarian stance than being like InfoWars.
• That is the argument based on a rational analysis of about the website and what cited sources actually say more about the individual authors more than the website as a whole, plus the fact it has published a significant amount of usable citation that is unlike any other currently deprecated source, the practical argument is that I fear it will result in practice in blacklisted rather the deprecated, which currently would allow such usage in theory but has not been followed in practice, and will make it worse despite good intentions. Surely there are better ways to deprecate pieces that no one would cite as reliable sources for facts, while still using the many due articles also cited in academic publications and reliable popular press books, which should make everyone fine with it, without deprecating it de jure as a whole, which may well result in blacklisting de facto. Davide King (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, but it definitely should be tagged that much of what it publishes are RSOPINIONS by field experts recognized by other more reliable sources, and that editors should treat such statements as attributed opinions. Yes, some of these opinions are towards conspiracy theories and other similar fringe views, but that's something we filter via RSOPINION and UNDUE. Other opinions are held in respect (as opinions) by other RSes so we should not be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Masem (t) 13:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable or Deprecated. Neither of these options precludes using expert opinions published in it where relevant. We should defer to editors' judgement. The RfC should have used the regular 4-way template. Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  yeah it really should have... I can just yet another 1234 RFC coming along where we need to decide if it is a "generally unreliable" source; because this RFC doesn't settle that question. but alas we are too far into this one now. Mvbaron (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Several editors have stated that deprecation permits a purge of everything, expert opinions included, and have even put their opinion into practice. Had they not done so, I think we would not be here now. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes if you're only going to offer me those two choices, but this should have been a regular 4-option RfC in which case I'd say Unreliable. That some works are cited by others doesn't "cancel out" the massive problems with other works by this publisher. "Generally reliable" means generally reliable and this publication isn't generally reliable, only some articles are reliable. It should be red at RSP and if the only way to make that happen is to vote for deprecation, then I'm voting for deprecation. Levivich 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Changing my !vote to unequivocal yes after reading more examples from my colleagues. This source is absolute trash. If an expert published in Stormfront, would we treat it as WP:SPS? If a website published that Black people were responsible for 9/11 or compared Palestinians to Nazis, would any of my colleagues ever cite to that website in an article, saying just use the non-racist parts? RT, Breitbart, The Daily Caller all occasionally get cited by RS--so what? That doesn't change our view of the deprecation of those sources. Why the hell do we need to be citing to a source that publishes racism and conspiracy theories? What is it we need from Counterpunch that we can't find in a better source? Delink all of it. Gerard was right. Levivich 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes The occasional antivaxxer screed, 9/11 Truther opinion, etc...poisons the well for the rest of it. If your only source for potential material to add to the Wikipedia is Counterpunch, then it isn't material worth adding. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. In an RfC one should make an effort to read and check. Anti-vaxxers promoted by Counterpunch? You mean, citing just the first half dozen articles on that topic in the last few months,

• Anthony DiMaggio Killer Disinformation: How Anti-Vaccine Propaganda Hijacked American Political Discourse Counterpunch 6 August 2021
• David Rosen Anti-Vaxxers and the Unvaccinated: False Consciousness in a Time of Pandemic Counterpunch 19 August 2021
• Daniel Warner, Anti-Vaxxers and Climate Change Deniers: Living in a Post-Fact World Counterpunch 18 October 2021
• Eve Ottenberg Anti-Vaxxers Go Berserk Counterpunch 19 November 2021
• Thomas Klikauer, Meg Young The Nazi Language of German Anti-Vaxxers Counterpunch 20 December 2021
• Thomas Klikauer, Catherine Link The Origins of Germany’s Anti-Vaxxers Counterpunch 29 December 2021

Selection bias once more in votes. Get one idiot diff, and ignore the dozens of diffs which rebut it on the same source, just as one would expect in an open webzine.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is fun to watch people using one fallacious argument after another though. nableezy - 15:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is equally fun to watch you denigrate, harass, and bludgeon everyone with whom you disagree with, but I shall decline to engage further than this. My opinion on the uselessness of Counterpunch remains, and there's nothing you will do about that. ValarianB (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It may be time to let people have their say, without the badgering.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also don't appreciate having my comment being called a "idiot diff". Is that acceptable WP conduct? OK, CounterPunch publishes some true things about vaccines as well as anti-vaccine disinformation, but a reliable source is one that publishes only true things about vaccines and doesn't give a platform to dangerous anti-vaxx propaganda. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) [Striking my response to "idiot diff", as it appears not to have been directed at me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]

Based on the context, I believe Nishidani is using the word diff incorrectly to refer to CP columns. He is calling the anti-vax piece idiotic, and saying the pieces that refute that are being ignored. nableezy - 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bob. Come on now. Don't personalize things. 'Idiot diff' was in context shorthand for diffs of idiotic articles. And it was certainly not directed at your diffs. You add 'a reliable source is one that publishes only true things about vaccines'. This is new to me. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is programmed not to be like Pravda, which in Russian means 'truth'. If you want to know what I mean, it is the methodological error, frequent here, of using a small sample of cherrypicked exceptions to mischaracterize a source as promoting the views in those diffs. You cited the Meldungen blog above. I.e. you used an admittedly non-RS blogger's page to argue against CP's reliability. You are using there a non-RS source (blog) as though it were reliable for proving CP is non-RS. Methodologically that is unacceptable. I told you in the RfC that its author knows nothing of statistics, evidence by the fact that she concluded what all believe to be a left-wing magazine to be in fact, unknown to its contributors, readers and editors, in fact deviously an enabler of the far right which it incessantly targets. Talk about conspiracy theories! Some basic awareness of method is necessary here. Just having an opinion is not enough. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The list of things that make something deprecable keeps growing. We should make a list. Still, 75 or so articles a week, is that about right? How many articles published by individuals have we found to be "bad", exactly? And how many of them would pass the SPS test of being published elsewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• No and also Bad RFC - "Deprecated" is not at all defined and as we have seen time and time again has no actual agreed meaning, it is therefore not actually clear what people are being asked to agreed to here. No evidence is presented here that this source is used generally here in Wikipedia such that a general RFC is appropriate. In fact I am not clear at all what the actual content dispute here is. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, very unreliable, CounterPunch publishes experts such as chemistry professor John Scales Avery who writes that the September 11 attacks was deliberately made worse than it otherwise would have been by US government agents who planted explosives. A chhemisty professor, an expert in chemistry and exposives. CounterPunch is an open webzine where some very opinionated academics write items they can not publish anywhere else, because any sane site would reject conspiracy nonesense. Read Avery's description of 9/11 in https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/lies-about-how-the-attack-on-afghanistan-started/ --Ali Ali Dan (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) — Ali Ali Dan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striked due to user being blocked indefinitely.
• No, throwing the baby out with the bathwater as a source that publishes relevant material from verifiable subject-matter experts as well as less reputable material. Mere publication in Counterpunch should not establish reliability for our purposes, but neither should it remove reliability from experts whose work is DUE in their field by dint of their expertise. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes? Or generally unreliable. Or treat as SPS. It doesn't appear there is any editorial control here, so it shouldn't be used for statements of fact. It's essentially a self-publishing platform that you need a certain amount of clout or notability to use. It's fine to cite for the opinions and statements of whoever wrote the article, which can be used in their own BLP if about themselves, or cited for someone's opinion on something, if that opinion is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I'm against all such overgeneralizations. This one even more so for the reasons discussed above. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: one of the most out-there publications of the crank left, and other editors (especially Bobfrombrockley, Mikehawk10) have shown their propensity to publish anything that conforms to the house bias, even if those contributors are not credible in any way whatsoever. Their propensity to continue to publish genocide denial and conspiracy theories casts a shadow on the entire source, and even if it's only a minority of articles, they are still publishing those articles. The RS policy requires sources to have editorial control, and I am not convinced that Counterpunch has such control, or if they do, they don't exercise it to the standards that we require of reliable sources. If this source wasn't entrenched in the perennial RIGHTGREATWRONGS arena of I/P, we wouldn't question deprecation; we've deprecated plenty of sources for publishing conspiracy theories and barely disguised state propaganda, after all. I also oppose any attempt to make carve-outs for experts; deprecation is deprecation, and we can't declare a source with editorial control an SPS because they publish something we agree with. If that was the case, what would stop someone citing the Scum if Chris Whitty decided to write an article about Covid precautions for the newspaper with the highest circulation in Britain? Sceptre (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No (but in an ordinary RSN RfC I'd call them Option 3: generally unreliable): While they claim to have some sort of editorial process, it appears extremely likely that they in fact do not, or at least they don't really reject or correct submitted articles. This would make them a WP:SPS, and thus unreliable but not deprecatable. "Deprecated" in my view requires a source to be anti-reliable: not just that it publishes things that it hasn't verified but that it either actively and deliberately lies, or else things which it publishes can be relied upon to be false, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Loki (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per my comments in the previous RfC. The above use-by-others argument is not very convincing. High-quality sources sometimes do cite unreliable sources for facts (e.g, Daily Mail). What's more important is determining what do reliable sources actually state about a particular source. In the last RfC, I included a quote from a study that described CP as a "an ostensibly left magazine that has given space to white nationalists and antisemites". If that's not convincing enough, let me look other sources state about CP.

• Publishing Russian Fake (and plagiarized) News As per Shelley Powers, "Donovan duped several far-left sites into publishing ‘her’ material. CounterPunch danced all around the issue in its effort to excuse it’s lax vetting. Ultimately, it accepted some blame…after first blaming the FBI. (this is not really surprising though, CP is supporter of Russia Today)
• The aforementioned Israel Shamir nonsense: "Shamir's byline is on two previous articles pillorying the Swedish women who complained about Assange. On 27 August, in Counterpunch, a small radical US publication, Shamir said Assange was framed by "spies" and "crazy feminists"...Shamir then wrote a piece of grovelling pro-Lukashenko propaganda in Counterpunch, claiming "the people were happy, fully employed, and satisfied with their government" Per Geoffrey Cain , "The notorious Holocaust denier, Israel Shamir, has been making the rounds among Cambodia watchers this week. This time, he’s praising Pol Pot in an article for the far-left magazine Counterpunch...We must admit we were swayed when Shamir provided conclusive proof that the KR genocides were either inept or out-and-out fabrications: he alerted us to the fact that the population of Cambodia has doubled since 1970. We eagerly await his next Counterpunch article, “Population of Europe has increased by a factor of six since 1939, therefore World War II never happened.”
• Falsehoods that have literally ended up on Wikipedia: "Counterpunch readers were recently informed that the Albert Einstein Institution plays “a central role in a new generation of warfare, one which has incorporated the heroic examples of past nonviolent resistance into a strategy of obfuscation and misdirection that does the work of empire.” Absolutely none of these claims is true. Yet such articles have been widely circulated on progressive websites and list serves. Such false allegations have even ended up as part of entries on the Albert Einstein Institution in SourceWatch, Wikipedia, and other reference web sites...In another article, recently posted on the Counterpunch web site, George Cicariello-Miller falsely accuses Sharp of having links with right-wing assassins and terrorists and offering training “toward the formulation of what was called ‘Operation Guarimba,’ a series of often-violent street blockades that resulted in several deaths.”
• Other falsehoods: "Even apart from being dated, the widely cited Counterpunch piece contains several inaccuracies. It misidentifies unaffiliated Education Minister Serhiy Kvit as a Svoboda member, describes national security chief Andriy Parubiy as a "co-founder of Svoboda" without mentioning his post-2004 move to moderate and even left-of-center parties, and promotes Dmitro Yarosh, head of the paramilitary group Right Sector, to deputy national security chief when in fact he sought that position but did not get it.
• Uighur genocide denial: "...Western far-left Xinjiang deniers use similar tactics. They question the motives of the U.S. government’s push against Chinese actions in Xinjiang and try to discredit researchers as well as the Uighur diaspora who speak out against the camps. They try to prove the reports are based on shoddy research while whole-heartedly accepting Chinese propaganda as fact. Some deniers write for smaller online publications such as Black Agenda Report, L.A. Progressive, Popular Resistance, and the magazine CounterPunch"

• That's just a small snippet of quotes/articles. I was unable to find any reliable sources who had something nice to say about Counterpunch (except the people who write for CP). Has anyone provided evidence from reliable third-party sources that CP is a quality, fact-driven magazine? If not, then this is a plainly a fringe source whose use should be avoided as much as possible. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Again all this greening outrage is useless. Dr. Swag Lord, I wrote in the earlier RfC your ostensible ‘evidence‘ against CounterPunch turns out under a cursory glance to be a shabby Potemkin Village charade of googled diffs which, if checked, collapses its compiler's agenda.’ You never replied. And now you are recycling that shambles with a few more bits whose gravamen collapses if checked. So once again.

• Dennis Morgan Why I Support Russia Today (and So Should You) Counterpunch 14 May 2018 So Counterpunch published one paper by a tenured professor of linguistics in defense of Russia Today. That is spun as ‘CP is supporter’ of Russia Today. Rubbish. Your inference is that of a database of 70,000 articles in CP, one advocating RT as deserving support means CP endorses it.
• Israel Shamir is an antisemitic or Jewish (if he is Jewish, which I personally doubt) self-hating nutter, no doubt. But if CP is deprecable because it once gave occasional space for his views then The Jewish journal The Tablet did an indepth interview with Israel Shamir (Will Yakowicz His Jewish Problem 1, His Jewish Problem 2. The The Tablet 17 May 2011) where this stooge was quoted at length with all of his moronic inanities, i.e. his views were set forth to a wider reading public. Does that mean we should deprecate The Tablet? No. Does the fact he was a conduit for WikiLeaks invalidate the content of Wikileaks or add one more nail to the coffining of Julian Assange. No.
• You quote Zunes’ papers again as an example of a source arguing ‘Falsehoods that have literally ended up on Wikipedia‘. Outrageously false
• Re Zunes I will just copy what I wrote when you first used it. I.e.

John Feffer, Stephen Zunes Sharp Attack Unwarranted 27 June 2008 refers among many other sources, to an article by George Ciccariello-Maher, Einstein Turns in His Grave. Counterpunch 16 April 2008 which (a) argues that Gene Sharp‘s Albert Einstein Institute is partially funded by the US State Department and (b) reproduces Gene Sharp’s response to the critique, asking also Cockburn and St. Clair to publish corrections and retract those statements. Feffer and Zunes don’t tell you that. They simply say it is outrageous that CounterPunch should have published a piece which raised concerns about that institute’s independence. Ciccariello-Maher‘s evidence strikes me as flimsy, but he has his sources. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, both at times contributors to CounterPunch, have of course defended Sharp’s integrity. That is how open democratic discourse functions – nothing argued is suppressed, but vigorously debated.

• Other falsehoods? One article in CP got details of party attachment wrong ergo . . Well, the NYTs has posted articles written by staff supporters that the Golan Heights is in Israel, ergo?
• Cathy Young, writing for the economic libertarian Reason Free Minds Free Markets states that articles in The Guardian, by John Pilger, and in CP by Gary Leupp, ‘ Ukraine: The Sovereignty Argument, and the Real Problem of Fascism Ukraine: The Sovereignty Argument, and the Real Problem of Fascism CP 10 March 2014 get some technical details about the leaders there wrong. Pilger writes also for Counterpunch. So, is he reliable when writing the same things on the Guardian, but not reliable if he uses CP? As for Leupp, he is authoritative on Japan, perhaps also on gender issues, and the Far East generally. Has anyone used that article in CP on a topic area he has no familiarity with? No.
• You cite a two claims from a Coda Media (libertarian) and World, a Christian magazine that mentions CounterPunch as a denier of the Uyghur gulags. You take them at their word which is hostility to the ‘far-left’. I.e. you trust two pointy sources’s word. So why does counterpunch run the following articles?

Christopher Brauchli, Camps From Here to China 7 December 2018

Nick Pemberton, Does The Left Stand With Uighurs? CP 31 July 2020

Louis Proyect, Short History of Uighur Resistance 9 March 2021

J.P. Linstroth, Will Ethnocide in Western China Become Genocide? 8 March 2019

Nicky Reid, The Empire That Cried Genocide: Washington’s Exploitation of Ethnic Brutality from Rwanda to Xinjiang CP 7 January 2022

Ezra Kronfeld, China’s Persecution of the Uyghur People CP 20 September 2017

Louis Proyect, China, Saudia Arabia and the Fate of the Uyghurs CP 1 March 2019

Chandra Muzaffar, The Uighur Question: A Civil Society Solution CP January 4, 2019 (Neutral. Send a fact-finding mission)

On the other hand they hgosted Thomas Hon Wing Polin, Gerry Brown Xinjiang: The New Great Game 24 September 2018 which argued that Chinese measures are calculated to stamp out terrorism. Nonsense, but the other viewpoint is given

Julia Kassem Civil Rights Groups and Pro-war Republicans–An unholy Alliance in the Soft War Against China CP 12 April, 2019 idem

