Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: WikiLeaks

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 Quote: Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active.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

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

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

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

Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)

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

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

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

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

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

  Never trust anything you read from unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia article you are citing, Wikileaks has promoted a conspiracy theory "that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange". On its face, it looks like this content was added by some POV pusher who did not consider the context.

  If one actually reads the source, it is a Snopes fact-check about a Tweet by Wikileaks. The tweet actually promotes a claim in a report by True Pundit, which attributes the droning claim to "State Department sources". Snopes considered the claim questionable, but was unable to disprove it, rating the claim "Unproven". Clinton did not categorically deny the claim; according to Snopes, Clinton did not "recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke". Moreover, Snopes based its analysis on some governmental documents published by Wikileaks without questioning their authenticity, which undercuts your argument that Wikileaks is unreliable. Politrukki (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 (WikiLeaks has a strong record of validating documents) and Option 2 (additional considerations apply when using these documents). Option 2 is the obvious answer. WikiLeaks hosts various types of leaked documents. It's impossible to give one single rating to all the documents, because they're so different from one another. If ever there was a case of "additional considerations apply", this is it. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying the authenticity of the documents it publishes, and I don't think there is any known case of WikiLeaks having published fake documents (contrary to the evidence-free speculation by some editors above). Some of WikiLeaks' publications are extremely well known and have been vetted by numerous other organizations: the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs and the Syria Files come to mind. The reliability of the claims made in any of these documents would have be be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote the document, the claim being sourced, etc. Most of the documents are also primary sources, which would obviously affect how they can be used. As I said, additional considerations apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (Updated based on Szmenderowiecki's clarification of what the options mean. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC))
• Option 4, per Aquillion. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I don't see any evidence that WikiLeaks has falsified information. I see the claim that they are "rabid", but not that they are unreliable; the political opinions of the people who run a website do not magically make the content on it unusable. Sure, it is great to back it up with a second reference to another RS, but that's true of basically anything. The claim that "well, I think the New York Times is trash because they're a bunch of libs" doesn't cast substantial doubt on the fact that, generally, the NYT is a reliable source for factual statements; I don't see why it is any different for WL. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (with overlap in opinion on the question to Thucydides411). And I'm just spitballing here, but — I would recommend looking at potentially some sort of time divider similar to Newsweek here, because I think they had a much better reputation for integrity pre-2016 (or so). --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. I have had enough of this bullshit. This is not actually a RS quesiton, it's an attempt by the Assangites to crowbar Wikileaks into the project in defiance of a blindingly obvious WP:UNDUE failure, but their determination makes it necessary to be unambiguous. No. We absolutely do not include stolen copies of primary sources published on a site that has been a Russian intelligence asset for at least five years, because of course we fucking don't. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Wikileaks has a process for verifying documents prior to publication. It has published an enormous number of documents and, while there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents, I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. It is clear why some people or organisations would like to claim Wikileaks is unreliable. The documents themselves should be treated as primary sources. Any statements or claims made within the documents published by Wikileaks may be erroneous but that is a separate matter. Burrobert (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Burrobert Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Wikileaks verifies the authenticity of documents before releasing them, which accounts for sometimes lengthy delays between receiving and publishing them. There are no verified cases of any of the documents released being fraudulent. That is a higher standard than most reliable sources. That of course does not mean that that the information in the documents is necessarily accurate, since that depends on the original authors. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per Aquillion, JBchrch, and MjolnirPants. Wikileaks itself is a collection of raw primary source documents (raising serious WP:OR issues when used directly), and the organization itself has questionable reliability and processes. Any information from them should be cited though reliable journalistic sources (i.e. not-Wikileaks), which could be counted on to do their own fact checking. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 Wikileaks is a reliable repository of authentic leaked government and business documents. Wikileaks has an extensive partnership with the best journalists in the world. The United States diplomatic cables leak for instance are genuine US government embassy reports. The usage of the different stored documents needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on policies concerning the usage of government and business sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Wikipedia has a process for verifying the authenticity of documents. If the authenticity is verified and there is no other appropriate source that can be used then I see no reason why wikileaks should not be ok as a source. However its usage should be strictly limited to cases where the authenticity of the document is verified and its the only available source. RedAlert 007 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to this section from discussion by Alaexis_¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
• Option 2 I can't think of a single case where a document released by wikileaks has been fabricated which rules out 3 and 4 for me, however due to the sensitive nature of the material they often release editors should be extra judicious in their use of the source and use RS analyzing the releases if possible. Additionally, attribution should always be required. BSMRD (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It might be reliable on some cases, but it acts as an primary source, and therefore it should be cited with related reliable news sources if necessary. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Julian Assange's controversial remarks about the Murder of Seth Rich [1] should disqualify Wikileaks from being used as a source for anything. It's unclear whether WL has any independent editorial control outside of Assange. Geogene (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 I'm unware of Wikileaks of ever fabricating government documents and does its best to verify the authenticity of documents before it releases them, hence 1. But I can understand how it would be treated as a WP:PRIMARY where then I'd lean towards 2. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or basically fine as long as used with attribution. I'm especially not seeing much justification for Option 4, which is presumably near-deprecation, as Nils Melzer of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture etc. (often cited as an expert/significant opinion) considered Assange to have 'never hacked, stolen or published false information, nor caused reputational harm through any personal misconduct'. The debates on reliability look politicised, as in most of the criticism comes from the countries that have something to lose from the leaks. And even then, there are still US outlets that would vouch for its authenticity. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1; qualified that Wikileaks is a publisher of information and "reliability" means that Wikileaks doesn't lie about or alter the contents of what they distribute and that they generally publish stolen primary sources. The fact a document has been stolen doesn't mean it's unreliable, but it means we should use extra care when citing it. Likewise when the documents they publish are primary sources. When Wikileaks doxxes people we shouldn't use it as a source. We shouldn't be giving it WP:UNDUE weight above other primary sources either. And the fact Wikileaks is reliable does not mean the documents they publish are actually reliable. If Wikileaks publishes a Chinese govt source talking about how the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists, that's not going to be a reliable source for the claim that the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists as the Chinese govt is unreliable there. I'd also qualify that stuff from the really early days of Wikileaks when they were actually a Wiki isn't reliable.