The only inference from that representative selection, if all are read together is that CP hosts a majority of articles deploring the Chinese camps (b) lends its pages to a neutral plea for an international committee to examine the contested places and verify or challenge the claims made by Uyghurs and Chinese (c) and allows 2 sceptics to outline their views. (d) Between (a) and (c) there is a common theme ignored by a large amount of the Western mainstream press consisting of the clear geopolitical interest selective US protests about Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs bears. I.e. there is a degree of hypocrisy in the US maintheming human rights abuses carried out by its major trade and imperial competitor, while maintaining a notorious silence when similar forms of ethnic violence are conducted by US allies. Counterpunch, in that regard, is quite useful in documenting the contradictions in US policy, hypermoralism re Uyghurs because China is a perceived threat, and amoralism for whatever its violent allies elsewhere do (Duarte in the Philippines for example). Note that it hadn’t a line: it gives several distinct perspectives. What so many editors are objecting to here appears to be dislike of hearing many sides to any complex narrative, esp. from a libertarian/leftist free-for-all argumentative magazine like CP. Why this discomfort with dissonance? We're hard wired to be complacent?Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think you missed the point because no one is arguing that CP is a quality, fact-driven magazine. From what I have seen, CounterPunch is mainly an WP:OPINION outlet, and there is no evidence that they falsify their own authors' pieces. In this, as much I personally dislike it, I do not think it warrants deprecation, for they are criticism of opinion pieces written in the magazine. It does hit them, in that I would question anyone who would publish such things, but it does not warrant deprecation because WP:RSOPINION pieces by experts in their field (e.g. David Price) are routinely cited by academic and scholarly sources, and is what separate them from Stormfront; if deprecation, in practice, means that even such sources cannot ever be used, even though this is contrary to current deprecation rules, I am against this on pragmatic grounds, as it has failed.
• There is at least Adrian Chen in The New Yorker describing it as a "respected left-leaning" publication but I am not going to waste my time on this because there is already consensus it is generally unreliable, being an opinion-based magazine. As long as there is no evidence they have falsified the authors' pieces themselves, which would be proper grounds for deprecation, I see no reason not to use expert pieces alongside secondary coverage. In conclusion, I am not persuaded to change my ! by such arguments because I still find Aquillion's, Nableezy's, and Nishidani's counter-arguments strong enough, in particular that it does look like there was cherry picking and thinking CP as straight-news magazine rather than opinion magazine, when it is clearly the latter, and ignore published opinions against crackpots. They are not like the Daily Mail or Breitbart where they pretend to be fact-based, they mainly publish opinion pieces. Just today, they published an article about the nationalization of vaccine manufacturers by the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015), and "Destroying Democracy: China in Hong Kong" by Mel Gurtov, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and editor-in-chief of Asian Perspective. Unless we have reliable sources calling this out, I do not think that makes those authors and scholars less reliable just because they chose to write an article for CounterPunch. In the end, unfortunately I have to agree with NSH001 below that the deprecation experiment has failed and I cannot support it. Davide King (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, certainly a reliable source for opinions per WP:RSOPINION. --Nug (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No If an article written by an established expert and published in CounterPunch, it should be just as reliable as if it were self-published. This is unneccessary. TFD (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. I'm grateful to David Gerard for demonstrating, if unintentionally, why deprecating this "source" would be disastrous, and to Nableezy for his thorough debunking of the arguments from Bob and MikeHawk. --NSH001 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. It mostly publishes opinion articles, and they may be used for what opinion articles are useful for, namely citing the opinion of the author. Gratitude to David Gerard and Nableezy, respectively, as above. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, as it is not clear that deprecated sources would be subject to WP:SPS usage, and in practice deprecation often leads to overly zealous removal. I sympathise with those who are rightly offended by much of the conspiracy theories in CounterPunch, but if we view it as a platform that has no real fact-based oversight, only one of selecting (or self-selecting) authors based on political views, then it should be clear that WP:SPS applies as much as it does on blog-hosting websites or any other way in which an expert may choose to write without peer review. That there is genuine usage for CounterPunch articles written by experts is demonstrated clearly by Zero0000, Nableezy and others. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, per the excellent points made above by Nableezy, Aquillion, etc. Parabolist (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No following Nableezy, Zero and Aquillion. The arguments for deprecation rely on cherry-picked lists of opinion pieces that the cherry-pickers disagree with. Not a reason for deprecation. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, mostly pr -NSH001. CP has pulished lots of expert opinion, which have been removed by David Gerard after the last RfC. Does anyone believe that CP falsifies these experts writing? Obviously not. It is true that CP also has published NRS; that can be dealt with on an individual basis. (Undisputeable WP:RS have also published untrue stuff (say, NYT and Saddam's WMD), and they have not always admitted it. Eg Luke Harding 100% false piece about Paul Manafort meeting Julian Assange is still up on The Guardian; nobody(?) wants to depreciate The Guardian for that), Huldra (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• No - I see counterpunch more as an opinion journalism hosting site than a news outlet. Some authors that publish through it are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. That would mean that the determination should be based on the specific author, not the venue of publication. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• I wrote a long sarcastic comment and decided not to post it, but I'd like to add one more op-ed. [107] One wonders what the author meant when they said that a "violent solution" to the "(((Zionist))) question" (triple parentheses added by me to emphasize what the author really meant by that) would happen if Israel was not peacefully destroyed. It certainly cannot be a dogwhistle to Hitler's Final Solution to the Jewish Question which was done after Jews were not peacefully removed from occupied Europe & Nazi Germany. Anyways yes, deprecate this neo-Nazi anti-Semitic rag. The fact that people with Jewish-sounding names publish in it is meaningless when Alfred Rosenberg was one of the main Nazi theorists. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I know I said I wouldnt say anything else here, but that has to be responded to. Thats a pretty outrageous attack on a living person. The reference is to the Jewish question and Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstaat, in which he offers Palestine as the "Proposal of a modern solution for the Jewish question". not the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. The person you are slandering here, M. Shahid Alam, is also the author of a widely cited book called Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism. You should read it. Your Jewish sounding names bit is nearly as offensive as the rest. Im sure Norman Finkelstein Or Uri Avnery or Gideon Levy or Alan Dershowitz (yes he published there too) would appreciate being called somebody with a Jewish sounding name. nableezy - 03:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I can see bringing up the "Zionist question" and maybe even a "solution" to be innocuous, but bringing in a "violent solution" after the Jewish population fails to leave is pretty much directly comparable to the "Final Solution". And this isn't just one op-ed. This is many, many op-eds in the same magazine all using anti-Semitic dogwhistles about "zionists". How many dogwhistles do we have to see before we can admit there's a pattern in this publication? Even if we assume this individual author was completely innocuous in invoking "violent solutions" to a Zionist question that they openly admit is really an extension of the Jewish Question and totally meant an oblique reference to Theodore Herzl's "modern solution", it's very hard to believe that all these cases of op-eds are just people misinterpreting their words in an anti-Semitic manner. That there's no pattern of anti-Semitism at CounterPunch.

  And the Jewish sounding names bit is a reference to the people speculating about Israel Shamir and others being Jewish. The fact that someone has a Jewish sounding last name does not mean they cannot be an anti-Semite. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what the article says, it does not say anything about the Jewish population fails to leave, what it says is Israel cannot render justice to the Palestinians without abolishing its exclusively Jewish character, without dismantling the apartheid that grinds the Palestinians and No colonialism yet has restrained itself because the colonial masters had acquired a conscience. It was force that stopped them: countervailing force, with or without violence. That is the violence it refers to in the final sentence, a violence against colonialism and expansionism. You can disagree with calling Zionism colonialism, you can disagree with calling for it to not have an exclusively Jewish character, but you cannot make things up about what the article says in an attempt to paint a living person a racist and a neo-Nazi. That is beyond the pale, and in any normal circumstance you would be required to provide reliable sources for such slanderous attacks. This is the equivalent of reddit bros trying to solve the Boston marathon bombings, unqualified people on the internet attempting to dissect things they dont understand by cherrypicking whatever triggers their outrage meter. nableezy - 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It's going to be incredibly hard to debate whether or not CounterPunch is dogwhistling anti-Semitism if we cannot provide examples of specific op-eds in which this dogwhistling seems to be apparent. You've said in another comment that "Theres a reason why editors shouldnt be cherry-picking things that, most importantly, nobody in their right mind would cite here", but now, when I'm choosing something other than the most blatant examples of really obvious anti-Semitism (I chose a slightly hidden example) you're accusing me of violating BLP pretty much immediately and saying I cannot use that op-ed to demonstrate my point. Pick one or the other, because I'm not seeing that here. Anyways, here's some more sources.

"What made the Jewish minorities different was that they carried a weight that far outweighed their numbers. Over the course of the nineteenth century, they had become an important, often vital, part of the financial, industrial, commercial, and intellectual elites in several of the most important Western countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Moreover, the most prominent members of these elites had cultivated ties with each other across national boundaries." [108]

Also written by this M. Shahid Alam person. Now, he's saying that the "Jewish elites" in many different countries had a bunch of control over the financial/commercial/etc industries and control over the intellectuals. He's also saying that these "elites" had some kind of deep connections with others across international boundaries. He says this created the background for this Zionist endeavour. What did he mean by this?

"Starting with World War II, the pro-Zionist Jews would slowly build a network of organizations, develop their rhetoric, and take leadership positions in important sectors of American civil society until they had gained the ability to define the parameters within which the United States could operate in the Middle East."[109]

What did he mean by this? These "Zionist Jews" decide to "build a network" in American civil society. Hmm...

Here's another fun op-ed where the author examines "Israeli exceptionalism" but bases it all on Jewish theology ensuring that Jews feel that they're a "master race" superior and dehumanizing others. [110] I'll link Antisemitic canard#Racism which shows that yes, the idea that the Jewish theology preaches that Jews are superior to the non-human others is an anti-semitic canard.

And here's another op-ed, where he says: "It was directed from the United States, where the Jewish community had grown to command considerable influence over the media, the Congress and the Presidency." [111]

There sure is a lot of language here. Talking about the Jewish elites working across borders, talking about how these Jewish elites had all this power in the finance industry, talking about how these Jewish elites have power in intellectual circles, talking about how these Zionist Jews were building a "network" in the United States, talking about about how these Zionist Jews feel as though they're superior to others due to their religion, and even talking about the Jewish control over the media/US government. Is this truly all just a coincidence that CounterPunch happens to publish all these pieces talking about the Jews control everything? Are we not allowed to use our judgement to even mention that this is anti-Semitism, and that CounterPunch has a long history of publishing anti-Semitism? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not incredibly difficult, what you would need to do is provide sources that say CP is dogwhistling antisemitism. As far as your latest set of cherries, those pro-Zionist Jews (you use that with scare-quotes as though you think such a thing does not exist) built and created such organizations as the American Jewish Conference, the American Zion Commonwealth, and the Jewish Federations of North America. And they all did contribute hugely to the success of the Zionist project. You keep using these scare quotes as though they betray something about the author and not yourself. Yes, when distinguishing between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews you may see somebody say "Zionist Jews". Again, you are making things up about Shahid. He does not say that Jewish theology preaches that Jews are superior to the non-human others. That is fabrication, repeated at that. nableezy - 06:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm using quotes to indicate direct terminologies taken from the author. One of the problems is the specific terms he is using. Saying that the theological doctrine of chosenness implies that Jews think they are a "master race"; implicitly being superior to others is part of that. Reading stuff like "The doctrine of election did not merely set the Jews apart from other nations; it also set them above other nations. Over time, this has encouraged racist tendencies". The idea that this fundamental theological doctrine to Judaism somehow "encouraged racist tendencies" is anti-Semitic. If some Jewish people happen to be racist and use their religion to justify that it's wrong; but alleging that they're racist because they were "encouraged" by the religion itself is a typical anti-Semitic canard. And again, you ignore pretty much all of the other terms. Sure, all of the organizations like the AJC or the AZC or whatever (you missed AIPAC?) you're talking about exist. But this person wasn't saying that the American Jewish Conference was founded to promote Zionism, he was complaining about how the Jewish community controls "the media, the Congress, and the Presidency". The idea that there's Jewish control over the media is a very common canard. So on and so forth. These are very common dogwhistles that are used by anti-Semites. Going out and using them makes a source unreliable in my view.

I'm not interested in drawing this out much further. At this point we're talking in circles. Neither of us is going to convince the other and we're past the post of being able to further elucidate our positions to observers through spirited debate. I guess throw in the last word because I probably won't reply to it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, he does not say that, what he says is However, it was the theological doctrine of chosenness that would most convincingly settle the morality of Zionist claims to Palestine. and he cites This was starting point, the chief inspiration for nearly all the early Zionists. Anita Shapir writes: “One of the covert assumptions present among all the poet and the majority of Zionist thinkers and leaders was that Jews had a special right to the Land of Israel, that is, Palestine.” Ahad Ha-Am also commented that this was “a land to which our historical right is beyond doubt and has no need for farfetched proofs.” Anita Shapira, Land and power: The Zionist resort to force, 1881-1948 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 40-41. Again, you can disagree with his positions, but claiming some sort of racist or even more absurdly neo-Nazi intent is a BLP violation and you do need sources for such severe accusations. nableezy - 14:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I am (ethnically) Jewish and I'm behind Nableezy here on two points. The first is that, with the exception of the reference to "the Jewish question", I don't think that there's anything anti-semitic about that piece. (I think Nableezy is probably right about that being intended as a reference to a quote by Theodore Hertzl, but I still think the author shouldn't have used it, because it's far more well-known as an anti-semitic dog whistle than its use in an obscure pro-Zionist quote.) The rest of the piece distinguishes Zionism from Judaism reasonably well overall, and I don't think that an implicit call for violence against Israel, distasteful as it may be, is a call for violence against Jews in general. The second is that your own reference to "Jewish-sounding names" is itself very anti-semitic, seeing as it's attacking the Judaism of several Jews, and I'd like to request that you strike it. Loki (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: I just replied to Nableezy linking a bunch of other cases where the same author said a whole lot more interesting stuff. All of them in CounterPunch magazine. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: Reading all your sources in more detail, I think you're mostly just cherry-picking quotes that sound bad out of context. The author repeatedly mentions Evangelical Zionists and non-Zionist Jews, and in fact goes out of his way to mention that most Jews at the time were not Zionist and did not behave as the early Zionist movement wanted them to, which sort of gives the lie to the idea that he's postulating some sort of Protocols-esque Jewish conspiracy.

One characteristic example of this cherry-picking is: [112], which you claim is an example of an antisemitic canard. You link Antisemitic canard#Racism to attempt to prove your point, apparently ignorant that critiques of the concept of chosenness are common within Judaism itself, and the very section you link links to Jews as the chosen people#ethnocentrism which goes over such criticisms in great detail. Yes, including specifically the idea that "Jews are the chosen people" is racist; that's really a very common critique among lefty Jews, to the point where the article on the concept of Jews as the chosen people goes into great detail over how Reconstructionist Judaism rejects the theological concept entirely specifically because they regard it as racist.

I would also, again, politely request that you strike your comment about "Jewish-sounding names", because it is, again, very anti-semitic. Loki (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont think there is even an implicit call to violence there, there is an explicit call to the West, and the US in particular, to institute non-violent pressure so as to forestall violence. nableezy - 06:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And Chess, by the way, I dont even dispute that CP has published anti-semites and antisemitic columns, and I wish they had never had an association with ShahakShamir. I cant explain it besides attracted to the appeal of Wikileaks, but yes, it is certainly a mark against CP that they were ever associated with ShahakShamir. And I havent argued against that at all. But this is bs. nableezy - 06:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy. I think you are confusing two people who happen to be diametrically opposed in all dimensions: Israel Shahak with Israel Shamir, a golden apple (Sappho allusion) and something tasteless, indeed distasteful. I'm trying to resist the temptation to comment on the exchange above, triggered by an extraordinary ignorance of the tensions between Judaism and Zionism. Loki has the gist of that (thanks), but a glance at Michael Neumann, Jewish Opposition to Zionism Counterpunch 5 June 2006, not to get into the vast technical literature, would clarify much. Much of what Alam writes in his CounterPunch essays reflects a substantial vein of Jewish anti-Zionist literature (Timeline of anti-Zionism). You can hardly assault a scholar (of Arab background -is that the problem?) for familiarizing himself with extensive infra-Jewish polemics, many with a theological edge, in order to write a commendably trenchant and well-received book about these core issues. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You right, fixed. nableezy - 14:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note: to a historian of Zionism there is nothing at all obscure about the phrase "the Jewish question" and none would associate it with Nazism without a Nazi context. Although it was often employed by antisemites, in the late 19th and early-mid 20th century "the Jewish question" was a ubiquitous phrase in Zionist circles (more than 5,000 hits in the Jewish newspapers online at the National Library of Israel). Predating Herzl, Leon Pinsker wrote in his seminal work Auto-Emancipation: "The age-old problem of the Jewish Question is causing emotions to run high today, as it has over the ages. Like the quadrature of the circle, it is an unsolved problem, but unlike it, it remains the burning question of the day." To a Zionist, the phrase represented the problem that Zionism was meant to solve, even if its exact meaning was difficult to pin down. In summary, it is a bad mistake to jump on the phrase in the context of a scholarly discussion of Zionism and impute ill motives to the author. Zero^talk 11:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up note on Zero's point. The most influential early post-war analysis of anti-Semitism, that by Jean-Paul Sartre, Réflexions sur la question juive,, published in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust (1946) uses the phrase without inverted commas. Since, in writing it, he never consulted any Jewish books, he was probably unfamiliar with its use as documented by Zero. That made no difference. For Sartre, posing a 'Jewish question' was, itself, problematic. Antisemites, in speaking of 'Jews' or venting their enmity, are, he concluded, talking only about (and revealing) themselves, and what they say has nothing to tell us of 'Jews', though it can have lethal consequences for the latter.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that we do need secondary coverage, preferably scholarly and about the magazine as a whole to prove this and make it due and significant, rather than the primary sources themselves. If it was not for removing legitimate pieces written by experts in their field, especially when more reliable sources were added to prove it was due and warranted, deprecation may have been valid because, at least in theory, it can still be used in exceptional circumstances; however, I still do not think that CP hits the criteria for deprecation precisely because it can be used for more than exceptional circumstances, as for all its crackpots pieces, there is just an equal, and at this point I would say more, that are either written by experts in their fields, written by experts outside their field that are not totally fringe (contrary to others that may be) and may be fine for it as opinion (keeping in might weight), and normal opinion pieces like others in left-wing publications and opinion pieces in general. Davide King (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We can find lots of reliable secondary sources, including major scholars of antisemitism, describing at as using dog whistle antisemitism or engaging in the denial and minimisation of antisemitism, including using such terms to describe the editors' own positions and those of books it has published (e.g. by Michael Neumann or Cockburn and St Clair) as well as op eds. The question is whether this is enough to deprecate. These are just opinion pieces that we shouldn't use for facts anyway and which would not likely be due as this isn't a reliable source. But if there is a consistent editorial policy to promote (or even deny) antisemitism that might push into deprecation territory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We should be really careful on deprecating sources where they have a stance against a topic that, broadly on Wikipedia we take one way due to broad scientific, academic, or scholarly agreement, but otherwise are not directly fabricating material or purposely leading a misinformation charges. Moreso when this is only one facet within the work's coverage. This would clearly make the source likely unreliable for citing facts (except about themselves), but not under RSOPINION, which then is guided for inclusion using UNDUE/FRINGE. That probably would make the source very unlikely to be used, but still accessible in case an opinion that is DUE is published within it. --Masem (t) 13:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes I think there is a consensus that the source is Generally unreliable but there is an argument that it prints sometimes experts in their fields so we can use it. And I ask myself if some expert would be printed in InfoWars can we cite it? And I say no if he chooses to print is such a source he could probably not find any other respectable outlets to print his views because it couldn't probably pass an editorial control or peer review--Shrike (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If InfoWars changed their format and started to routinely publish respected, reliable experts (as CP does) - I would argue that we should re-evaluate our current assessment of InfoWars. Until then, however, the two are not comparable. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I know that Wikipedia is not reliable but "InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones." While they have published conspiracy theorists, I do not think "American far-left conspiracy theory and fake news online magazine" would be an accurate summary of CP according to reliable sources. InfoWars' pieces are not cited in academic publications for facts, while expert pieces in CP are. Such slippery slopes and fallacies do not help in convincing me to change my mind. Understanding Media Propaganda in the 21st Century: Manufacturing Consent Revisited and Revised (2021) is an interesting source but I do not have it and am not able to read what is the context. CP is described as "left-wing journal" and seems to be positively cited at p. 24. At p. 153, it is described as "notoriously right-wing fascist." Davide King (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  The right wing is when Foley is commenting on https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/24/bill-gates-global-agenda-and-how-we-can-resist-his-war-on-life/ and the left wing when he comments on https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/22/90663/ and https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/14/the-ruling-classs-hatred-of-trump-is-different-than-yours/ (he refers to CP as "the same left wing outfit").Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, fits option 3, generally unreliable best of our standard RS/N options. They do publish garbage, but they have published quality material that we, as an encyclopedia, ought to be able to link to. I'd single out the many pieces of Edward Said, linked to in nableezy's opinion, which are a mixture of opinion and secondary sources, as resources we should not pass on. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• No per Aquillion, Nableezy, Nishidani et al., but especially per Davide King. The reductive tool of deprecation cannot properly handle a complex source like CP, which should better be treated as a collection of sources: each piece in CP speaks for itself and should be weighed for itself. We have sufficient tools to indivudually assess reliability of pieces published in CP on a case-by-case basis. Like Davide King, I find the fact that CP occasionally has allowed people to publish utter garbage on their agora of opinions just disgraceful. But whether we like this editorial practice or not: this fact doesn't render quality pieces in CP (written by established subject-matter experts published and cited in academic sources) worthless, or unciteable for our purposes. –Austronesier (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• yes A trashy site that promotes conspiracy theories, antisemitism, blatantly falls histoiric non senses, antivaxx theories and pseudoscientific narratives is for deprecation. Examples for how low this site can go are already given many times in this and previous RFC.Tritomex (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC) If any notable person writes something for disgraceful outlet and a notable secondary academic source makes reflection on that issue, it doesnt elevate the status of disgraceful outlet. We dont need to make special exceptions and give space for potencial violations of Wikipedia policy and standards.Tritomex (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you actually cite prior discussions, you should be familiar with them, and not distort them. The meme you repeat:'promotes conspiracy theories, antisemitism, blatantly falls histoiric non senses, antivaxx theories and pseudoscientific narratives' has, in its ostensible details, been shown to be deeply problemical, in those earlier discussions, and here. A cogent vote, per WP:CONSENSUS, relies on quality judgment and personal familiarity with the topic, not the repetition of a hostile and frail assumption.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani accusing me in countless occasions for different kind of unconstructive attitude sometimes like now through personal atacks and labeling my views as hostile and fraile assumptions, while you got above a clear list (by Mikehawk10, to which I would add artickles published by a racist Holocaust denier under the pseudonym of Israel Shamir) that proves my words is a violation of WP:CIVIL.Tritomex (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's not a personal attack. I am outlining what best procedure calls for. So far, unlike the other, travesty of procedure, this has been a very level-headed discussion on all sides, with arguments and evidence, and counter-arguments and evidence. You used the word 'promote'. By its nature, CP doesn't 'promote' anything other than a wide variety of basically counter-mainstream views. There is zero evidence that it promotes Holocaust-denial: to the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Folks… we DO have the option of deprecating individual contributors to CP, without deprecating CP as a whole. That might resolve some of the issues here. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea, individual contributors are also sources. Mind you, I remain unclear as to how many of these awful sources have actually been cited by anyone. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly Israel Shamir's opinions, wherever they appear, CP or elsewhere should be deprecated. His views on Russian policies constitute virtually all that he contributed to CP, and they are useless. But I don't think this would be a CPO-specific issue. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are more than a dozen CP contributors who could be deprecated just on the evidence presented in this RfC. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Mark as generally unreliable, but allow usage of certain authors - Chomsky and Price are examples of probably usable writers in their specific fields of expertise, but given the sheer amount of garbage this site has been shown above to publish, we generally shouldn't be using this at all except for those very small areas where the author would meet WP:SPS and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I'm sorry, but any source which would knowingly publish 9/11 and ZOG conspiracy theories is on the same level as InfoWars, and this doesn't appear to have been a one-time thing. Trying to blame it on the contributor instead of the publisher is not how this works, the publisher is the one that chooses what gets published. If they're repeatedly publishing conspiracy theories, then I can't trust anything they put out, no matter who wrote it. Those expert authors should pick a more respectable venue if they want to disseminate their ideas. Mlb96 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

' If they're repeatedly publishing conspiracy theories. .' Yes, of course, but they have not repeatedly done any such thing. Its founder and many contributors have, as shown, written numerous essays pulling apart a conspiratorial mindset.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend you to strike that comment. Numerous cases of Counterpunch publishing conspiracy theories have posted in the course of this discussion. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And numerous rebuttals of the notion spread here that CP repeatedly hosts conspiracy theories have also been published here. Voting that just repeats one side of an argument briefly constitutes a refusal to examine the evidence, esp. when it comes from a passing editor with 1,400 edits in 5 years who remarkably was galvanized to comment with a cliché by happening randomly on this complex discussion. In evaluating this kind of 'evidence' one should at a minimum consider the statistical relevance of citing as proof of frequency ('repeatedly') the proportion of a handful of conspiracy-leaning articles, as opposed to articles that attack conspiracy theories, in the 70/80,000 articles CP has published. If one does that, the evidence given is of nugatory weight, and cannot be spun to characterize 'conspiracy mongering' as a feature of that webzine. This is elementary, and I am astonished that the obvious flaw in this approach is ignored.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ex-fucking-cuse me? What exactly are you implying here? You can fuck right off with those aspersions. This is classic PIA bullshit, “everyone who disagrees with me was canvassed and/or is a sockpuppet.” Did you consider the fact that the discussion directly above this one, which is literally about this discussion, is listed on CENT? Or did you simply ignore that fact because it doesn’t fit your narrative (which, uncoincidentally, is exactly what you’re doing with respect to Counterpunch and conspiracy theories)? And get a handle on your superiority complex, you’re not better or smarter or more thoughtful than me or anybody else just because you have a higher edit count. Considering that there was a terrorist incident yesterday which involved the perpetrator espousing these exact conspiracy theories, you’ll have to forgive me for thinking that we should have a zero-tolerance policy here. Maybe you don’t think there’s anything wrong with anti-Semitism, but Wikipedia should have no part in promoting it or in promoting the institutions that promote it. Mlb96 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you quit bludgeoning already? Instances of them publishing conspiracy theories as recently as last year have been posted in this very thread and your primary response seems to be that we should simply give them a pass because they also publish articles which don't peddle conspiracy theories. Sorry, but that's not how it works. I'm sure Newsmax and OANN have published legitimate journalism as well, but that doesn't make up for the bullshit they put out. I'm not going to just overlook the fact that they've published 9/11 and ZOG conspiracy theories. Mlb96 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Counterpunch has minimal editorial oversight - no guidelines, fact-checking, corrections or retractions - and is awash with conspiratorial nonsense as MikeHawk10 clearly demonstrated in previous RFC. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . The user also has fewer than 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) This discussion is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Yes, thats why over half the comments directly comment on topics or authors that are listed as being in the topic area, or why Icewhiz had 5 socks (or more) last time around. nableezy - 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I know, the author, whose page I've been editing of late, published children's stories and nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I can see that you have insinuated on several occasions that I am a sock of a banned editor. I am not. Please delete those allegations. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is no uninvolved admin determination that discussion is related Shrike (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Or that it is not, which is why it is noted for the closer to consider and not just stricken out as ineligible. nableezy - 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps they !voted based on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, for all we know. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A. doesnt matter, this discussion clearly is related to the topic area, b. at the time of their first vote on CP, that was their 9th ever edit and 3rd in two years. Oh and just as an aside, the edit on this page prior to that was an Icewhiz sock. Care to guess what their earlier edits were about? Shocker. nableezy - 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• No Clearly the source should not be treated as reliable and "published by CP" should be given the same weight as self published by author on their personal blog. If the author is an expert treat it like SPS. If the author isn't a clear expert, treat it like SPS from a nobody. The only reason to deprecate is if we know CP alters, manipulates or falsely presents material provided by others. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Since we have the WP:RSP list we shouldn't be concerned that editors would think CP is considered a RS. If the general understanding is treat this the same as a SPS I don't think we are going to have issues with lots of CP citations all over Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. The meaning of deprecation comes from the way we treat deprecated sources. If CounterPunch offers a sleu of expert articles and a sprinkle of horrific ones, can we indiscriminately remove all references to CounterPunch? I don't think so. Given the treatment of CounterPunch references in that way, I am inclined to elevate its status. Pabsoluterince (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes The most notable thing about this outlet appears to be its lack of editorial control and penchant for publishing fringe conspiracy theorists. Any valuable information here can surely be found elsewhere, and there is no reason to pretend this is anything resembling a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said about YouTube… and yet we haven’t deprecated YouTube as a whole. Instead, we judge videos posted there based on the person who created it (ie the “author” of the video). While most video creators (and their videos) are deemed unreliable, some are considered quite reliable - and we allow citations to those videos. If we can make this distinction with video, why can we not do the same for written material? Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• No Taking the vague "deprecation" treatment too far is poor editorial judgement on our part. The standard treatment for opinion and context should be enough, here -- sure, the standard requires more thinking, but we dis-serve our purpose when we shy away from more thinking. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes/No. I agree with people who say this is not a reliable source. Certainly, it is not. But I think it should be treated as WP:SPS, not depreciated. Same with many other sources that have been depreciated on this noticeboard. That would provide a better flexibility, for example with citing views by experts per WP:SPS. Same would apply to anything, even Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, certainly. If any so called experts publish something in such place, they are either not experts or hold fringe views. Was it cited or not in releiable sources is irrelevant. Even Kavkaz Center was cited a lot, but this is not an RS per se. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I'm not in favor of deprecating sources. On sourcing, I believe in a case by case approach, decided through local consensus and good faith discussion. If the consensus building process is disrupted by bad actors, discussions can be escalated to noticeboards or WP:DR. I understand why editors want to deprecate this source and this is not an !vote for allowing it to be used for anything other than an WP:SPS in the most benign of cases, or for expert views where editors agree they are due. CutePeach (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, I have not seen the source being used a lot, either on here or social media, but as many have previously stated it does not appear to be as grandiose as it was thought to be. With that said, the source appears partisan, so extra precautions should be undertaken when choosing to use CounterPunch as a citation. Furthermore, the source received a mostly factual rating from media bias fact check, but with a far-left bias rating, which should indicate that the source is at the very least not complete junk. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)This user has fewer than 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 22:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Plenty of evidence of why to distrust the outlet has been provided in both this and the previous RfC, and it has shown that it has not been an isolated incident. An ad hoc criteria can be applied for exceptions if needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Hell of an RfC huh? From what I can gather, CP is a hosting site for opinia from literally the entire political spectrum including some very well respected authors. Unfortunately, this also means there is a serious lack of editorial standards that would in a normal RfC render it generally unreliable. However, this is not the usual RSN RfC, and deprecation would preclude the usage of the source in cases where it could be warranted. Not much more I can say that hasn't been said already, but I will add that I agree that they have hosted certain authors who likely should be deprecated, especially the more conspiritorial ones. BSMRD (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I could repaste my initial rationale from the prior discussion, but somebody has already done that above. There are a number of people who claim that CounterPunch is merely an opinion hosing site. That argument should be given very little weight—CounterPunch published a print magazine from 1993 to 2020 and it's entirely unreasonable to claim that this sort of thing is merely a platform and not a selective publisher. Submissions put up on the CounterPunch website aren't mere blog posts that anybody can put up, either—there is a gatekeeping process between the material being submitted and it being published. And, that gatekeeping process is incredibly rotten for a publication that says it tells the facts. Separately publishing that the U.S. government and the Jews (or "Zionists") did 9/11 is Press TV territory. This is what moves it into deprecation territory for me rather than mere unreliability—it publishes conspiratorial material as a matter of preference and particular choice. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I could repaste my initial rationale from the prior discussion, but somebody has already done that above.

Perhaps then it is worthwhile examining your evidence overall, since you have not replied to specific rebuttals of pieces of it.

1. (1) Widespread publication ofconspiracy theories.'

(a) David Rosen The Epstein Story Continues to Unravel CP November 8, 2019 writes:

Similarly, there is a growing chorus of skeptics who see the collapse of 7 World Trade Center as separate and different from the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

This occurs in an article reporting forensic evidence from an autopsy that Epstein’s death wasn’t suicide, but perhaps caused by strangulation. It is a parenthesis and states a fact, that numerous skeptics distinguish ther collapse of 7 World Trade Center, from the Twin Towers downed by al-Qaedaì’s hijacked planes. It does not endorse that skepticism but notes it. Perhaps Rosen is convinced of it. Who knows?

(b) John Scales Avery Lies About How the Attack on Afghanistan Started, CP September 2, 2021

This repeats Susan Lindauer’s accusations about CIA foreknowledge putatively via Richard Fuisz and also mentions the 2015 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth report. Silly, except for the remark I’d never heard of how Donald Rumsfeld reacted some hours after the attacks in a wing of the Pentagon, jumping on it as an excuse to go wild.

(c) Stephen Martin The Zionist Elephant in the Room of Geopolitics, CP October 31, 2014

No doubt this was written by a quarter-baked fool who believes Corporativism bows to Zionism (ergo he is antisemitic) Dov S. Zakheim was, according to the wiki bio ‘tasked (as Defense Comptoller) to trace the Pentagon's 2.3 trillion dollars' worth of unaccounted transactions.

So, of the 70,000 + articles in CP you found 3, one mentioning parenthetically either growing scepticism about one of the 3 buildings, and two, one of which is antisemitic, subscribing to the conspiracy. This is the basis for your assertion that:’ the site's history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories is widespread.’ That is a silly inference, in the face of the numerous articles in CP which dismiss such theories as lunatic, as documented.

1. (2) Evan Jones (retired political economist from the University of Sydney and widely published in magazines there) The Pariah State August 1, 2014 devotes a very long article to selecting well known points about Israel malpractices against Palestinians, and writes with outrage. Embedded is the cite re the dancing Israelis meme, the factual aspects of which are given here, not in the link given to the piece from the Anti-Defamation League, -not particularly reliable in these areas -which neatly sidesteps the fact that the FBI did arrest 5 Israelis, detained them in isolation for months , two of whom were [[Mossad] ] and all of whom were reported by eyewitnesses to be dancing and high-fiving as the towers crashed. The [[The Herald (Glasgow) |Scottish Herald] ] reported this in minute detail, so did many other sites. But it can’t be mentioned on CounterPunch without being antisemitic? You dislike the False flag insinuation? That is the term used by Vincent Cannistraro regarding what investigators of the incident thought at the time. The Lavon Affair , which you don’t bold, was a red flag precedent. Israeli agents blew up Egyptian, American, and British-owned civilian cinemas, libraries, and educational centers in such a way that the Muslim Brotherhood would be blamed for the terrorism. Not unique by any means, i.e., Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. None of this proves anything, and it is true that these facts have been adopted by conspiracy sites, but you are objecting to the mention of the facts as though citing them itself is intrinsdically antisemitic.
2. (3) Grover Furr’s article, The “Holodomor” and the Film “Bitter Harvest” are Fascist Lies was carried by CP March 3, 2017 and is cited as proof CP appears to deny the Holodomor. Rubbish (and Nableezy already demolished this insinuation above nableezy - 23:05, 11 January 2022). That was written in direct response to a CP article by Louis Proyect , Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor CP February 24, 2017. Proyect replied to it Louis Proyect What Caused the Holodomor? CP March 24, 2017 All you have here an altercation between a Trotskyite Marxist, Proyect, challenged by Stalinist-apologist, and professor of medieval English literature, where Proyect gets the upper hand in the rebuttal piece, duly published after Furr’s silly article. CP allowed them a venue to argue their opinions. So?
3. (4) ‘A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps.’ That was challenged as selectively ignoring the evidence on Xinjiang camps in CP here and elsewhere and you never replied. Again, CP doesn’t push for the truth, it hosts views from many sides, and as in that case, several articles affirming their existence cannot be ignored in order to assert that one with the Chinese government line constitutes CP advocacy for an untruth.
4. (5) the website has a troubled history of supporting the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory.’ Nope. In response I cited 6 articles just over the past several months mocking antivaxxers. You never replied. Once again, CP hosts all kinds of views but on the key ‘problems’ the evidence is overwhelming that the majority of its thematic articles don’t push conspiracy theories. It is just that they don’t silence dissenting, or even silly minority views completely. The evidence must be understood as meaningly in the statistical context of percentages of 70,000, and so far we have a score of assertions, or stupid pieces, the latter illustrating nothing more than that occasionally, nutters and one or two anti-Semites have aired their views there vs the fact that very sane scholars, and Jewish thinkers, remain untroubled by that murmur in CP's margins.
5. (6) ‘Their editorial process is also rather suspect.’.

No one is arguing that CP is a standard newspaper RS citable invariably for facts. They are arrguing that (a) deprecation was based on cherrypicked bits of evidence spun into huge claims that CP was a holocaust-denying, gen ocide-promoting, antisemitic, antivaxxer rag, which was clearly a nonsensical travesty of its record. Since numerous quality scholars and journalists publish there, (b) it should not be subject to just a generic deprecatory ban, esp. given the thinness of the evidence adduced in favour of deprecation.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a look at this attempted refutation. Re (1) David Rosen seems to flirt with 9/11 trutherism (using the term "skeptics" for conspiracy theorists is an example of this) as well as with Epstein conspiracy theories. Nishidani earlier on this page deployed Rosen as an example of CounterPunch opposition to anti-vaxxers. He has a recent article in CP saying "Serious concerns have been raised about the health impacts of smart phone technology... In a January 2020 piece, Richard Gale and Gary Null noted, “… it is no surprise to find ALEC’s fingerprints all over the aggressive push to roll out 5G technology across the nation.”"[113] Rosen then goes on to quote Gale and Null at length, positively. The link is to a piece in GlobalResearch. Our article on Gary Null says he is "an American talk radio host and author who advocates pseudoscientific alternative medicine and produces a line of questionable dietary supplements." Although it's true some CP authors have criticised Null,[114] a quick search shows that Null is regularly promoted by other CP writers, such as "Mickey Z", who quotes him as an authority for the claim that AIDS and HIV are un-related,[115] as well as by David Swanson[116] and Norman Pollack, a guest on Null's show.[117] Richard Gale has himself contributed to CounterPunch (the article looks like it might be written with Gale?)[118] and contributes regularly to GlobalResearch. I won't link there but some of his recent titles, mostly co-authored with Null, are: "The 5G Roll Out: EMF Radiation, Devastating Health Impacts, Social and Economic Implications. Crimes Against Humanity?", "Woke Critical Race Theory as a Reality Deficit Disorder", "Why Are Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Being Officially Suppressed?" and "The Woke Culture: A Pathology of Post-Modern Tribalism". So, even if these examples don't prove that conspiracy theories are "widespread", it shows they are a regular feature of the website. I am still not sure if deprecation is appropriate, but it seems to me that promoting these kinds of narratives is actually dangerous, and allowing citations of this publication outside of a few very exceptional cases. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is arguing that conspiracy crap like that is reliable or appropriate. The argument is that we should allow the more reliable stuff. The solution to this is to deprecate specific authors. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As Blueboar said. I'd be the first to agree that you can find crap from nutters on CP, and I have always argued that it cannot be taken as we do with numerous mainstream papers, as a regular RS. But Bob, you and several others are again using a faulty technique. Whereas I am arguing (a) the article base for editors to assess CP is some 70,000è articles over two decades (b) a few score nutter articles can be googled up (c) but if editors hostile to CP don't exercise scruple (neutrality) by checking the CP data base to see how many articles confute or make counter-arguments of the ideas we deplorethen (d) they are at fault methodologically. Time and again above, some crackpot opinion has been cited, and dutifully, it has been shown that the opinion is a minority view. A handful of conspiracy theorists? Well Cockburn pulled that viewpoint apart authoritatively as have several other CP contributers. Anti-vax nonsense, well, I cited 6 articles appearing over three months that went for the jugular against anti-vaxxers. Unlike mainstream papers CP hosts an open forum of conflicting viewpoints, without censoring the occasional nonsense this or that writer has touted. And, in statistical terms the couple of score of articles cited are insignificant as an index of what CP publishes. All they document is that CP thinks of itself as a web agora where arguments within a broad libertarian-left congeries of communities are given space. It leaves readers to decide. It does not preempt its readership by dictating a narrow band of what is sayable and thinkable. And as Blueboar states, what interests Wikipedia is the quality, quite abundant, that appears there, under easily recognizable professional authors' names. The rest has no place on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Blueboar's suggestion we deprecate some authors rather than the publication. I wonder if it's practical. Just some of the strong candidates mentioned in this discussion include Grover Furr, David Rosen, John Scales Avery, Thomas Hon Wing Polin, Steven Higgs, Rchard Gale, Anne McElroy Dachel, Robert J. Burrowes, John Kendall Hawkins, Gary Null, Isael Shamir, Gilad Atzmon, Alison Weir, Paul Craig Roberts, Wayne Madsen, and Mark Crispin Miller, Diana Johnstone, Franklin Lamb, Ray McGovern, Lenni Brenner, and of course Alice Donovan. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now looked at the John Avery Scales piece. This is published as recently as September and is unambiguously a case of 9/11 trutherism. I had been under the impression that CounterPunch had considerably improved under Joshua Frank and in particular since the Alice Donovan affair, but the more I look the more I realise they keep on publishing this sort of stuff. Moving on to point (2) re the Evan Jones article, this is what the article says: It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits… More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. This is not a simple "mention" of some controversial facts; it's a straight-up claim 9/11 was a false flag attack: pure conspiracy fantasy. The article also approvingly cites Alison Weir, a 2011 article by her in CounterPunch, illustrating how its editorial policies mean that conspiracy fantasy material is amplified. Given how much conspiracy material they have in their back catalogue, sending our readers there in our footnotes is not simply not good practice for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if this material is a large or a small proportion of the overall content of CP; what matters is there is a lot of it, and seeing CP as a legitimate source legimates it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