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible ([2]), but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's a selective application of an impossible standard of accuracy, in spite of no evidence of actual tampering. Also, they do have a verification process, as noted by Burrobert earlier [3]. Alaexis_¿question? 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DoctorTexan, I've copied your vote to the survey section. If this wasn't your intention, please remove it from there or let me know and I'll revert myself. Alaexis_¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Leak Again

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

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

And our article at COVID-19 misinformation currently says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • And I guess Science now allows peer-reviewed publication of "conspiracy theories" by David Relman Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable [4] 2601:602:9200:1310:1C00:1701:D1FF:B995 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a letter. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory! The TRUTH is out there!! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Guy Macon WP:NPA applies to you as well. I have no time for the conspiracy that it's intentional, nor do I personally believe it originated in a lab. I happen to think that there's enough coverage to warrant mentioning. Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • There is sero evidence that I was talking about any Wikipedia editor as opposed to making a general statement. The phrase "Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory!" clearly refers to those who believe in conspiracy theories. I have a lot of evidence that such people exist elsewhere on the Internet, but of course no Wikipedia editor has ever believed any conspiracy theory. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Jeppiz: We seem to be mostly in agreement. It is worth mentioning. That's why I've made sure it gets reasonable mentions where it's WP:DUE. However, [this reverted edit] doesn't appear to be due. There's a reason we don't spend much time discussing the details of the zoonotic event on the already incredibly long COVID-19 article, and a reason why we have the entire Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article. Please don't jump to conclusions about these edits, and focus instead on where particular info is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Bakkster Man:, thanks. You're right my edit that you link to may have been too strongly worded. It was a bit provoked by the less-than-optimal revert reason ("crappy sourcing") but I should have been a bit more nuanced myself. I agree WP:DUE is relevant when discussing this hypothesis and it shouldn't be given too much coverage, no argument there. Jeppiz (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
              • @Jeppiz: The "crappy sources" comment, while brusque, was actually probably correct. I'll point out that the original revert comment citing WP:PROFRINGE was probably more appropriate, and the revert afterward returning the content cited the politically-slanted (aka, potential crappy source) National Review.