a) No, it doesn't and b) This detailed examination of one article serves no useful purpose here, being simply a repetition of the argument that a couple dozen bad articles invalidates 70,000. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Have just edited my comment slightly to be clear I'm refering to two different articles discussed in the comments above, the first by Scales and the second by Jones. Other readers can judge for themselves if they are examples of conspiracy theory or not. The point is it's more than a couple of articles; it may not be all 70,000 but the problem is endemic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not a couple, I said a couple dozen (my guesstimate of the number discussed here and in the previous RFC), I don't agree that its endemic and there is no evidence of that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes The site unashamedly publishes conspiracy theories and has no editorial control or policies so is in effect a self-published source. It can be used to prove the author's opinions but not for substantiating any facts.Crystalfile (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — Crystalfile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The user also has fewer than 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 01:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  How is my view about CP's bogus claims about vaccines or 9/11 connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If you keep on seeing conspiracies everyehere they might actually agree to publish an article of yours.Crystalfile (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  For those wondering, the collapsed section below is wherein several editors disagreed with Nableezy's placement of a custom tag after Crystalfile's and others' !votes, but Nableezy collapsed it because apparently he wants everyone to see his tags, but not to see the criticism of his tags. There is an established effort by one side here to subvert our process, Nableezy wrote in a comment in the same edit that collapsed the section. Levivich 18:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Except I left the initial response to the tag outside the collapsed section, and that discussion is entirely off-topic to should CP be deprecated. It would be great if you would stop disrupting that discussion. If you want to challenge my tag go do it in a place where that matters. As far as established effort, that refers to the 6 Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks in the last RFC and to Yaniv stealth canvassing in both the last and this RFC. An established effort aided by users who continue to distract from the topic of this RFC. Be a lot cooler if you stopped. nableezy - 18:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

discussion on the relevance of a tag
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I leave it to the closer to take a look at your contributions as to the relevance of the big banner up top about canvassing and as to your chosen topic areas in the years past when you were editing wrt the relation of this RFC and the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 03:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I think it's pretty clear they're an SPA but at the same time other people are discussing this for reasons other than WP:PIA. Personally, I don't see why you can't just leave the regular Template:SPA rather than writing your own custom thingy. There's no conceivable benefit to saying that "The user also has fewer than 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area." Either you're implying/saying that this editor has violated 500/30 by commenting here, in which case you can go to WP:AE and ask an actual admin to moderate this, or you're not implying the editor has violated anything regarding 500/30 in which case there's no actual purpose to your addendum to the template. Others have told you that your 500/30 warning is unwelcome and unnecessary. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC) If this discussion is covered by ARBPIA, and just your contribution to it should demonstrate to any person editing in good faith that it very obviously is, then no editors with fewer than 500 edits may participate. Just based on the extensive socking by Icewhiz and NoCal100 in the last one, and the mass emailing by Yaniv in both this and the last one, I likewise dont find that any editor in good faith can claim that it is not either, but some editors have disruptively attempted to maintain the !votes of ineligible accounts, in a way I find to be right on the edge of meatpuppeting and/or proxying, already, so instead of merely striking the votes of clearly ineligible users I have noted which ones are ineligible to participate. No admin has made a decision either way on this, and I have asked that somebody do so. Yes, I am directly saying this is a violation of 500/30. But the list of things that I care about does not include what you feel unwelcome or unnecessary, and I will continue to note the obviously canvassed and ARBPIA violating accounts as they come in. nableezy - 13:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)—User:Nableezy (talk • contribs) should stop inventing their own ways to tag other users, lest other users decide to tag them as well. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) The presence of a couple of editors who are focused on ARBPIA topics is not itself a reason to call this is an ARBPIA topic. Comments above relate to vaccine disinformation, 9/11 denial, the Holodomor, camps in Xinjiang and any number of other topics. If this happens again, please just add the SPA tag and leave it up to the closer to sort the wheat from the chaff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse or not, but no I have never said that the presence of a couple of editors who are focused on ARBPIA topics is itself a reason to call this is an ARBPIA topic. What I have said is that this discussion substantially focuses on ARBPIA topics, and because of that reason it is covered by ARBPIA. As for your request, no. nableezy - 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Nableezy is correct. Most of the socks identified as disrupters in both the earlier RfC and this one have PIA interests. Much of the material adduced as 'damning evidence' directly concerns Israel. And of course Israel, for the 6th time (to my knowledge) has gone public in these last few days stationg that it will bankroll attempts to influence any social media that deal with its interests. Those familiar with that area know that it is regularly subjected to challenges from people who are highly protective of that nation's image. Some of it is financed officially by Israel, which has no problem in publically announcing as it did just in these last few days that it is providing '250 million shekels to fund covert pro-Israeli propaganda and “consciousness shaping” activities on social networks.' Wikipedia undoubtedly falls within that remit.(Refaella Goichman, This anti-BDS Initiative Failed. So Israel Throws Another $30 Million at It,'Haaretz 26 January 2022) It is only sensible practice to scrutinize new editors or low performers who suddenly jump in to a discussion like this, esp. since CP is highly critical of that country's abuse of human rights.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC) It is only sensible practice to scrutinize new editors or low performers who suddenly jump in to a discussion like this because they might be Israelis trying to control social media, is what you're saying? Levivich 02:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) What a tiresomely cheap insinuation. Really, that is an inept attempt to punch under the belt, with all the heft of Goofy throwing a punch at Black Pete. People who know the topic area will be familiar with this baiting logic. (a) are you, Nishidani, suggesting 'Israelis might be trying to control social media?' (b) subtext. The protocols of Zion assert Jews aspire to control the world and anti-Semitic literature is rife with claims that Jews control the media and everything else. ergo, Nishidani's 'suggestion' smacks of a veiled endorsement of the Protocols of Zion thesis, and is potentially motivated by anti-Semitism. (d) therefore, ignore his evidence and insinuate a covert motive in one's interlocutor's argument that, by poisoning the well with such suspicions, deflects scrutiny from the evidence given, personalizing the issue as one essentially about Nishidani's attitude regarding 'Jews'. Cheap, dumb and illiterate because (1)I did not suggest 'Israelis might be trying to hijack social media'. It was Haaretz which documented a public fact, that Israel invests in attempt to covertly manipulate media. (2)Israel is a government, Israelis are something else. What the government does cannot be construed, except with malicious intent to distort, as what Israelis, Jews or Arabs, engage in. Note the ineptness of your assumption that Israel= Israelis (qua Jews). Israelis can be Jews or Arabs. (3) I happen to be published on the broader issue of governments investing in mass media in order to 'shape' or manipulate world opinion regarding them, specifically the attempt programmed in the mid-eighties by the Japanese government to influence foreign research through financial strings, and the implementation of monitoring bodies with a structure to enable rapid official and unofficial responses to any criticism. The US has consistently done that, notoriously with |Encounter and, closer to the I/P area, Al-Hiwar, not to speak of the ongoing efforts of countries like China and Russia. You should be familiar with my view. The historical fact of cancerous antisemitism in Europe, and its consummation in the Holocaust cannot allow discussion about Israel to be subject to a taboo that would confer on it the status of privileged exemption, as exceptional to the nature of historical states. It is shameful that this kind of Chinese whispering tends to infect every argument apropos, crippling evidence and analysis.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC) It is only sensible practice to scrutinize new editors or low performers who suddenly jump in to a discussion like this because Israeli money is being used to covertly manipulate media, is what you're saying? The source you linked to says The extent of the initiative’s failure revealed itself during the violent riots in mixed cities in May 2021, alongside Operation Guardian of the Walls in Gaza during the same period. Led by pro-Palestinian activists, the Palestinian narrative dominated social networks. And when Israel failed to develop any counter-propaganda initiatives, celebrities like Noa Tishby and Bar Refaeli stepped into the vacuum. But you don't seem to think we need to scrutinize new editors or low performers who suddenly jump in to a discussion like this to see if they're pro-Palestinian activists whose narrative dominates social networks. You also don't seem concerned about American money, or Russian money, or anyone else's money being used to covertly manipulate media. I guess it's only Israelis we have to watch out for. Maybe instead of having these arguments about {{spa}} tags or custom 30/500 tags, we should just use some simple icon to identify new editors or low performers who suddenly jump in to a discussion like this, something like: ? Levivich 17:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) That is WP:Shifting the goalposts You attributed to me a possible 'suggestion' that the source I cited attributed to a known policy of the government of Israel. Then you insinuated by a rhetorical question that I attributed this policy to Israelis (qua Jews). I.e. you ethnicized the argument and squirrilled in the innuendo that my remark might echo a notorious thesis of the Protocols of Zion. Wriggle the goalposts or play the anti-Semitic card all you like, but the facts I noted won't budge. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Impressive the misdirection here. There is an established effort by one side here to subvert our process. And you want to pretend that somebody is racist, but not really say it outright just wink at it. All of this is of course entirely irrelevant and it would be great if discussion of it would stop. You dont like my tagging these accounts? Ah well. Lots of things on the internet disappoint me too. I am going to collapse this as wholly irrelevant. nableezy - 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC) If the Israeli government actually wanted to spend that money on influencing Wikipedia I think they'd do a better job than just throwing SPAs at the problem. You'd think with a budget that large they could afford to purchase accounts with EC perms at the very least. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC) It's the usual thing, action and $ at a distance, part of overall lobbying efforts. Anyway, it's not just Israel that does it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Apologies Nableezy if I've misunderstood. I read If this discussion is covered by ARBPIA, and just your contribution to it should demonstrate to any person editing in good faith that it very obviously is and Just based on the extensive socking by Icewhiz and NoCal100 in the last one, and the mass emailing by Yaniv in both this and the last one, I likewise dont find that any editor in good faith can claim that it is not either and read that as meaning that the participation of such people was the evidence. Anyway, a very small proportion of this discussion, a very small proportion of the "damning evidence", a very small proportion of CP's coverage, and a minority of the uses of CP that have been removed from Wikipedia are connected to PIA, so I just don't get this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Chess's contribution was about a person writing about Zionism and Chess making some fairly obscene BLP violations in calling that living person essentially a Nazi. It is the content of his contribution that relates to the topic area, not that he is an editor who is focused on the topic area (he isnt afaik anyway). There is zero reading of this discussion that supports the contention a very small proportion of this discussion ... [is] connected to PIA. A huge proportion of the comments relate directly to the ARBPIA topic area, and if you include the ones that are per such and such user that do so then an overwhelming proportion of comments are related. Including yours (you cite Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Alison Weir, which a look at each of their talk pages will show are included in the ARBPIA topic area). nableezy - 18:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC) If you really believe that Chess made "obscene BLP violations" then per WP:BLP you *must* remove their comments and are welcome to open a noticeboard discussion. Until then WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Go report me then. nableezy - 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) The user have more then 350 edits in various topics we usually don't call such users WP:SPA Shrike (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Sure, that contribution list is not nearly entirely focused on the ARBPIA topic. Wonder how he saw this discussion to make his first edit in seven months. And then his very next edit, you wont believe it, comes in the re-run 3 months later. You say excepting 9 edits, with 7 coming over a few days in March, his first two edits in 6 years just happened to find these two RFCs? Wow, what a shocking coincidence. If you arent trying to be so transparent in your motives here it is not working. nableezy - 19:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC) You appear to be confusing the concept probable sock with SPA, nothing you just said addresses then being an SPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) No, you appear to be confusing the two. I dont think this is a sock at all, this is an editor who has had as his sole focus the ARBPIA topic area. Also known as a single-purpose account. But you can assume I dont actually care what you think about this and as such there is no need to engage me with your thoughts and feelings. nableezy - 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) What does "shocking coincidence" have to do with SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC) you can assume I dont actually care what you think about this and as such there is no need to engage me with your thoughts and feelings. nableezy - 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate but for a different reason. Magazine sources tend to be terrible sources of information in general compared to their newspaper counterparts. They talk a lot of gossip and the standards they have mean that tabloid papers can be filled with baloney that slants the truth to one direction or another. We already deprecated WP:DAILYMAIL and similar sources almost a few years ago, it is time to deprecate this source as well. I think of magazine sources as an absolute last resort - if there is anything better, use that first. There are a few exceptions, like when magazine sources are the only source for a particular topic (like gaming or fashion). But outside of that these tabloids do a terrible job at reporting straight, hard facts. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes/Deprecate/Option 4 per my comments in the previous recent RFC: "Option 4 per Mikehawk10 and Dr. Swag Lord. I think the deprecation should be a blanket one, because many of the issues are egregious and spread across many topic areas. GretLomborg (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)" Also, Bad RFC. Why isn't this in the usual format? There's usually 3 non-deprecate options, so which of those does "no" mean here? - GretLomborg (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not in the usual format because it's not a usual rfc, the prior close being in dispute. No was left to the discussion to determine, my assumption was that a deprecated source that was undeprecated would default to gunrel ie the next one "up". That also seems to reflect what is being said in the discussion, many seem happy to use the source for expert opinions a la SPS which is what gunrel would allow and deprecate does not.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate clearly unreliable but I think that the argument for deprecation is strong one given all of the nutjob content they've published. On the other side "Don't deprecate because I like X who has published work in it" is not now and will never be a valid argument to present at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I for one have closely examined the nutjob screeds, and have come up, sifting the 'evidence' with about a dozen instances among those googled up and cherrypicked from the 70,000+ CP data base. There's been no reply to that. As there has been no reply to the fact that three score scholars and professional journalists of standing regularly publish there. Deprecation means that any scholar of international standing cannot be cited if they chose to publish in CP because a handful of nutters were ferreted out of its archives. It is flawed to produce 'positive evidence' and silently ignore the abundant 'counter-evidence' and arguments that argue the positive evidence is statistically insignificant. Deprecation means that one must gut (as was done) our article on Raul Hilberg because scholars of distinction who knew him, like Norman Finkelstein and Michael Neumann commemorated the pathfinding scholar of the Holocaust, did so in Counterpunch, simply because somewhere in the thickets of that huge mass of material, a few anti-Semitic opinions were detected. This is the dilemma practical content builders face when blanket deprecation passes as the lazy way not to even read a source like CP, which, indisputably, contains a significant amount of material by highly respected scholars, thinkers and journalists. The application of dsprecation significantly harmed articles that used this quality of encyclopedic input.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes you've already made this argument a half dozen times, why bludgeon? "Don't deprecate it because then we would have to gut X article which I love dearly" is not a valid argument to bring to RSN and amounts to complaining about the possibility that work will be required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The argument bears repetition since the opposite argument is being repeated ad nauseum, all of the nutjob content they've published without empirical evidence.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning does not excuse bludgeoning, just break the cycle.... Stop bludgeoning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is not to bludgeon. Anyone can have an opinion, but, for the last 2,500 years opinions that merit attention get it because they are the result of evolving debate in an open climate of evidential claims and logical analysis. In these forums, both sides have asserted a basic set of opinions about CP. The pro-CP group has expended a lot of energy is challenging the factual basis for assertions that deprecation is required. I do not see any response to those challenges, but rather meme-reproduce tion ad nauseam. If this is not to be the usual numbers game one would expect arguments to be engaged, challenges to be responded to. That hasn't occurred. Every time the evidence for deprecation is scrutinized to test the claims made, the response has been one of silence, as the same frail claims are repeated by editors further down the page. WP:Consensus clearly states that opinions have less weight than reasoned argument, precisely to ensure that problems where we disagree are addressed analytically, which, unfortunately, is something that these humongous threads are consistently ignoring. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have seen no-one suggest that these articles were never published, unless someone can do that there really isn't much of an argument against deprecation unless we want to change our standards. What challenge to the factual basis for assertions that deprecation is required are you thinking of? And keep in mind that the factual basis is the existence of published disinformation so any challenge must successfully challenge the actual existence of those articles which I haven't seen. "Yes they're real but it doesn't matter because I like the source" isn't worth engaging with. This is a RSN discussion, whether or not one is pro or anti CP is not relevant and if it is then those editors have a conflict of interest which is preventing them from editing dispassionately. Personally I like counterpoint and read them often, but I don't let that get in the way of the fact that they are clearly deprecation worthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There very obviously is an argument against it, and the caricature of that argument as it doesn't matter because I like the source is horseshit. Your view on what is clear is just that, yours, and very obviously disputed by a large number of editors. Who all very clearly disagree that the cherry-picked articles written by non-experts that the cherry-pickers dislike mean that scholars writing in the area of their expertise should be expunged from an encyclopedia. nableezy - 16:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a broad criticism of the deprecation process and not specifically germane to the discussion here. If those articles exist (note that in the RSN context there is no prohibition against cherrypicking) then theres an issue here. The way our current system is set up a dozen bad articles can condemn 100,0000 good ones. Now you can disagree on whether that is a feature or a fault but this is not the place to discuss it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You just saying something does not make it true, sorry. The majority view in this RFC is that no, a dozen bad articles do not condemn 100,000 good ones, it condemns those dozen by non-experts. Nobody has been able to show how a CP article by an expert writing in the area of his or her expertise should not be cited. Nobody has been able to answer why this article, itself widely cited by other reliable sources, written by an established expert, who himself academically published and widely cited in this specific topic, should not be cited because some other article written by some non-expert made some objectionable claim. You can insist that your view is the way things are by definition, but as of right now that is a distinct minority view of the way things are. And in a project governed by consensus, guess what? That makes it not the way things are. nableezy - 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of bludgeoning I was talking about before. "Because thats how deprecation works" is the answer, but you won't accept it. Refusing to accept the answer is not the same as nobody being able to answer your question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You just saying something does not make it true, sorry ... You can insist that your view is the way things are by definition, but as of right now that is a distinct minority view of the way things are. And in a project governed by consensus, guess what? That makes it not the way things are. nableezy - 18:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing."Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The only thing Ive contradicted here is the caricature of my argument by you that I and others who oppose deprecation say it doesn't matter because I like the source. I dont see any merit in anything else youve said, and as such have seen no reason to respond to it. But if somebody is going to lie about my argument I will correct that record. nableezy - 18:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is also the case that it is by no means clear how "deprecation works" given the related discussion of that issue specifically.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If theres a related discussion to be had then we should have it. But it either has to be before or after we decide on this issue, we can't do both at the same time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources I think we have had it, at least there has not been any comments for a while now. Hard to say anything about it other than no consensus which is why I commented like that above.Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus would mean that we stay with the status quo, which in this case is the Daily Mail style dozens condemning thousands iteration of deprecation. I agree that our policy probably needs some more nuance. That discussion looks like it got a little muddied, maybe we need a tighter focus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with "status quo" if that was covered by any kind of formal guideline or policy, it's not though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly how much evidence do you want before you can accept the deprecation of a source? Are you looking for a certain percent of articles? 1% of pieces? That would be around 700+ sources if we use the 70,000 figure. At what point are you ever OK With deprecation? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The first and the last question are general and not CP specific. Leaving aside the absence of a formal guideline on deprecation, I think that most people are willing to accept fabrication by a source as grounds for deprecation. But how are we deciding on other possible grounds? Returning to CP specifically, there is no evidence that CP has fabricated anything, their "crime" is accepting some quite limited number of dubious contributing sources (authors of CP articles) and suggest that because these few are conspiratorial, antisemitic or something else, then this is grounds for blacklisting all of CP, which seems unreasonable. If CP is gunrel instead, then these errant sources remain unciteable in WP but expert authors may be cited in line with SPS.Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. A relatively small number of authors on CP (conspiracy theorists etc) should not be cited as reliable sources on WP, and I have confidence in the ability of WP editors to reject the work of these particular CP authors by applying the normal WP policies, guidelines and consensus-building process. But CP also publishes the work of many world-class scholars, experts, investigative journalists and authors, which could easily be cited as reliable sources on WP and help improve the encyclopedia. Thus, in my view, CP should be treated as some type of WP:SPS, not deprecated. Ijon Tichy (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I concur precisely with the comment made by Blueboar: I see counterpunch more as an opinion journalism hosting site than a news outlet. Some authors that publish through it are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. That would mean that the determination should be based on the specific author, not the venue of publication. Sums up my position well. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I concur with Austronesier. A minority of CP articles are definitely fringe/nonsense but that does not negate the vast corpus of work, produced by famed journalists, academics etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• No and I still oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

References

References

RfC on Next Avenue

Am wondering if the website Next Avenue can be considered a reliable source for information within a BLP. Article: Morrison Polkinghorne, url of source is here. Appears to have an editorial staff, is published by PBS, and claims to adhere to the PBS Standards and Practices (which looks like it means this source qualifies as generally reliable). I was not able to find any discussion of it in the archives. What do others think? A loose necktie (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? I'm curious to know why you think this rates an RfC. Edit war? — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A previous editor of the article, Vexations had marked the source as possibly unreliable. A loose necktie (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I felt that WP:FORBES applied there. The actual source is not Forbes, they just republished https://www.nextavenue.org/cambodia-second-act-business/. It would be better to cite the original and consider whether THAT is reliable. Note that the article is part of "America's Entrepreneurs," a Next Avenue initiative made possible by the Richard M. Schulze Family Foundation and EIX, the Entrepreneur Innovation Exchange. Vexations (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what we are doing here. The source in the article has been changed to indicate its origin. WP:FORBES may have seemed appropriate at first glance, but that is no longer at issue. The question is, is Next Avenue reliable? Is that not what we are now discussing? A loose necktie (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC Daily NK

Should Daily NK (website link) be considered an unreliable source? I noticed that Daily NK is used a lot in the article COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea, and noticed that it seemed to somewhat contradict the World Health Organization about Covid-19 in North Korea during April 2020, not a complete contradiction, but Daily NK reported a positive case from a dead North Korean defector, while a WHO representative reported 100% negative cases. Additionally, I could not find any other sources that confirmed North Korea is lying about cases, implying that Daily NK has not been able to show definitive evidence of anything.

Doing some more research into Daily NK, I found this article that also points to the unreliability of Daily NK and it's influence on misinformation in the Western world: Al Jazeera article.

Additionally, here are some Snopes articles, all which points to the unreliability of Daily NK: Heart surgery, Skinny jeans, Coronavirus

While it appears that Daily NK is not often being debunked, it appears that there is also no reason to particularly trust them as a reliable source. They use anonymous sources without further fact-checking (though I haven't found anything about them using defectors in particular as sources). While the number of sources that questions its reliability/call it unreliable seem a good bit limited, I have not been able to find a single source that confirms it as reliable. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: See our "media coverage of North Korea" article for some general considerations about the topic. Given what all is laid out there it would come as no surprise if all sorts of otherwise reliable media outlets failed fact checks on the subject of North Korea. In some ways it's the simple nature of the situation. It can be difficult to accurately ascertain basic information about North Korea. This has probably only been exacerbated during the pandemic: the amount of defectors (who could constitute sources about what is happening throughout the country during the COVID-19 pandemic) radically dropped in 2020. Restrictions on foreigners (who could likewise be sources in some cases) entering the country have also radically increased: they were disallowed from entering the country since at least mid-January 2020 (1)(2). Since at least early March 2020, North Korean border guards have reportedly collaborated with Chinese police to keep people from crossing the border, shooting anybody attempting to cross (1)(2). Situation has evidently persisted to this day.

Even foreign diplomats, who occasionally constitute sources about what's happening in North Korea, have been subjected to various restrictions there such as 30-day quarantines, and many left the country entirely (1). Cargo shipments by freight train between China and North Korea entirely ceased for about 17 months (between mid 2020 and January 2022) (1)(2), and humanitarian aid has even been held in quarantine for months on end (1).

This is all to say that many of the inherent sourcing problems outlined at the media coverage of North Korea article have only worsened during the pandemic due to the government's pandemic restrictions. What was already a bad reliability situation seems to have worsened significantly. Unfortunately contradictory sources are common when it comes to North Korea. This report in NK News (quoted here by The Guardian) was somewhat critical of the usage of "rumors about North Korea based on anonymous sources" in mainstream media.

With this specific instance, the Daily NK's report (which is based on an anonymous source) does not even appear very confident that this suggests COVID-19 deaths. The wording is rather flimsy (e.g. "may have been caused by the novel coronavirus", "what appears to be COVID-19 infections") and it even describes the military report as originating from "data on the number of soldiers who had died after suffering from high fevers stemming from pneumonia, tuberculosis, asthma or colds". This could be euphemism, but that's of course speculative. The WHO report about 709 negatively-tested cases is apparently from Dr. Edwin Salvador, a WHO representative residing in North Korea (1)(2), who appears to be receiving weekly reports from the country's Ministry of Public Health.

Some other context worth noting: Daily NK is described by Vox as "a South Korean outlet run by North Korean defectors". According to The Atlantic in 2011, Daily NK then received notable WP:USEBYOTHERS and reportedly was used by South Korea's National Intelligence Service as a source of information.

IMO, a lot of the above has to inform a discussion about any source on the COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea, or for that matter, a lot of North Korea reporting in general post-2020. --Chillabit (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that I agree generally with Chillabit, although I would like to add that here is my own personal analysis of the sources:

The first two Snopes links say that the reports are unconfirmed, and not necessarily false. The first one is even labelled as "still developing," meaning it could change in the future.

The third one never even outright says the Daily NK is wrong. It just says the Daily claimed a certain amount of people died. In fact, the article given clearly says that this was a claim coming from an anonymous source. It says "A Daily NK source inside North Korea’s military reported on Mar. 6 that the military’s medical corps had sent a report detailing the impact of COVID-19 on the country’s soldiers to military leaders."

As for Al Jazeera, Mr. See Wong Koo never says that the Daily NK publishes false information. He says that CNN uses it the wrong way and distorts their reports.

Building upon Chillabit's argument, I would like to note that their FAQ, which in addition to explaining the problems it faces, clearly outlines that it has reported factual content far before Western sources picked it up, and provides a list of such cases.

The only place where I disagree with Chillabit is when he implies that the website is run by defectors. The Site's president as well as editor-in-chief hark from South Korea. They do use defectors at times but as their website outlines they are not a defector-run source. Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not a unique fluke from Vox, I could have sworn I read that elsewhere as well and sure enough a cursory search brings me the BBC and the Times among others saying the same thing, that Daily NK is run by defectors. Leaves me to speculate if somebody along the way misstated Daily NK's reliance on defector-journalists as being "run" by them, and if that just got continuous repetition in the media afterward. --Chillabit (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble, yes, I'm sure that Daily NK reports true information far before Western sources, but that's because they report on one specific topic that Western sources do not put resources towards. But it doesn't make it a reliable source for them to sometimes report truth. I think that WP:QUESTIONABLE might be relevant depending on how much they are willing to trust anonymous sources without confirming their veracity. Since there seems to be no evidence that Daily NK has provided, then this may make them unreliable, since it doesn't seem that they have fact-checked via reliable methods.

Chillabit is there currently some kind of formal guidance about sources on the topic of North Korea, like WP:RSPSS? If not, would it be possible to discuss doing something of the sort with an (or this) RfC? Like you said, it seems that perhaps sources about North Korea should generally be considered with a lot more scrutiny, even when reliable sources like CNN or BBC report on the topic. Since there is a lack of information, perhaps there should be an expectation for sources to also provide evidence (or otherwise, the information seems like the kind of information that is more easily accessible), rather than just providing information. Bear in mind this train of thought is not guided by any of the guidelines or policies, albeit indirect connections to generic guidelines/policies like WP:Reliable Sources or WP:Verifiability, but it seems that something should be done to address the higher risk of sources' unreliability about North Korea. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Use with attribution pending the development of an actual policy. One of the criteria in WP:RS is having a corrections policy. On their site, I did find the following[119]: Daily NK welcomes complaints about errors that warrant correction. To report errors regarding our coverage or to send feedback or story ideas, email us at dailynkenglish@uni-media.net. This is evidence that they are trying to get the story right in this difficult area. That said, I would strongly support the development of a policy for this type of situation. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny:, you mean a policy specifically dealing with circumstances where reliability is inherently uncertain? Also, it does seem to me too that they are trying to get the story right. But I do not believe them welcoming complaints increases their reliability enough to be considered provably reliable. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: Yes, that is what I mean. North Korea is probably the most extreme example of this, but there are others. What are conditions inside of China's Uighur camps, for example? Or how many Russians died in WW2? Or in the Gulags? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: yeah, it seems that the policies and guidelines, or at least WP:V and WP:RS, does not properly address this problem. It seems the closest mention of this problem is WP:RSCONTEXT, which generally says that context matters when considering whether a source is reliable; however, it seems that discussing specifically about the sort of uncertainty such as much news about North Korea would help. Though, how exactly would I go about this? Should this go in the Verifiability policy or Reliable source guideline, or maybe even be a separate guideline altogether? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable. For a small specialized outlet, they seem to do a solid job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Unless you are an expert on North Korea, how did this conclusion seem to you? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable, while it is often used by other media as a source, I don't believe that makes it necessarily reliable; an economic analysis on 38 North last year notes that "the reader should note that much of the data in this article comes from sources that cannot be independently verified". Generally, other sources should be preferred over Daily NK and if it had to be used, it should be attributed to the source. The lack of fact checking is mainly because few organisations focus on reporting from North Korea.

However, the "death scare" of Kim Jong-un did result in a worldwide focus on North Korea, if only for a short period of time. Although its initial report was based on a 'single source', it would appear that the source was completely incorrect. [120] Instead, it was far more likely that Kim was elsewhere, as shown by satellite analysis. [121] This shows that while it can be reliable at times, it isn't always so, and an attribution is necessary. While it was noted that this was a single source, their decision to publish it anyways questions their reliability, and they only clarified that it was a single source after it had picked up significant mentions in other media.

It should also be noted that when correcting incorrect translations, Daily NK only noted the correction on one article, whereas multiple articles had this issue.[122]. While this was a minor issue of losing nuance, the report was quickly used to translate as 'shoot on sight' by most other media sources.

They also failed to notify their users of a potential hack of their website, instead claiming it did not affect most people, and targeted only the staff. This was not corrected even after being called out. Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable: NK is a media-blackhole and probably even worse than Niyazov's Turkmenistan, whence I had spent considerable time. That is however not a license to use dubious news-sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is a book published by Georgetown University Press a reliable source on Georgetown University?

While conducting the GA review of 1838 Jesuit slave sale I saw that one of the books used was The Bicentennial History of Georgetown University: From Academy to University, 1789–1889. Is this book a reliable source on the history of Georgetown University? The author, Robert Emmett Curran, was a professor of history at Georgetown. He has written other academic books (John Dooley's Civil War published by University of Tennessee Press and Papist Devils: Catholics in British America, 1574–1783 published by Catholic University of America Press). This book was positively reviewed by Theological Studies (journal)[123] and by Studies (journal)[124], both peer reviewed journals. So the source seems reliable enough. My only concern is whether Georgetown University Press is an WP:INDEPENDENT source on Georgetown University.VR _talk 05:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If the author is a respected academic historian, it’s probably fine. That the historian has published a book on early Catholicism in North America bolsters his credentials in this particular case—the history of early Jesuit education in the US seems to fall within his area of academic competence. I don’t necessarily see independence issues with respect to university academic presses; the presses generally are not censored by their respective universities and I don’t see why Georgetown’s press would be any different. If the source is peer-reviewed and has received positive commentary from independent academic-quality sources regarding the quality of the book, it seems fine in this context. The only thing that jumps out at me is that the book was published in 1993. Histories of Georgetown published more recently might have been made with access to better information than the original book if there was relevant new information discovered in the past ~30 years. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhawk10, that helps and I agree.VR _talk 15:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I advise caution and not using this source for controversial claims as both the publisher and the author are clearly not independent of the subject. In my experience, historians who focus on higher education in the U.S. often do not look favorably on histories commissioned and published by institutions as they are often biased in favor of the institution; these "house histories" are sometimes intended to celebrate and promote the institution instead of accurately describing its past. That doesn't mean that this is an unreliable source but it's certainly not an independent one so due weight considerations are very possible. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As an professor, I will point out that if you publish a book with an academic press, your work has to pass peer review. It is also standard to get feedback from other scholars when writing your book. Given these factors I would rate this university press books as some of the most reliable sources you can find. University presses are not obliged to bias their publications in favor of their respective university as another person mentioned above. More generally, I find that a set of Wikipedia editors is more focused on the the independence rule than the larger purpose of Wikipedia. The point of that rule is that some people are likely to be self serving. However, one should also use some discretion. If a person, especially an author or academic, has a history of publishing reliable work in respectable outlets, there is no reason to suspect them of self-serving bias. Using them as a source is likely to enrich Wikipedia articles which serves the mission of Wikipedia. This factor must also be considered. Chris (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not an independent source. And there are many authors who publish reliable work in respectable outlets then leverage their reputation to make money by promoting stuff. While I am unaware if this is the case here, it's not an argument to say that because a person published a lot of unbiased stuff in the past they can't become biased later. The suspicion of self serving bias already happens because of the inherent conflict of interest in writing about a school while having the work be published by the school. This is something that needs to be actively disproved. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Reputable university presses are usually governed separately from the university leadership. I don't know if that applies to GUP in particular, but I presume it does. So it's not like Georgetown's PR department can excise embarrassing material from a book published by the press. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the norm in Europe; is it the same in USA? I have reasons to suspect against. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This independence is also the norm in the U.S. There may be a very small number of universities, such as Liberty University, where this is not true, but at a major university like Georgetown, there's independence.Chris (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Decluttering WP:RSP

There's a bunch of entries at RSP that are kind of useless and just serve to clutter up the list. I think we can safely remove them as they're so uncontroversial as to not need an entry. To list a few I'd liket o remove:

• Weather2Travel.com. In 2012 we had two discussions over this. In the first one someone pretty much said the equivalent of "seems legit"[125] and in the second it was revealed after examining the ToS that it wasn't super legit because they expressly disclaim reliability.[126] In almost 10 years nobody has cared enough to bring it up again since it's obviously unreliable. It's not "perennial" by any means.
• ProPublica. In 2019 we had a "discussion" on whether or not this Pulitzer Prize winning entity was generally reliable, because somebody wanted to add it to WP:RSP.[127] Almost everyone agreed it was generally reliable. We also had an interesting thread in 2016 where someone misinterpreted a press release and said that a laundry list of reliable sources are now unreliable because of it. [128] There is no real reason to list ProPublica at RSP since everyone agrees that it is reliable and we haven't had any actual disputes over its reliability. There's no purpose to listing generally reliable sources that aren't the subject of discussion.
• MyLife. We've had three discussions on this. The first time was in 2017 when not much was known about the source and people still didn't like using it.[129] In 2019 it was re-discussed and literally everyone in the discussion agreed that it was unreliable. [130] Then the third "discussion" was when someone requested adding it to the spam blacklist, which was done with no discussion.[131] Is this really a perennially discussed source that needs its own entry? Everyone agrees it's unreliable and its entry at RSP likely benefits no one.
• Agence France-Presse. We have supposedly had two discussions on this. The first one [132] someone asked if wire services such as AFP ever report false information. This wasn't really a discussion about AFP but a question about the reliability of wire services in general. Likewise, another discussion happened when someone brought up an interestingly worded statement from AFP that sounded like they were taking payment to write sponsored content. People replied and said why they didn't believe it was an issue. Does this need an RSP entry given that it's only really been discussed once?
• HispanTV. There was a 4 option RfC on this in 2019. [133] Everyone agreed it's unreliable. It was used in a few articles at the time but it wasn't being perenially pushed or argued. For the record, I'd like to see this undeprecated and removed from RSP. It's plainly unreliable and nobody has seriously argued for it being included in years. [134] Someone listed it in a laundry list of similar sources in a dispute over Falkland Islands related pages several years ago. [135] [136] Some guy brought it up in 2015 to accuse Israel of doing certain things in a totally unrelated point to the actual article subject. [137] Then another person who didn't sign their comment linked it in a list of related sources saying "I found this information". [138] The rest of the discussions are bot messages from cyberbot II about modifying external links and someone asking for help to remove links to it. Exactly one person in this entire encyclopedia has appeared to have discussed HispanTV in the context of actually wanting to include it as a source in an article. Deprecation serves no purpose here but to just create more bureaucracy for a source nobody seriously wants to use and nobody seriously thinks is reliable.