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

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

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

Guy Macon: A Letter in Science indeed is a peer-reviewed article. See their submission guideline. --Luminoxius (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, a letter is not the same as a peer-reviewed article. Even the specific guidelines you've linked from this journal say that letters "may be reviewed" [emphasis added]. And a letter - an opinion piece - is not the same as an article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. The Science Peer-Reviewed Research Manuscript category includes Research Articles, Reports, and Reviews, but does not include Perspectives, Book/Media Reviews, Policy Forum posts, or letters, all of which are in the Commentary category and not in the Peer-Reviewed Research Manuscripts category.

From the page you cited:

"Commentary material [includes letters] may peer reviewed at the Editors' discretion... Letters (up to 300 words) discuss material published in Science in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply... Letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space."

So not only are Science letters not necessarily peer reviewed, they may be edited and thus are not always the exact words of the letter writer. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I should've read more carefully! --Luminoxius (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Well, you'd have misread the sources last month and you're misreading the sources now. The situation has not swung from "excluded" to "included" but has remained at a steady position of being a remote possibility. What seems to have changed is the kind of media coverage and levels of political agitprop (there's some news guy in the USA who's been promoting this I believe?). The actual evidence has not changed; neither have the WP:BESTSOURCES. Wikipedia shouldn't be blown around by the mood in low-quality sources when serious ones are holding firm. Alexbrn (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, claiming that Science, Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald are "low-quality sources" is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about here. It's really time for you to stop putting yourself up as the expert who decides on this (WP:OWN very much applies). Our task here is to report what reliable sources say. Again, nobody has suggested claiming that Covid did originate in a lab, merely that we stop censoring any mention of the hypothesis that it might have done. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald are poor sources for scientific claims. The popular press has a terrible record on accurately reporting scientific topics, and in this case, there's the additional geopolitical factor to consider (American and Australian attitudes towards China in general). If ever there were a subject that cried out for only using the highest-quality sources, it's the lab leak conspiracy theory. We should be sticking to what high-quality WP:MEDRS sources say. If MEDRS sources change, then our coverage will naturally change, but citing MEDPOP sources that contradict MEDRS sources is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there isn't currently no consensus on whether the lab leak hypothesis constitutes a "conspiracy theory" or whether it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". Consensus, obviously, can change in light of new coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but I don't think that the lab leak hypothesis has become less accepted since the time of that RfC. On another note, I agree that we should evaluate this in line with WP:SCHOLARSHIP and that we should strive to use the highest-quality sources available to describe a given topic. News reports that contradict peer-reviewed journal articles should not be given undue weight relating to those facts.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you are either not paying attention or abjectly lying. No one has said that Science is a "low-quality source," they've said that a letter to the editor is a low-quality source. The fact it was published in Science is irrelevant, it's just a letter and that makes it no more reliable than a blog post. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

About this letter in Science. It bemoans that the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident. Why exactly would they be given more "balanced" consideration? To my understanding, analyses over the past year such as this one have generally indicated that zoonotic origin is what the evidence is pointing to and that a lab leak or bioweapon origin is just a hypothesis without current evidence. Now, more investigation would be nice. The WHO did say this was a possible thing that happened. But I don't think they're in the business of chasing fairies, bluntly put. If previous analyses indicated it was highly unlikely, and their investigation indicated that too, they're bound to dedicate more resources to investigating the more likely. I would also like to point out that while a lab leak (as perhaps an intermediary between a zoonotic origin and an outbreak, if I worded that correctly) and a bioweapon origin (the pet conspiracy theory of some) are different, the distinction is not totally clear to much of the public and some advocates of the latter conspiracy theory seem to be promoting the former so they can get a boost for the bioweapon idea.

Anyhow, this is all to say: I think this letter in Science, aside from not being an actual scientific paper, fundamentally has misread the situation. Previous scientific analyses are to my understanding why the WHO has given one theory more weight. --Chillabit (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• This Reuters article is unreliable for medical claims. Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS standards. It's just more circumstantial evidence. The WSJ used as their source a U.S. government intelligence report. The U.S. government has a history of lying about COVID-19 issues (Trump and Pompeo in particular, but at this point I don't trust the U.S. government at all on this issue). Interestingly, Fauci has been more open to the lab leak idea lately. But even with Fauci changing his mind, him making unofficial statements and giving his personal opinion is not MEDRS. I think that sticking to MEDRS has been great for keeping conspiracy theories out of the encyclopedia, and I would not be comfortable speaking more positively about the lab leak idea in Wikivoice until we get a review article from a MEDLINE-indexed journal that speaks about it credibly. So far, no such article exists that I am aware of. Of course, this issue is complicated because this is a case of there being a massive disagreement between what medical journals are saying, and what WP:NEWSORGS are saying. But I feel that we should stick to MEDRS to the letter here. MEDRS is our best and most accurate way to evaluate scientific consensus, and I trust scientists way more than non-scientists on this highly-politicized issue that has government manipulation fingerprints all over it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• To mirror the above simply: it may be a reliable source that several people from a particular workplace were hospitalized at a particular time, but the source does not link this illness to COVID-19 and therefor is almost certainly inappropriate WP:SYNTH to include in the locations people want to include it. I'll also note, the WSJ is citing an intelligence report, which those most skeptical of the Joint WHO-China study's findings should take with an equally large grain of salt. Best to independently verify such an illness, as the source the WSJ reported on could itself be WP:DISINFO. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not even a reliable source for that. Anonymous intelligence sources making vague claims are not reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• First of all: this is not a biomedical claim per WP:BMI and therefore WP:MEDRS should not be required to source such a statement (otherwise we would need a review to publish anything on this subject). In this case we just need reliable sources per WP:RS. Secondly: it is important to distinguish the conspiracy theory that the virus was created purposefully in a laboratory from the very realistic and plausible theory that the virus is of natural origin but accidentally escaped from a lab that was studying it. This second theory is a possible origin for the virus and is being investigated by the WHO as a possible origin for the virus [5] The WHO considers this a possible although "extremely unlikely" origin for the pandemic (this would also be a WP:MEDRS source by the way). Also, this estimation has been heavily criticised in this recently published letter on science which states: [6] As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. The mentioned sources are accusing the WHO of not investigating sufficiently the accidental lab leak hypothesis and believe China is not being sufficiently transparent. Therefore: the accidental lab leak hypothesis is scientifically sound and considered possible by the WHO, the scientific community and several major world governments. There is substantial consensus that it should be thoroughly investigated further and may very well be the origin of the pandemic (which is currently unknown). Wikipedia's articles should reflect this consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I've been aiming to make sure that the relevant articles do reflect that the scientific theory gets its due credibility (particularly, that it is possible, albeit unlikely) on the pages it's WP:DUE. Where do you think this isn't done?