Anyways, what do you guys think about removing these? HispanTV might need another RfC I guess but the first four we can probably get rid of through consensus here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Re HispanTV: The majority of participants !voted "bad question" or "option 1" or "option 2" or "option 3 or 4" or "between option 3 and option 4" in RfC: HispanTV], which was closed by El C as "The result was option 3 and 4. ..." I believe that a different closer might have found a different consensus, or in the best case agreed that the question was bad, but that's not enough for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE so I don't see a way to overturn now except via a new RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been a few years, so no objection to running a new RfC to gauge the current consensus. El_C 14:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see it as clutter, as I generally just hit CTRL-F and look for whatever source I'm wondering about. I think having a centralized list is pretty handy, and theres no reason to really pull things off, even if it's just linking to the existing discussion/s on the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say that there is more risk of cluttering the Noticeboard than there is of cluttering the well-organized list at RSP. I don't think there is any need to remove any of them. If you want to undeprecate HispanTV, that's a different matter; there is a much better argument for limiting the number of deprecated sources. (I have no views as to whether HispanTV actually should be deprecated or not, but it seems like an issue that might appropriately be raised.) John M Baker (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• If we're going to remove ProPublica why not also remove ABC News, the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post, among others? (I'm not necessarily opposed to remove such entries, just throwing it out there). Calidum 04:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think RSP should be "decluttered," and I find some of the "obvious" entries useful to demonstrate things that *should* be obvious but someone is still having difficulty with. Also it makes it more explanatory to have examples of all the different kinds of sources we've discussed, not just a distorted window presenting a few controversial ones. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree with the idea of "decluttering" the list. Like others have said, the list is best used via CTRL-F anyway so clutter isn't really a thing and its size is not a concern as long as the page still loads. The list isn't intended to be comprehensive by any means (nor can it ever be), but having more entries there is generally a good thing, especially in terms of providing an at-a-glance gauge of the community's general temperature on more obscure sources. If you don't think a particular source has been discussed enough to support its entry in the list you should start a discussion about that specific source, but the premise of that would have to be you asserting "I don't think there's actually a consensus to support this entry and I believe further discussion will show that fact" - ie. inviting people to argue otherwise by supporting the current entry. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don’t think “clutter” is the issue here. The issue is more “definition”. RSP is supposed to be for listing a narrowly defined subset of RS discussions - sources that have been repeatedly discussed… over and over and over again (ie perennial).

If there are sources listed that don’t fit that definition, then we probably should remove them from the list. Doing so won’t change the consensus on whether they are reliable or unreliable (it just means that the consensus isn’t recorded here, on this page). Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar has made the points I was going to make. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• If the issue is just going to be over the name, I would prefer to just rename WP:RSP rather than remove things from it. Having an at-a-glance list that summarizes prior discussions of obscure sources in particular (which may not have a ton of discussion) is extremely useful and I don't see any benefit to removing them from it. If people don't feel that the amount discussion is sufficient to justify inclusion on such a page, that's a different story and we could talk about that (though again, the solution is probably "raise a discussion about sources you object to so a sufficient threshold is met", or possibly tweaking its wording / presentation to make it more clear when discussions are limited in number and scope), but removing them entirely because of the word "perennial" seems like pointless quibbling. Maybe the list was once intended solely to avoid repeated discussions on WP:RSN, but it has clearly grown in purpose beyond that and I would be strenuously opposed to any attempt to box it back into that original concept, at least unless someone gave a really, really convincing explanation for why we should and how doing so would benefit the wiki. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Even perennials die, eventually. It's fine to have a list that includes items which were perennial flashpoints along with those which still are. If individual items in the list were under-discussed, or the summaries don't accurately describe the discussions that took place, then that's a problem with those specific entries in the table, which we can fix through ordinary conversation. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment strongly opposed to removing sources that come up frequently, regardless of whether or not we think something is obvious. However, the question about weather2travel.com is interesting. I know there is a way to see how often a source is used. Could someone who knows how to do that run the check for them and post the results? Adoring nanny (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Statutes as sources

In this matter, I contend a statute is a primary source subject to interpretation, which explains why we have countless lawyers and judges, and cannot be used as a reliable source because it could be qualified in myriad ways by other statutes, regulations or exemptions that are not readily apparent. In a case that involves government officials or lawmakers, like this one, they may enjoy certain immunities that the statute doesn't mention, but are mentioned elsewhere. I contend editors cannot reliably make such a determination.

I don't see this discussed in policy. Can I get a ruling? Pinging Kkeeran and Boxer Brick. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you in general, but I see WP:SYNTH as the primary issue; my quick scan didn't find the statute name-checked in any of the sources, which would at least help the argument. As it stands, I would say that bit does not belong. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Statutes are primary sources. Court Decisions can be both primary and secondary. Primary for new matters discussed, secondary for discussions included on previous decisions rendered. Given the statute seems to be used in that article to make a point not supported by secondary sources, its inappropriate as WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid about WP:SYNTH. Unless a secondary source states that specific law applies to the matter, citing the law is establishing an unsupported relationship. Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It is implicit synthesis because it implies the law was broken. But there are legal questions whether a subpoena within the meaning of the act had been issued and whether anyone had refused to obey it. TFD (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Statutes and court decisions are only WP:PRIMARY. They can be cited for factual statements as to what they say, but cannot be used for any interpretation. I think that’s rather clear-cut and axiomatic. As far as the linked to text is concerned, WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The linked text is unambiguously using a WP:PRIMARY source (the statue) to insinuate that the The Maricopa Board of Supervisors broke the law in the article text; doing so is clear-cut WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• It would be acceptable to quote the text of the statute in an article about the statute… and we can cite the statute itself (as a primary source) to reliably verify that quote.

However… per WP:No original research, any analysis of the statute, or interpretation of it, or conclusionary statement based upon it needs a secondary source. This is what is happening in the linked article. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that, normally, the text of a statute is a good primary source for what the statute says. But here I just don't see the relevance. It's a single sentence from the statutory scheme for legislative subpoenas, taken out of context and without any explanation of how it fits into the larger dispute. By itself, it adds nothing to our understanding of what happened. John M Baker (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Everyone in this discussion should also take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steven_Crowder_YouTube_video. (Also it is extremely difficult to imagine a statute text being used legitimately as a source in an encyclopedia article.) --JBL (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• We absolutely cannot cite the primary text of a statue or law in a way that carries legal implications (ie. the implication that action X was or was not legal) without a secondary source overtly stating that interpretation - that is textbook WP:SYNTH. And this is obviously intended to lead the reader to such a conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I think statutes should always be disregarded as appropriate sources in all contexts but absolutely agree with @Soibangla: that it should not be used in this matter-up to and including for the reasons provided by editors above. I do have to say I have been informed in the past that Citations to case law are also considered primary sources not to be used on wiki and find that this reasoning heavily conflicts with the logic that a statute effective/practical/applied meaning requires a secondary source to ensure accurate interpretation. Often the best most accurate source for this would be the controlling case law-at least for common law jurisdictions like the United States. OgamD218 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: ”… primary sources not to be used on wiki” - note that primary sources CAN be used on wiki, but their use is limited with caveats and cautions applied. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my problem is that this use is clearly WP:SYNTH (and frequently when someone uses one as a source like this it's SYNTH.) If we're writing an article about a law, we could cite a statue to quote the text of that law in a neutral context. But in an article about a person, event, controversy, or the like, we absolutely cannot cite a statue in a context that implies "this specific real-world action was against the law" or "this specific real-world action was not against the law", since that's WP:SYNTH - the applicability of a statue to any particular situation always requires a secondary source unambiguously making the connection. This "Person X did Y" (cite to newspaper source saying they did Y, with no legal assessment) "Doing Y is illegal" (cite to a statue, which makes no mention of person X or their action) sort of thing is extremely common and is textbook revert-on-sight synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Weatherbase.com

I can't figure out why weatherbase.com is so widely used on Wikipedia. The site itself is so heavily loaded with advertising that it's almost impossible to scroll down to the footers on a data page like this one. The About page describes the team as a "self-described nerd" and someone looking to "hone her business school chops".

I'm really not sure what makes this our go-to site for climate data. Guettarda (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes it our go-to site for climate data is that someone in the past decided to use it on some of our articles. If you feel it should be replaced, you're allowed to do so. There is no editorial board, no approval process, just a bunch of independent people doing the best they can. --Jayron32 15:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I just can't see what makes it an RS at all. I was hoping to get a second opinion on it. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It isn't a reliable source. There are other good sources on climate data, NOAA for example. There's no need to us a hobbyist page for information that is clearly available on scrupulously reliable sources instead.--Jayron32 13:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

While i generally agree that the site isnt reliable, we have to note that it claims to take its data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, which like NOAA is a meteorological service and reliable. However, I would personally prefer us to take the statistics straight from the countries meteorological service than a thrid party.Jason Rees (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if it gets its information from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, we could be too, and not using them as an intermediary. --Jayron32 13:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Panjshir conflict#Foreign involvement - credibility of Indian Media

This matter has been going on for a couple of months now, and is regarding Pakistan's supposed involvement in the Panjshir conflict, more specifically to do with the sources which are being cited.

I believe these references (which are primarily Indian Media [139], [140], [141] quoting a single Iranian newspaper, quoting an Iranian politician, without even providing any sort of proof, or without even referencing the original Iranian article!) are weak and should not be used to support such a claim, considering that no international media outlet, like BBC, Aljazeera, TRT, NYT etc made these claims at a time when global outlets were present in Afghanistan. During the Panjshir conflict, it was known that Indian Media had rushed to publish these articles and started using all sorts of nonsense 'proof' to try and prove these claims, such as quoting a fake twitter account, [142], (by India Today, a source that was used multiple times on the page), using fake video game footage on their TV broadcasts, [143], [144], [145], [146], and showing a video captured in Wales as a Pakistani fighter jet in the Panjshir valley [147].

Other non-Indian sources mentioned, like TOLONews [148] just repeat the claims of the NRF but provide no proof, whereas the European parliament is being presented as if it is meant to be source, whereas it is only a motion that doesn't discuss the proof/references or whether such events actually occurred. It's quite clear that this is now being used as a circular reference, where it is likely quoting the Indian sources above, but Wikipedia is using the European parliament motion, to somehow 'verify' the claims of the Indian references.

In my opinion, this was all a misinformation campaign to try and attribute links between the Pakistani Air Force and the Taliban during the Panjshir conflict :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 21:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can personally disagree with their report but The Week (Indian magazine), India Today, TOLOnews and Hindustan Times are reliable sources for this matter. The report in question from India Today[149] remains undisputed. As the talk page already noted, India Today is itself IFCN certified thus there should be no question about their reliability unless the particular claim was proven to be false. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: It's not about my opinion! It doesn't matter how many 'awards' or certifications Indian Today has, when it has a history of publishing misinformation on subjects relating to Pakistan! India Media is overall unreliable when it comes to Pakistan-related topics! :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 04:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable per above. It is a gross misrepresentation to say that only Indian sources made these claims. European parliament acknowledged it as well.[150] Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you would you state this. "gross misrepresentation". And by the way, I've already explained the European Parliament thing. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 04:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Can you be clearer about what you're trying to say here? There has been misinformation and sensationalism among certain Indian sources over recent developments around the Taliban but most of these aren't used in the article from what I can see. If you are using this to broadly consider any Indian source to be unreliable for this area (or reliable for the matter?) then that's certainly not going to fly. If you want to dispute the reliability of individual sources, you can bring them up otherwise this is unactionable.

Regarding "India Today", it can refer to either the India Today magazine or the India Today television channel, which are editorially independent of each other. It is also not IFCN certified. Its fact checking arm AFWA is, which is editorially independent from either of them and has at times fact checked reports that were broadcasted on the television channel itself. The India Today website is largely an extension of the television department but hosts content from the magazine and AFWA which are present under the sections marked as "magazine" and "fact check" respectively. The report in question is from the website and not marked under either of these two sections, so it should probably be replaced with a better source considering that the television channel has in fact engaged in sensationalism regarding the Taliban. That however does not make everything else unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: My point was that these claims shouldn't have been mentioned in the section or the infobox, unless some other reliable and credible source could verify these claims through a different source, as of yet I haven't been able to find these, nor have they been given. Again, it keeps getting mentioned that India Today is IFCN-certified, that doesn't mean it can't publish dubious reports or misinformation? :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 04:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Taimoorahmed11, why shouldn't they be mentioned? The policy on neutral point of view states that we must represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The claims themselves have been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources and made by the NRF itself (not to mention CENTCOM, a former Afghan parliamentarian, etc). As long as the sources are accurately represented in the article, the claims can be included. At no point did the article assert it as fact. In any case, this is a question of whether the inclusion has due weight or not and not that of the reliability of sources, i.e this noticeboard isn't the place for it.

Also if it keeps getting mentioned that "India Today" is IFCN certified then those mentioning it don't understand what they are talking about. India Today is a brand name that's owned by Living Media, which operates a number of distinct media outlets, some of which carry the name "India Today". Two of their outlets, namely Lallantop and India Today Fact Check (which is also called AFWA) are IFCN certified. That does not make everything else that carries the brand name, IFCN certified. And yes, even if a specific organisation had an IFCN certification, it isn't the be all end all of assessing its reliability. It would give indication of a reputation for fact checking and accuracy but if there is misinformation from the same organisation then that would need to be taken into account as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• To focus just on the EP dimension of the story, de dicto citation of news stories in a democratic parliament shows that there is attention on the story but it does not turn an otherwise unreliable source into a reliable one. The kind of thing that would be needed to turn such events into something usable by us is news media or a scholarly coverage of the debate that includes evaluation of the claim. Otherwise, the mere fact of citation is not something that we should even mention. If the politician actually asserted they have knowledge that the coverage is true, that is something we might be able to cite but that does not seem to be the case here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable per Abhishek0831996 as well as being a loaded RfC. Reliability of news can be challenged individually, not through a gross generalisation of sources from a country. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Invisible_Oranges

Invisible_Oranges is a long-running American online music magazine dedicated to heavy metal news, and I would like to have it accepted as a Reliable source.

Any thoughts/opinions or opposing views? H8eternal (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you want to use it for? Has anyone objected to your attempts to use it before? --JBL (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll I need to have it accepted as a reliable source for the new media section "music" we want to create on the Jeffrey_Dahmer page. it's an article of the Invisible_Oranges about Dahmer's impact on metal music, mentioning the American Thrash metal band Slayer and the Amcerican Death-metal band Macabre songs [we have to skip the Soulfly then] we can to cite as reliable source:

https://www.invisibleoranges.com/metal-and-jeffrey-dahmer/

H8eternal (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it self-describes as a blog, which is a mark against, but it has a long publishing history, and identifiable editors exhibiting oversight (so it's not user-generated content). I personally would be inclined to accept it for non-contentious claims. However, if you read the talk-page discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer, I think you'll find that the objections to including content about music on that page focus (correctly) on questions of due weight -- even accepting Invisible Oranges as a reliable source for the information in the article, I'm skeptical that it should be mentioned on Dahmer's biography. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

well the article per-se is not the main subject of my contribution to the page. it is about the impact that his life story had on music (new category) I'm trying to bring to the media paragraph. they have film, books, theatre etc. there. but not music. which seems incomplete to me tbh.

this would be the new category-paragraph I'm working on:

---

start-----------------------------------------------

Music

• 213 (1994). Song by the American Thrash metal band Slayer (album: Divine Intervention)
• Dahmer (2002). Concept album by the Amcerican Death-metal band Macabre
• Jeffrey Dahmer (2010). Song by the metal band Soulfly (album: Omen)

---

end-----------------------------------------------

the Invisible_Oranges article would be just used as a reliable source for the above. thank you.

H8eternal (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You've now shifted away from your specific question (about whether the source is reliable) to the original discussion (of whether or not to add content to the article). This is not the right venue to settle that, the article talk-page is. You can certainly go back there and say, "I asked at RSN, it didn't generate a lot of discussion, but the one user who replied said he was inclined to treat the source as reliable for non-exceptional claims like the ones in my proposed addition." --JBL (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you so far @JayBeeEll I will let you know if they ask for more. H8eternal (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

For caste related article

Is the source is reliable for caste-related articles?? source The Tribes and Castes of West Bengal Nobita456 (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It has almost certainly been superseded by more recent scholarship, but it might be occasionally useful about situations which existed in the past, when used with attribution and a specific past date. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No; by longstanding consensus, all books published in the days of British Raj are not treated as reliable sources for S. Asian history. That being said, it might be used with attribution for certain cases - read WP:DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam it is not a raj era source.Nobita456 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. Census documents are typically not much reliable but provides an insight into mainstream discourse. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. TrangaBellam Boynamedsue can I use it to describe the current status of a caste,which is disputed???Nobita456 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I, for reasons unknown, did this at Baidya; have removed it. However, it might be covered in an end-note, census being among the foremost tools of knowledge-production employed by the state. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I Have seen that,thanks. I will also do some edits regarding baidya notables as advised by you. and I am also requesting you to check that talk page of that article, where I started a new discussion regarding Raja-Rajballabha. Nobita456 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given that caste is a controversial topic, it is good that you are going cautiously. What can you tell us about the author? Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I was not sure about the source,that's why I asked here.I don't know anything about the author.Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are two articles about Asok Mitra: a short newspaper obituary[151], and a longer one[152] that appeared in the Economic and Political Weekly. –Austronesier (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just in reply to @Nobita456:, the way I would use it is something along the lines of "Writng in 1953, Asok Mitra stated that...{sentence using past tense}". In that way we are clearly stating that this regards a perspective from the past about the past. What is the exact phrase you wish to support? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hellow Boynamedsue,have gone through this,as the author is not historian or anthropologist, and the source is a census report, hence it should not be used to construct the history or origin of a caste.btw thanks for your concern. Nobita456 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Dorchester Review

There is discussion at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School#The Dorchester Review regarding the reliability of The Dorchester Review (website).

Editors have used it as a source at Kamloops Indian Residential School, where it was reverted.

A direct quote from this article is:

• "It is hard to believe that a preliminary search for an alleged cemetery or mass grave in an apple orchard on reserve land near the residential school of Kamloops could have led to such a spiral of claims endorsed by the Canadian government and repeated by mass media all over the world....Imaginary stories and emotion have outweighed the pursuit of truth."

That particular article was mentioned in this opinion piece in Canada's National Post. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me like you've already received good answers on the talk-page. --JBL (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In other words, fails as a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Digit (magazine)

Can we use this source to know and add cast of any film? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 11:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure on specifics, but their about us page has a clear editorial policy, and extensive editorial staff, and it looks solid as a source. However, I don't see where it is a source for a cast of a film? It seems to be a technology publication, akin to cnet or something like that. The cast of a film is normally cited to the film credits itself; that is usually sufficient. According to WP:FILMCAST, only uncredited roles (which are not listed in the film credits) normally need outside sourcing. Which Wikipedia article are you trying to provide sources for, and which article from Digit are you using to provide the information? That's really what we need to assess this. --Jayron32 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"El Pilón" - Colombian local newspaper

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: No past discussions were found

• Source: [153].

• Article: Draft: Karoll Marquez.

• Content (The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports):

  According to El Pilón, the couple portrayed by Karoll Márquez and Diana Hoyos in Oye bonita was "iconic within Colombian television".

  .

A reviewer of the draft on singer Karoll Marquez said the draft had problems with unreliable references, but they did not mention which of the 35 refs they consider "unreliable". After checking every citation I could only come up with 1 definitively unreliable ref (It is already removed, it was a link to the unofficial page of the singer) and 1 ref (the one I am asking here in this Noticeboard, the local Colombian newspaper "El Pilón").

The two most respected newspapers in Colombia are El Tiempo and El Espectador, with national circulation. Then, one can find in descending order the medium range newspapers, corresponding to the large cities (i.e. El Colombiano is from Medellín) and the local newspapers (i.e. El Heraldo from Barranquilla, or El Pilón, from Valledupar). Please check out the source on El Pilón and comment on whether it can be reliably used for the article (currently draft) of Karoll Marquez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Forich, I've no significant concerns related to the reliability of this local newspaper within this context. However, quoting the article (which is little more than entertainment fluff) as describing this specific couple as "iconic within Colombian television" when in reality, they were mentioned as part of a list and seemingly only because they just so happened to show up at this event makes this clearly WP:UNDUE. You're attempting to write a BLP about an at the very best borderline notable actor, but trying to wring individual drops of notability from sources like this won't lead you to success. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you evaluate these Babbitt sources?