More to the point, you've indicated a lot of significantly better sources directly related to the topic. Why do you think this source, which comes from an intel agency and doesn't directly reference COVID, is a more WP:RS than those others? That's the questions here, not whether the lab leak happened or not, just what sources are reliable regarding the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I think it isn't clear exactly what claim that source is being attached to. It is a WP:RS however. If we want to use it to claim that Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report. this is appropriate. Only where such detail would be WP:DUE obviously. I think we should add the overall assessment about the virus origin to the COVID-19 consensus notice to avoid such discussions repeating forever: the virus that causes COVID-19 is believed to have zoonotic origins. How the virus was first transmitted to humans (spillover) is currently unknown. Accidental lab release is one of the possible hypotheses being investigated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The original post here referred specifically to whether it's a reliable source for the purposes of changing the above articles to give more credence to the lab leak theory. So far I haven't seen anyone present them accurately for this purpose either: "WSJ shared information from a US intelligence report that researchers were hospitalized in November" is reliable sourcing (questions of DUE depending on the location), but "the lab leak hypothesis is increasingly compelling" is not reliable sourcing (let alone DUE or NPOV).

I agree that consensus would be good, but where that discussion starts and whether we reach an actual consensus seems less certain to me. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: In that sense I think no, this source does not add anything as we have better sources. We can source the accidental lab leak using the better sources that exist (WHO, Science, etc.). We should use those. But this discussion has derailed at this point. I think it would be helpful to collect some consensus into the COVID-19 consensus notice to avoid repeating discussions such as this one ad nauseam. We can wait the end of this discussion or maybe table it on the COVID-19 Wikiproject talk page? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Agreed, this discussion isn't going to change anything. Regarding an RfC, I'd participate but don't have high hopes. The previous RfC (on the misinfo page, which prob didn't help) didn't get anywhere, and we now have the WHO report and current status quo (zoonosis is mainstream, inadvertant leak is fringe, intentional release is conspiracy) that I can't imagine would change given an RfC that hasn't already been hashed out across multiple Talk pages. Maybe worth trying, in order to hope we could point to consensus for later conversations, I just doubt it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Statements about China emanating from the US government (including Fauci) that are not supported by hard evidence are completely unreliable. Someone (I forget who) said that in war the first casualty is truth. That's also true of cold wars, such as currently between the US and China, with both political parties in the US competing to establish their anti-China bona fides. China similarly circulates conspiracy theories about the US that are properly discounted on Wikipedia. Neither government is reliable for such matters. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A bit beside the point, but I fear it would a rather strong false equivalence to claim that US officials, even non-politicale experts, should be treated as no more reliable than the Chinese government. I'm certainly not saying the US are always right, but there's a considerable difference between a democracy with a free press and a one-party dictatorship with state-censored media. Jeppiz (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no historical basis for claiming that US officials are more reliable for extraordinary, politically charged accusations such as this than officials of any other country. See Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When both major parties in the US unite in demonizing a rival government, normally the "independent" press largely falls in line, free press notwithstanding. In such cases one can often find reliable coverage in Western (such as Canadian or British) media, but rarely in the mainstream US media, no matter how reliable those US media sources are for other matters. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable for MEDRS claims, which this is. The point raised above about WP:SYNTH is also appropriate. And no, letters to the editor of Science are not the same as peer-reviewed journal articles published in Science, let alone review articles. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - there's people here linking to WP:BMI as "proof" that this isn't a biomedical claim that requires MEDRS. Maybe we should quote the longstanding consensus text of that page here: Population data and epidemiology. If we include this information, we are by necessity implying that it's connected to COVID-19 - meaning we are implying a connection to the population data and epidemiology of the beginning of the pandemic. That's not allowed. If we don't make that connection, then it's not due weight to include in any of our articles about COVID-19 because it's not connected in any way (at least not that we can MEDRS). That's why this is a MEDRS issue - because if we assume it's not a MEDRS issue, then we cannot make any BMI claims with it, and then we arrive at a due weight issue that is impossible to repair, thus the only feasible way this content could be included is if it is MEDRS sourced and related to the epidemiology of the disease. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Some people caught a disease last year" isn't epidemiological data any more than the statements Based on remarks by Plutarch, Caesar is sometimes thought to have suffered from epilepsy. [7], or In October 2017 the deadliest outbreak of the plague in modern times hit Madagascar, killing 170 people and infecting thousands. [8], the latter is sourced to the Wall Street Journal. The statement On 7 July 2020, Bolsonaro said that he had tested positive for COVID-19. [9] is sourced to CNN. Geogene (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Until we have a MEDRS source that these people were actually sick with COVID-19 (let alone that they were exposed due to an escape of lab-culture viruses), then it doesn't matter how strong the source is for claims that three people went to the hospital. It doesn't belong on the COVID articles without a better source indicating the link (that would be WP:SYNTH and WP:PROFRINGE). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There are SYNTH, WEIGHT, and overall source quality issues with it, and that's sufficient without trying to misapply MEDRS as a cudgel. Geogene (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of playing out the hypothetical, what kind of situation would you envision where such a claim could be sourced without MEDRS while discussing the origin of the outbreak? Because on the one hand, I agree that for the purpose of identifying early cases (generally confirmed via PCR test) we have appropriately used general purpose (non-MEDRS) sources. It's the use for "see, the virus did leak from the WIV" claims that I feel should be held to the higher MEDRS standard. Because then it's no longer just a historical retelling of the pandemic (not MEDRS), it's a specific claim about the epidemiological source of the outbreak (MEDRS). But I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Geogene. This isn't BMI. The origin of the pandemic will not be discovered through "science" at this point. If it was accidentally released from a lab we would find out through a newspaper/authority investigation more likely. Not though published reviews in medical journals. This is an historical event at this point. Not a medical event. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, um, what? No. You have that backwards - the origin hasn't been determined through science yet, but it will be determined through science, and after it is determined through science it will then within a couple years be historical. To say that a pandemic that is still ongoing is a "historical event" is laughable, at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been the PR:PROFRINGE POV-pushers gambit of late, certainly. I recall some (now banned?) editor pushing the view that COVID-19 was rampant in California in 2019 as sourcable by anything because it was "history"! Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: If the spillover event happened in a lab you will need an investigation. Not peer-reviewed papers. You'll probably discover it by interrogating people and examining (obfuscated) records at this point. The history of the pandemic is not WP:BMI. How the virus originated has no impact on human health. The virus exists no matter how it originated and its impacts on human health are unchanged. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, BMI is not limited to things that have some "direct impact on human health". And yes, investigations into the origin of a disease (when ongoing and not cemented) do have a direct impact - if a lab leak is discovered or believed, it is going to lead to changes/re-certifications/updates in medical and laboratory practices around the world. So even that argument falls flat. But no, something that isn't fully decided yet is not "historical" by any means. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto:, I have to tell you, this is a favorite gambit for the conspiracy-friendly in my experience. Push the goal posts so that even if a credible investigation is done and clears the Wuhan lab, some can continue to say "Well China just destroyed the evidence!" That's why I would tell you instead, that any useful or credibly investigation would state its goals ahead of time, and what evidence it would find convincing in either direction. And it would also include sampling in the wild, to actually find progenitor viruses. If we eventually develop a fully fleshed out parsimonious phylogeny that connects known bat viruses to SARS-CoV-2, that will be enough to settle the science and the consensus will show through. That will be published in a scientific journal. But it probably won't be enough for politicians and POV-pushers. We've seen this game before in the story of evolution v. intelligent design. For some people, there will likely never be enough evidence. Doesn't mean that the dust won't eventually settle for 99% of society, though. The truth will likely be published in an evolutionary virology journal, which details the exact path of viral evolution that led to this spillover. It's how it happened with Ebola, it's how it happened with SARS. It will likely be the same for SARS-CoV-2.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BMI: Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health.. The whole point of WP:MEDRS is to raise the standard for sourcing of BMI to ensure we don't use single papers but reviews and avoid inaccurate information that might be dangerous for human health. Are you saying that if a peer reviewed article was published on Science tomorrow with conclusive evidence of the origin of the virus it would not be sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is not a systematic review? That's what WP:MEDRS says. There is no direct risk for human health here if the virus is a bioweapon as the conspiracies say or if the virus was caught by someone eating a pangolin. WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCE are sufficient. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS does not preclude the use of non-review articles for medical topics, it simply establishes a hierarchy of evidence, like we have for all other RS. Especially when primary articles are secondarily reviewing content such as in introductions and discussions. It's a lot muddier than you're making it sound. MEDRS also, by the way, includes position statements from national or international expert bodies, which almost certainly would follow any such publication, and be the best possible source to establish the consensus of scientists on scientific questions. You go with the RSes you have, until you have better. Regarding the specific nature of the viral origin (sequence similarity to a sample found in a lab, biochemical aspects of the viral spike protein, contact tracing, identifying similar viruses in an animal, etc. basically all of epidemiology and epidemiological investigations), clearly the best source would be secondary comments published in scientific journals, which occur at the same time as primary source publication. Example: New finding. Comment on that finding. Secondary commentary and follow-up reviews in scientific journals make sense for these questions, because they are questions of science. And the reviews/position statements that follow shortly thereafter would trump both. You also say There is no direct risk for human health here, and that may be true. But the direct in that sentence is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. There are a number of studies directly linking these conspiracy theories to vaccine distrust and overall devaluation of experts, which both result in demonstrable negative health outcomes. What we say matters in things like this. Using the highest quality RS, and for questions of science, MEDRS, makes sense.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: While reasonable minds might differ, given the prevalence of conspiracy and misinformation around the topic, I think this can reasonably be perceived as relating to human health. From the American Academy of Family Physicians: Many members of the public, including HCWs, have been exposed to conspiracy theories (especially on social media) such as the claims that novel coronavirus was intentionally created by the government or that health organizations have exaggerated COVID-19’s lethality for pharmaceutical and political gain. Such misinformation calls into question authorities’ integrity and undermines efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.[10] At least in an instance where MEDRS sources are at odds with news media sources, this seems reasonable to prefer the MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