This is controversial. Which, if any, of these are reliable sources which could be added to the Babbitt article?

• https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/01/air-force-vet-ashli-babbitt-tried-stopping-jan-6-capitol-vandalism-before-fatally-shot-report/
• https://www.ntd.com/video-shows-babbitt-tried-to-stop-vandalism-in-the-capitol_729763.html (considered not reliable here)
• https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/14667/20220121/newly-released-jan-6-video-shows-moments-leading-to-ashli-babbitts-death-at-the-hands-of-michael-byrd.htm

These were ones I found; they are discussed on Talk:Shooting_of_Ashli_Babbitt#Manufactured_MArtyr, but none are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. All of these sources discuss a controversial video of Babbitt which has prompted questioning, reinterpretation, or rejection of the narrative provided shortly after her death. Specifically I ask for an evaluation of their reliability for a discussion about the video which some want to see described on Shooting of Ashli Babbitt.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of those on a BLP/BDP and would be very unlikely to use them at all. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Are the first and last sources too unknown? What should I tell an editor who thinks one of them might work?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Have to concur with EvergreenFir -- controversial/FRINGE opinions with BLP implications requires good source, and these aren't good. Feoffer (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Two of the websites listed above are citing the Epoch Times as their source in turn. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources this is deprecated as "a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories". None of them look even remotely appropriate for anything controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Special interest venues without traditional editorial accountability are a twilight zone even when they don't address culture war issues. If these are the best sources, I don't think we can document the claims verifiably. Of the three, Christianity Daily seems the most interesting to discuss, but given their COVID-19 coverage, an RfC on them is not going to be pretty. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pile on with the above; none of these sources are particularly great for BLP-type sourcing, especially with controversial content. If you believe this is a matter worth covering in a Wikipedia article, find something that is trustworthy. --Jayron32 17:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Input and Inven Global for a BLP-related edit

(obligatory warning for potential of content inappropriate for anyone under 18 years; this is a personal preference) Furry fandom contains a statement about a YouTuber (a version of it is found in this diff) that is stepping on WP:BLP lines and the following two sources are given: Input and Inven Global. Are they reliable, especially for this? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you have wrong diff. I assume you mean the content concerning YouTuber 'Hypnotist Sappho'. In my opinion, the sourcing is poor, but that isn't really relevant, since the whole section is grossly undue. The claim that 'the internet' had any view on this at all is ludicrous, and the opinions of 'several furries' are of no significance whatsoever. If the Furry fandom article is to include content on zoophilia, it needs to be much better sourced than this, and based around a broader discussion of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I just picked a diff referring to a version of the article containing the statement since I thought I could do that. If that's wrong, then I'm sorry. I've found the diff with the statement being added with the WikiBlame tool. Anyway, yeah, I agree it is WP:UNDUE. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed the content in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Behind the Voice Actors

What is the reliability of Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA)? They are not user-generated content and they try to distinguish themselves from websites like IMDB and it also looks like they fact-check/verify their information with the primary source with a green tick. Past discussions here look like there is no clear consensus on BTVA. After this RfC, I think we should consider putting it on WP:RSP. Here are the past discussions [1], [2], [3], and [4].

• Option 1: Generally reliable for the voice or actor of a character/entertainment news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have No opinion on the reliability of the source… but 4 discussions over nine years is hardly perennial. Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• While it’s not as bad as IMDb, I’ve still seen the site be unreliable on a few different occasions, so I personally wouldn’t think it would be a great idea when using it as a reference or a source to back up anything because it isn’t always reputable. Unfortunately because of this, I would have to go with Option 3. SlySabre (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 I scrolled down and read "This is an unofficial site", which is somehow weird. Also too many advertisements and banners and there are no authors, we do not know who says what. I 'd suggest it 's better to avoid. Cinadon36 08:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• I reject such over generalizations. (invited by the bot) But on average, weaker than a typical RS. So e.g. generally strong enough to retain an uncontested contested fact, not strong enough to retain a contested one. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3: Immediately visible is a paragraph describing itself as a "community database", which means it likely is not as reliable as a page with a stated author(s) and preferably some kind of editorial team. Also as per Cinadon36, the bottom states that it is an "unofficial website" which is concerning and raises questions over its reliability. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 they claim to fact check and there are no examples specified of errors so it could be used for uncontroversial information in my virw, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is how I also feel about it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. As already noted, the website describes itself as "unofficial" in the footer alongside a note about copyrights and trademarks, which I interpret to be their attempt to make some kind of fair use claim. The home page describes it as a "community database"; I believe this means community-maintained, because when I navigate to the content guidelines, there is a note that: The BTVA site is run by a handful of volunteers who contribute content in their spare time as a hobby; the FAQ notes that: all the site staff either have jobs or are still in school. It is clear that not everyone can be a volunteer, because site visitors are instructed to request additions or changes to content via forum post, unless they are a voice actor making requests concerning their own content, in which case they are instructed to contact the site admin directly. There is a note in the FAQ that: If you prove yourself a reliable and trustworthy contributor who works well with others, then you may be invited to become a team member. Currently there are only 13 such individuals.[154]

Their FAQ suggests an extensive fact-checking process, and they claim: Our site is not perfect and we do make some mistakes, but unlike user submitted sites like imdb and wikipedia our sources come from official voice actor websites, voice actor resumes, DVD/Blu-ray ending credits and from conversations with the voice actors & voice directors who actually worked on the titles. If you notice any green checkmarks those are confirmed credits. Click the greencheck mark to see the source. Our goal is to have a green checkmark for every single role on the site so fans will know these credits are confirmed. Then you won't have to rely on other sites that don't list any sources at all. I found some pages that have these green checkmarks and clicked on them, which brought up screenshots of the show's credits, either taken directly from the animation or on the websites of distributors like Funimation. The FAQ notes, in the context of someone claiming that their credits lists for particular actors may be incomplete, that: Other sites might claim to be up-to-date but anybody can write words; gathering pictures and verifying credits takes a lot of time and effort. Listing another site isn't as helpful as you think it is. It's not going to make the work go any faster and chances are the site staff already know what hasn't been added yet. They note elsewhere that they sometimes receive conflicting information and conduct some kind of investigation when that happens.

My overall assessment is that for a website run by a dozen volunteers, they seem shockingly professional. I would say that any credits with a green checkmark are clearly reliable. Content without a checkmark should be treated with a little more skepticism, but even then I would say it is probably generally reliable unless we have specific reason to doubt its accuracy in a particular situation. Despite their unpolished presentation, they seem generally high-quality, certainly better than somewhere like IMDb or Wikipedia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the detailed review! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Streetsblog

What do people think about Streetsblog (and its sister, Streetfilms) as a RS? The obvious shallow answer is, "Blogs are not RS", but the name notwithstanding, this isn't really a blog in the typical WP:UGC sense. They do appear to have at least some editorial oversight. It's clear that they exist for advocacy, but that makes them not neutral, which isn't quite the same as being not reliable. I'd be interested in hearing other points of view.

My apologies if this is a repeat; I have a vague recollection of bringing this up before, but can't find it in the archives. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Despite the “blog” title, Streetsblog is edited journalism and should be evaluated as such. Caution is warranted, since so much of what it says is opinion, but it seems like it could be used for noncontroversial statements of fact. John M Baker (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources used for recent earthquakes

Editors trying to keep up with the latest earthquakes (on list of earthquakes in 2022 and list of earthquakes in 2021) have recently been making use of two new online sources. These are Risklayer Explorer and Erdbeben news. Risklayer is, as it says, "an independent think tank based in Karlsruhe, Germany. The Risklayer team is born out of the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany as well as the General Sir John Monash Foundation in Australia." It also says "Risklayer Explorer is a collaboration between Risklayer GmbH and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology's Center for Disaster Risk Management and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDM)" One of Explorer's products is the "Earthquake Impact Database", which usefully lists levels of damage, number of casualties and number of displaced people for all recent earthquakes of magnitude 4+ (as far as I can make out). This source, in my view is probably safe to use generally, particularly soon after the event. It would be good to track how they update information over time, though, as what they list could become outdated quickly. If you look at the staff, they have a "Disaster reporter" called Jens Skapski, who also runs "Erdbeben news", his own German language project. I can only presume that he is the one searching out the information on the recent events, which then appears in both sources. My suggestion is to continue to use Risklayer Explorer, but keep an eye on it, but to use that rather than Erdbeben news, which most users will have to translate anyway. I would be interested in any other views on these websites, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that anyone is using these sources preferentially to the USGS Earthquake Catelog, which as far as I know is scrupulously reliable? --Jayron32 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The ANSS catalog does not always provide details of damage and casualties, although they are of course a great source for earthquake parameters, such as magnitude, intensity, location, depth etc. We're particularly talking about events that appear in the list articles of earthquakes by year (such as those mentioned above) that are not sufficiently damaging or deadly to justify their own articles. I note, however, that the two sources are now being used in some recent earthquake articles, such as the 2022 Afghanistan earthquake. As Erdbeben news is a personal project, I think that we (as in WikiProject Earthquakes) should argue against its use; the same information unsurprisingly generally appears in Risklayer Explorer, so we really don't need it, assuming that we're comfortable with that source of course. Mikenorton (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: Well, as long as Erdbeben is being run by a subject matter-expect, which you indicate it is, there seems to be no reason to doubt that it's also reliable. The question of whether one should be preferred over another for various content or other reasons sounds like a conversation to have at the WikiProject level. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology a reliable source?

In particular, is Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic? (PDF) suitable for use as a source in our Cosmic ancestry article? 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:BCB8:477C:92DF:DE56 (talk)

No. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, that particular article is fringe nonsense. PBMB can be reliable elsewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the list of authors and their qualifications to be...interesting. But not is a good way. School of Veterinary and Life Sciences? History of Chinese Culture Foundation? Pestalozzi Gymnasium? Metallurgical & Materials Engineering IIT? Toronto General Hospital? School of Dentistry and Health Sciences? How are those related to Cosmic ancestry?

Related: Polonnaruwa (meteorite)

02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:BCB8:477C:92DF:DE56 (talk)

Law of 1389?

Sorry about this: at Lurcher, are (1) the text of this law of 1389 and (2) this dictionary from 1779 sufficient reliable sources for the text "The distinction in England between a greyhound and a lurcher was both legal and biological. Greyhounds and other hunting dogs could only be used to hunt legally by the privileged upper class who could show qualification by sufficient income or estate. Anyone else with a lower income was, from 1389, prohibited from hunting with any type of dog including the lurcher specifically named in the law as "lerce".?

In fairness, I should also also ask if the second paragraph of the History section in this revision is adequately supported by this:

• Edmund Russell (2018). Greyhound Nation: A Coevolutionary History of England, 1200–1900 (Studies in Environment and History). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139049269. (subscription required).

Thanks for any input. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think that Cambridge University Press is adequate source for the history section, and references to online tertiary sources are neither necessary or helpful. Actually, any Cam Un Press book is RS per WP guidelines. As for the first question, ancient laws or texts are not sufficient to back the specific text or almost any text in WP. I would suggest remove the sources. If there are editors opposing this suggestion, my next suggestion would be to or add a {{bcn}} template and keep it for a month or so. If no one finds a better source, then remove the text and the ancient source. Cinadon36 13:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• I tend to think not. The accuracy of Kelham has clearly been questioned as early as the mid-19th century when the word "lerce" was considered to more likely mean a hound bitch. I would tend towards what modern texts say over primary sources that are possibly mis-translated or misunderstood. I have two more modern sources that state the lurcher has been known since the 17th century. Cavalryman (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

References

I would like to point out that the law of 1389 concerns *types* of (hunting) dogs, not *gender*. The sex of any of these dogs would be immaterial to the practice of hunting. Please note my remarks on (some of) the inaccuracies of Russell's Greyhound Nation on the Talk page of "Lurcher". --Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hindu Post Reliability

There is a news agency called HinduPost. Recently my edit from the Anti-Hindu sentiment page was reverted stating that it is unreliable. I wanted to understand the reason. This is the article in question and I would also like to understand the general status of reliability for this website for future use. The statement requiring citation is "In 2019, Swaminarayan Temple in Kentucky was vandalised by miscreants. They sprayed black paint on the deity and sprayed 'Jesus is the only God’ on the walls. The Christian cross was also spray painted on various walls."Extorc (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

HinduPost definitely looks reactionary. There's a lot of that in India. For this particular story there are other more reliable sources, one is linked in the article. -- GreenC 20:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not much more than a more obscure OpIndia (RSP entry), so certainly not RS and should not be used anywhere. The website is rife with conspiracy theories, take for instance "global left-Islamist anti-Hindu cabal", Love Jihad ([155], [156]), conspiracy against Ayurveda ([157]), the 2020 Delhi riots being a "sinister anti-Hindu conspiracy", anti-vax nonsense, etc etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Allright, Thanks. Extorc (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The About us page seems to be one which says that the publication provides the correct perspective on issues concerning Hindu society. I'm not exactly sure what the correct perspective is, but the site appears to at minimum really not like the perspective provided in traditional media. Traditional media doesn't always get things right, but that doesn't make every piece of alternative media worthwhile. I'm not really convinced that this is a WP:NEWSORG with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's also not very clear that opinion pieces (see here) are labeled in a way to indicate that they are opinion, while HinduPost makes no claims of factual accuracy for pieces they publish. Their official stance is that HinduPost will not be responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information, or assume any responsibility or liability for the same. With that sort of disclaimer, I'd be hesitant to cite it for anything. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone scoop on involvement in Jan. 6

I know I was the closer of the recent Rolling Stone RfC that determined it unreliable for politics post-2011, but I want to have some clarification regardless. I have been expanding the Lauren Boebert article and stumbled across this piece. The gist of the article is that two people (identified here, as they were summoned to the January 6 commission) that were involved in organising the January 6 attack apparently told the Rolling Stone that they were coordinating the rally with the Trump White House and with some of the representatives which may together be reasonably described as crème de la crème of the far-right faction of the GOP. I've looked at the details, but the devil was nowhere to be found, and in general the article didn't seem to be off. This was reprinted by The Independent, PBS, Politico (unsure), The Chattanooga Free Press and other sources.

In short, the question is, may the Rolling Stone/derivative article be used for the claim that Boebert was among the people coordinating efforts to disrupt the electoral process on Jan. 6? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The RfC seems to have addressed this quite definitely in terms of whether we can/should use Rolling Stone as a source on this topic. But it seems fine to potentially use the other sources that have reprinted or otherwise referenced the RS article as they have staked their credibility on their work and presumably employed their editorial practices to what they have chosen to publish. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be a bit hesitant to use it and I'd push back on the notion that other sources are putting the reporting from Rolling Stone fully in their own voice. The Politico report notes that the allegations aren't really proven true (though it's in the abbreviated form of a newsletter) and it won't put the allegations in its own voice. The particular report from The Independent is sloppy; it says that the allegations were refuted by Taylor-Greene's staff member (the word is ambiguous upon first reading, but it really means "denied" when you read the quote) and it also attributes almost all of the stuff to the original Rolling Stone report (though it interestingly does not attribute that the organizers claimed to be in tough with a bunch of reps to Rolling Stone), while the piece from The Chattanooga Times Free Press is a labeled opinion piece (not exactly the best for this sort of thing). The PBS segment is just an interview with the freelancer who wrote the report; even the freelancer hedged on the truth of the claims made by the people he interviewed when he said the highest-level people in the White House were allegedly in contact with these organizers when describing the implications of his own reporting. There are a few places of overlap between this story and the sorts of stories that damaged the reliability of Rolling Stone: a freelance journalist reporting on a topic with significant sociopolitical implications where the key facts in the report haven't been confirmed by other outlets and the sources used when writing the story clearly feel aggrieved in some way by the subject of their allegations. The reporter himself has a decent track record—Hunter Walker was the Yahoo! News reporter for the White House during the Trump years—though I'd personally stay away from this particular report until there's a second report that can confirm the relevant details. If nothing else comes out that substantiates the allegations, then they probably aren't due for inclusion anyway unless there's a super large amount of coverage around these that persists further than other sorts of January 6 questions. If another report comes out from a reliable source and substantiates the allegations in its own voice, then I'd say to go for it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Mhawk, these other sources are not cosigning the Rolling Stone report with their own information; they are merely reporting on the allegations themselves; which is to say they are reporting that Rolling Stone made the allegations, not that the allegations have validity. I'd be wary of using them in any way that confirms or supports the Rolling Stone reporting. --Jayron32 17:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Once a secondary source reports on something, reliability depends on the secondary source and not the source they relied on. This is extremely standard - if we could second-guess sources by saying "well, I don't think they should have trusted X", then we could never use any source at all, because all reporting ultimately comes down to unpublished primary sources or studies. If the sources attribute their source then we should consider reflecting that attribution, but if they broadly treat it as fact in the article voice then we must do the same. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Except, the second source is not saying that the event happened. The second source is saying that Rolling Stone is reporting that the event happened. Those are different things. --Jayron32 11:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit which violates WP:SCHOLARSHIP

As noted in this discussion an editor is attempting to use a bachelor's thesis as a source, in violation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular question that this RSN thread is supposed to help answer, or is this just an invitation to look at the underlying discussion on Talk:Induced demand? — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nutritional information (Healthline/USDA)

This is in regards to Goji berry.

I wanted to add in nutritional information like how much iron, vitamin a, Melatonin etc in a serving of Goji. As the current article has absolutely zero information on nutritional profile. But my edit got removed as I was told my sources was unreliable.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-in-melatonin

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry

I was told that "WebMD and Healthline are not reliable sources, especially for nutrition analysis, as they are written by bloggers and are not peer-reviewed or subjected to editorial scrutiny."

However I don't agree with that claim as they're large reputable companies with articles written by real professionals. And we are not even arguing over soft sciences like whether or not vitamin C is healthy or not. We are arguing on more straightforward hard sciences on whether Goji has a certain level of vitamin C, etc and I highly doubt sources like WebMD and Healthline can get this basic thing wrong. As they are written by professional experts and reviewed by other experts.

There's no credible motive for WebMD and Healthline to go fake the nutritional macronutrient profile of goji. Especially When it's likely top labs have analysed it and published the information in journals which are referred to by these professional dieticians and scientists. Additionally a strong source - USDA database also supports all their statements (that Goji is high in fibre, iron, vitamin a, etc,) as being true. However the other editor told me that USDA is unreliable because it measures "commercial packaged" goji and they can lie. I find that claim absurd as USDA is the one that is responsible for measuring and ensuring that the correct nutrition label is given, and they're not corrupt or incompetent.

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients

On talk, we had debated in whether Healthline and WebMD are correct about the basic nutrition found in goji. I think they're correct and reliable but the other editor has disagreed and has not replied to the Talk discussion for over a week and why I am here for advice on whether Healthline is a reliable source.

The general information I want to add, is very simple. And as of below. No more and no less. I don't see the problem. .....

That they are a rich source in melatonin

https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-in-melatonin

And 5 tablespoons (28 grams) of dried goji berries pack (3Trusted Source):

Calories: 98 Protein: 4 grams Fat: 0.1 grams Carbs: 21.6 grams Fiber: 3.6 grams Sugar: 21.8 grams Iron: 11% of the Daily Value (DV) Vitamin A: 501% of the DV Vitamin C: 15% of the DV

A small serving of this fruit is loaded with fiber, iron, and vitamins A and C

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry

• Healthline and WebMD are not good sources. Saying a fruit is "rich in .." or "loaded with.." some substance isn't particularly informative either (if it's even correct). Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Okay. Thanks for the reply but straight to saying they're bad source without fair reasoning? Does that also apply to UDSA database? Are they also a poor source for Wikipedia too? They practically say the very same thing as Healthline and in fact, it's precisely what the Healthline article relied on.

And why is Healthline even a poor source? The authors in my source themselves are real people who have professional degrees in the field. And also finding out the nutritional content in a Goji berry, is hardly even rocket science. It's straightforward stuff that any competent food scientist Is able to measure reliably with modern technology. The Information is most likely correct.

Healthline uses the USDA database and even links to it transparently. So what proof do you even have that USDA database itself doesn't have the expertise or credibility to reliably measure the nutritional content in Goji berries?

If I cannot use Healthline because apparently editors have some distrust against them. What about USDA? https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients 49.186.66.28 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Also how is adding the nutritional information of a fruit, not informative? This is an encyclopaedia and it should inform people what the nutritional profile of a particular fruit is. People want to know how much sugar, fiber, iron, etc in a particular food item and they go to places like Wikipedia specifically to look that info up. 49.186.66.28 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect "accepted knowledge" so it's important trustworthy sources are used. USDA is of course reliable but they don't have any information on this berry to tell, so are just relaying (as they say) label claims. From other sources we know a lot of false claims about these berries have been made, so extra caution, if anything, is warranted. Can you find a good source? Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Again I disagree. They don't 'relay" info. They're not bloggers but are legally responsible for delivering and regulating accurate nutrition labels to the public. FSIS is the one responsible for the food products and their Nutrition labeling. The FDA themselves (guarantees) that majority of prepared foods sold in USA, such as packaged dried Goji berries are tested for safety and properly labeled for nutrition.

https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/aglaw/food-labeling

FSIS are the ones who "issue" any nutritional info label. If it has a label, it's been tested by them. They don't just take companies word for it but are the ones who test and inspect themselves. Did you expect differently? We can just give proper attribution to USDA as they are very unlikely to lie about this. Also the sources are not bigly claiming it can cure Diabetes in a week. Simply finding out what compounds are inside it. It is not even a huge overblown claim. I look at banana article and it had USDA database.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

Here are other direct scientists sources published in science journals. It also confirms the fruit is a good source in specific vitamins, etc

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2019/2437397/

49.195.81.81 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• The European Pharmacopoeia Supplement 10.7[158] has an entry for Goji ("Barbary wolfberry fruit"). This might have the nutrition info you are seeking, but I don't have access so cannot tell. I would avoid Chinese research into TCM as it is well-documented as being problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access too. But I had a look at the "peaches" and "Bananas" Wikipedia page and they also have a nutrition chapter with the USDA database. Should we remove all that info? I don't get why there seems to be a prejudice against Goji berries where there are double standards for wiki 'manual of style'. They should also have a professional USDA Analysis database for it too like other fruits. (USDA are publicly available to everyone).

Hence I propose roughly this:

Goji berries, dried

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy	1,460 kJ (350 kcal)
Carbohydrates	77.1 g
Sugars	45.6 g
Dietary fiber	13 g
Fat	0.39 g
Protein	14.3 g
Threonine	0.358 g
Isoleucine	0.261 g
Leucine	0.456 g
Lysine	0.233 g
Methionine	0.087 g
Cystine	0.144g
Phenylalanine	0.271 g
Tyrosine	0.222 g
Glycine	0.304 g
Vitamins	Quantity %DV†
Vitamin A equiv.	2978% 26800 μg
Minerals	Quantity %DV†
Calcium	15% 190 mg
Iron	38% 6.8 mg
Sodium	13% 298 mg
Other constituents	Quantity
Water	7.5 g
Cholesterol	0 mg
Link to USDA Database entry
†Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

Well, you'd need a reliable source. The USDA only relays "label claims" for a specific form of dried berry and so is not suitable. (By contrast, their entry for "banana" has their own analysis, so can be safely relayed as accurate). You came here to ask about the reliability of the source, and you have your answer. Maybe try the European reference. Alexbrn (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say on USDA it's a very specific form of dried goji berries. They were talking about dried goji berries in general and not in reference to any particular commercial brand. Similar to how they measure banana. No specific brands but just in general. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Against each entry where it says "label claim". This appears to be from a legacy database and it does not say which specific label made this claim. The entry for "banana" is not based on label claims but largely on USDA analysis. You may need to visit a library to access that European reference. It may help. Alexbrn (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You are the one claiming they test a specific brand but USDA doesn't say they only test a specific brand. And that's not what legacy means. It just means up to 2019, the data for Dried Goji Berries is updated up to that time and won't change.

"SR Legacy has been the primary food composition data type in the United States for decades. It provides a comprehensive list of values for food components, including nutrients derived from analyses, imputations, and the published literature. (SR Legacy, released in April 2018, is the final release of this data type and will not be updated.)

They are not some juvenile database but the most authoritative source for food nutrition information. They don't say they pick information from word of mouth but all info are carefully published from analyses, imputations, and the published literature. You seem to not be arguing in good Faith. Also in addition to USDA, you haven't really said anything on this Euro source I gave earlier. They do an in-depth study analysis of Goji berries and do support USDA analysis. Are they not reliable? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

The fact is USDA never said anything about a specific brand only. They measured dried goji berries in general. There's no reason why they would measure a very specific brand and not tell people about it. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"They measured dried goji berries in general" ← explicitly, they did not measure anything. The "Euro source" you mention doesn't appear to be in PUBMED, which is worrying. I have proposed a source which may help. I suggest you try that. I will not respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Movie-Locations.com

[159]

I saw this website, and thought that their contents are made by their own investigation, being appropriate to use to Wikipedia resources. But I would like to listen to other's opinion; I have little confidence whether my interpretation on WP:RS is right. Reiro (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The website claims to derive its content from a book of the same name, written by a man who claims to be an investigative journalist. (He doesn't appear to be notable, so I don't see a way to investigate the claim further.) Normally, I would assume that such works are reliable. My one reservation is that if you scroll down to the very bottom, it solicits "corrections or additions" and provides an email address, which is unusual. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Striking portion after further reflection. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

would like https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company to be considered reliable source

I understand that fandom.com has been discussed in the past and considered unreliable.

I just discovered https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company yesterday. One of the founders of the Vulcan Gas Company, Don Hyde, and I, a primary employee in 1969-70, consider this Fandom page accurate, and valuable because of the excellent collection of images of posters from 1967-1970. I cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company, not knowing that fandom.com had been considered unreliable, but my cite was undone.

I am requesting that an exception be made and citation to https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company be accepted. CharlieSauer (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't really see why Wikipedia should make an exception to the reliable sources guidelines based merely on an unverifiable assertion that the source is accurate. That would appear to make the guidelines more or less meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not subject to editorial control or fact-checking, and does not even begin to approach being a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the images are self-verifying -- they have names of bands, dates, signatures of poster artists. There well over 100 such self-verifying CC-BY-SA images contributed to https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company. Many would argue that those posters, and thus these images, are the most important enduring legacy of the Vulcan Gas Company. CharlieSauer (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. We don't need to use fandom.com to host them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I recognize that the images could be hosted elsewhere. Since whoever created the Fandom page has done it very well, and since there are 100+ images, not counting thumbnails, etc., rehosting the images again separately seems to be effort better spent otherwise. Rather than trying to integrate them into Wikipedia directly, it would probably be easier for me to host them separately from Fandom or Wikipedia, and that might even be appreciated by those who still discuss the historic Vulcan Gas Company on Facebook. CharlieSauer (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add it as an WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

While Fandom.com (and thus https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company) is clearly an unreliable source, it seems to me that the posters themselves are primary sources that can be cited within our constraints on citing primary sources (i.e., they may be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge). I don't see a need for them to be rehosted elsewhere, unless Fandom.com has a reputation for publishing fictional or altered sources. John M Baker (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a problem with an external link to the Fandom.com poster collection. The link should be clear that it's a link to a collection of posters, and not just to a Fandom.com article. (I'm not sure what our general policy is on external links to Fandom.com, but a link to a poster collection should be fine.) John M Baker (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Allsides.com

I don't think we've ever made a definitive decision about Allsides. I ran into just now being used at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration‎, specifically this post Is Wikipedia biased. I saw it said that "Studies have found Wikipedia employs left-wing bias in its word choice, relies more on left-wing news sources for its citations, and sanctions conservative editors at a 6 times higher rate" so I looked at the studies. They are a Wikipediocracy post[160] by Sashi, presumably the ArbCom banned SashiRolls, a Fox News hitpiece[161] and a Breitbart article {can't link to it}authored by none other than The Devil's Advocate, also banned. That article is based on something in The Critic (modern magazine)[162] which some people here may have seen, by two anonymous Americans. Anyway, if this is a typical example of Allsides research, I don't think we should ever use it. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion, for or against, on the reliability of Allsides. That said, I think that using a source's evaluation of us, and our opinion as to whether or not their sources, authors, or methodology are fair, as a way to determine whether or not the source is WP:RS, is a terrible approach. Everyone has bias, and people, including Wikipedians, are notoriously bad at noticing their own biases. So if source X says we are biased, it's simply the wrong starting place for evaluating the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It's using unreliable sources that have been deemed unreliable by the community. But in any case, reliability is not the default. The issue is whether Allsides is a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I would look at Allsides like the other media bias/reliability sites. They ultimately produce an opinion based on some method that may or may not be good to decide what is ultimately a semi-subjective/subjective answer. We should be willing to use those sites during RSN type discussions but shouldn't use them in the article space (ie, we shouldn't include Allsides's assessment of Huffington Post in the HuffPo article. We can use their assessment when discussing HuffPo's RSP entry. BTW, I think the same should apply to Adfontes, MediaBiasFactCheck etc. If they say something bad about Wikipedia it's not bad to check even if ultimately we don't agree (or do agree) with the concern raised. Springee (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking briefly at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration‎, I don't see how it is useful there. Even if we all 100% agree that Wikipedia is generally biased, heck, if we say it is badly biased, how does that help editors decide on article level changes to that article? I don't see how. Using the hypothetical 100% agreement, that should motivate changes to NPOV/IMPARTIAL related policies and possibly RS/V related policies/rules. I don't see how it would be readily applied at the article level. Springee (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of Wikipedia aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be three types of Allsides content. The first is their news stories (pages beginning with allsides.com/story) that follow a regular pattern: a single sentence description of the topic, a paragraph discussing the incident in more detail, and a paragraph characterizing each political side's news media's responses to that incident, followed by links to left-, center-, and right-leaning news article on the topic. Having read a small sample of these, I see no reason to doubt that these blurbs are reliable, although because they are so short, I see no reason why anyone would ever cite them. The second part of their content is rating the media bias of each website on a five-point scale (left, lean left, center, lean right, right). Clicking on the rating pulls up an article describing how this rating was reached. Having read a couple of them, these seem RS too. The third part is their perspectives blog (allsides.com/blog); the article DougWeller is asking about is part of this. Like all such articles, they should be governed by WP:NEWSBLOG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Fijan petroglyphs supposedly deciphered as ancient Hebrew

I want to draw attention/editors to Ndakunimba Stones, concerning petroglyphs in Fiji. The article states:

More recent versions say that the Rogovoka arrived from Egypt with the stone(s). In 2016, a team of scientists from Israel supposedly visited the site to compare the writings they had found in Israel and on the pyramid [sic] in Egypt with the stones. They identified the writing as Hebrew, based on a local explanation of one symbol as meaning "Y", representing Yahweh.

This statement is sourced from the newspaper The Fiji Times Dec. 2017: https://www.fijitimes.com/mysterious-writings-at-dakuniba/

My concerns are on the Talk page, namely that a newspaper is not a good source for an extraordinary claim about ancient history that has not been academically published. I have not found such a publication, nor any academic response to it. This response was seemingly not written by a linguist or epigraphist, and responds only to the newspaper, not to any peer-reviewed publication. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and not sure how to handle this situation. I apologize if I posted on the wrong noticeboard. 2601:441:4400:1740:3177:7AD6:4BF8:3864 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

These are good reasons to simply delete the content. Geogene (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Clearly either the Phoenicians or St. Brendan. Only possibilities. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the claims. Woodroar (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of a particular article by OpIndia

I know the reasons why OpIndia is blacklisted but i found this article by them which is mostly sourced from other reliable reports and this article just brings it together. I am not able to link the report in question here. It mostly states that One source from news18gujrati says that total 26 people's profiles were found in a clerics phone who is being investigated for criminal conspiracy. Another source lists the 10 names BS Patel, Pankaj Arya, ... Sajan Odedara and RSN Singh. I am wanting to know whether it is sensible to have this report whitelisted? If you are asking that why I am not using these links instead of getting a blacklisted website link whitelisted? I believe that because a website has a bias, and has peddled fake news and conspiracy theories some times, it doesn't mean that all of its reports are false, in fact I believe this report is totally legit. That's why I want to encourage acceptance for the content of the report. Extorc (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

you may use the source. it can be whitelistedLodoVena (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No you shouldn't be using it. Find a reliable source that covers the material. Also without looking at the links or article, please be aware of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.Slywriter (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter:Sadly Wikipedia policy prevents me from posting the link here, you can suggest some other way to me. The title of the article is "Kishan Bharwad case: 26 people were on target of Islamists, Maulvis including Yati Narsinghanand, Jitendra Narayan Tyagi alias Wasim Rizvi". Extorc (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extorc, reading the article only confirms it can not be used for WP:BLP.Slywriter (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter:Would you like to specify which part of the article itself violates WP:BLP, all core content policies mentioned in WP:BLP are followed here, WP:NPOV is followed because it is sourced from neutral sources, WP:V is followed because it is indeed coming from verifiable sources and it is no WP:OR. Extorc (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extorc,WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. You are using an article with no author from a blacklisted site. If you can not find other sources then there is nothing WP:DUE about the coverage and even if you find additional sources, accusations require solid, indisputable, wide-spread sourcing before they would ever be considered and even then, if the subject is not a public figure, the community consensus would still be to leave it out. Also please see WP:POINT because this seems to be more about trying to get a blacklisted site accepted than the content.Slywriter (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I understand you better now. Just to confirm my understanding, if this particular case wasn't WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, the argument from my side about the reliability of this information from OpIndia is okay? Also, this is WP:NOTPOINTy because i havent disrupted anything yet, i am just trying to engage in discussion. "blacklisted site accepted" -> It is indeed about getting this particular link whitelisted but i dont want the entire site to be accepted, I know the reason why it is blacklisted. Extorc (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If a blacklisted site is the only source you can find than no, it will be WP:UNDUE since no one else is discussing it.16:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Background. It has been claimed none of the below sources are reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by any of the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier". Further, it has been claimed that citing them is WP:OR, [163][164][165][166]. Discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and WP:FRINGEN#Staffordshire Bull Terrier have failed to reach a consensus.

Sources that directly support the former names

Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. ... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ... Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”. Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811. This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” These sources are further corroborated by almost all kennel clubs that provide an historical summary of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The American Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. "Extended breed standard of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" (PDF). The Australian National Kennel Council. 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier". "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The Canadian Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier... "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Does not really address the issue but the below brochure does. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and its ancestors (PDF) (Exhibition brochure). The Kennel Club Art Gallery. 2014. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier.

The below sources and specific quotes have been claimed to refute the sources above.

Sources claimed to refute the above

Parker, Heidi G.; Dreger, Dayna L.; Rimbault, Maud; Davis, Brian W.; Mullen, Alexandra B.; Carpintero-Ramirez, Gretchen; Ostrander, Elaine A. (2017). "Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development". Cell Reports. 19 (4): 697–708. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.079. PMC 5492993. PMID 28445722. ... when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. Flaim, Denise (8 October 2020). "Bull Terrier History: Behind the Breed". The American Kennel Club. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.” Some ambiguous language used by the United Kennel Club, an explanation is provided here. "Bull Terrier". The United Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England. "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The United Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's.

Question. Are the sources detailed in the top box considered reliable and specifically are they reliable to cite the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes all of the sources are reliable and yes they are reliable for citing the claim the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by all of the various names listed above. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hasn't this question already been asked at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How is this not forum shopping? Damn, I was about to note that Talk:Bull and terrier had not been edited since 2019 and suggest that these discussions continue there, when you started this!! wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, there has been no determination on the reliability of the sources. This is just to seek a determination about whether the the community considers these sources reliable, I believe the discussions have broken down because of a refusal to accept their reliability (or potential lack of). Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Wow - a malformed RfC improperly worded to get the answer you want? The fact that you already failed to gain consensus at 2 other venues over this same issue needs an admin's attention. If this isn't forum-shopping with a splash of TE, then I don't know what is. I've seen editors get t-banned for far less than what you've been doing for over a week now. Atsme 💬 📧 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the sources in the first box are WP:TERTIARY (Atlas, Dictionary, Encyclopedia). These are down-scale quality. Some are also quite old. It may be there are two perspectives: traditional cultural understanding, and scientific/DNA analysis. Thus it is possible both are right, depending on context. Stuff like this is best handled with careful prose. Report what we know including contradictions. -- GreenC 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment(invited by the bot) You basically have wp:RS's saying somewhat conflicting things. IMO your solution isn't going to come from deciding on inclusion or exclusion of sources based on policy. I certainly would not knock either claim or source based on that. Most likely you'll need to say both with attribution. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that the sources are reliable for saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly called the sundry names given above. This has been hashed out a few times now, and I'm familiar with the arguments out forth. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Trout and close. Why is this RfC even here? It's as if this page didn't have instructions at the top about what it's for` and how to post. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, these appear in reliable secondary sources. There are a few sources that disagree, so they should be referenced as well with their point of view.--Seggallion (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wire (India) relaible source

The Wire (India) is a relaible source to be used as a reference for Indian Politics et al ?LodoVena (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What is a "relaible" source, and how does that differ from reliable sources? wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is criticism of an op-ed unreliable if the critic is wrong on other topics?

Myself and @UnbiasedAgent: have reached an impasse at Talk:Marty Makary#Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022 over whether the reliability of a source depends on the accuracy of claims other than the claim the source is used to cite. There are related concerns about neutrality, but I'm hoping to narrowly address the question of source reliability.

This diff includes the disputed claim The article's estimates of population immunity were criticized for being higher than the best available data supported, source, and editor's rationale for removal: Removed out reference to HealthFeedback article. That article quotes public health figures in regards to T-Cell immunity not being protective and that has not been borne out by the data. Suggest editor find another source of information. @UnbiasedAgent: also described their view on the talk page as I don't mind critiques, but you can't use critiques from people who also got a lot of things wrong in the pandemic. Jha, Faust, Fauci, etc...they have all been wrong on various things and using critiques from them really doesn't seem neutral or unbiased. Happy to hear how you think the critique should go, but what was there just doesn't cut it. It reeked of an attack.

I disagree that an otherwise notable and accurate critique of the accuracy of a specific claim should be dismissed because the critic was incorrect about another topic. This seems to be a case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in analyzing sources. Perhaps there is another WP:PAG that applies here, but I have not seen one mentioned yet. My support for the source is primarily based in WP:PARITY that the disputed claim was made in an op-ed, rather than a peer-reviewed study, so a WP:SECONDARY source referring to peer-reviewed science is a suitably roust source for rebuttal. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)