{re|Bakkster Man}}@Shibbolethink: I agree with both. Of course we should always strive for the WP:BESTSOURCE available. This is an example. We already have the WHO (which is WP:MEDRS) and a letter to Science (which while not peer-reviewed is a pretty good source) stating that the accidental lab leak hypothesis is possible (the WHO specifically thinks it is "possible but extremely unlikely"). We don't need lesser sources (such as this one). We already have pretty strong and solid scientific consensus. However my point is: I wouldn't stretch WP:MEDRS to cover such a topic. It is unnecessary and a bad precedent. We just need good WP:RS (as always) and should just pick the best ones available of course. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, "some people caught a disease last year" isn't due weight for any article on Wikipedia. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• This remains a simple question of truth versus WP:V. The WP:V answer is that it was not a lab leak, for reasons explained here. Logic and reason say that it was a lab leak, for reasons explained here. By adopting the policies that we have chosen to adopt, we are putting false info into our articles. That's on us. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  We operate on scientific consensus for WP:V - which is why the answer is it was not a lab leak. Regardless of the flimsy science with many holes that you believe (and a few scientists believe), the vast majority of scientists agree that it isn't likely to be a lab leak. It's not "logic and reason" - it's "flimsy logic, and logical fallacies". But yes, it is Wikipedia's policy that Verifiability over "truth" - and it's not appropriate to use individual discussions about application of those policies to attempt to change them just because you think it's "false info" (hint: it's not). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. We don't get to throw out bedrock policies whenever we feel like it. Invoking "logic and reason" like this is no better than "wake up sheeple!". XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have, never once, in my entire life, ever seen an argument of the form "logic and reason say X" in which the actual logic and reason to which the arguer is referring isn't just complete and total crap, hence why they insist upon making such generic pronouncements as "logic and reason say X". And yes, that includes literally every time Ben Shapiro has used the phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about specific changes on the page, but the source per se (and other sources that say the same, i.e. CNN, etc.) are strong RS. Whatever they say about it should be included per WP:NPOV. This is NOT a medical claim and not a scientific claim. This is merely a question if a lab worked with the certain bats or certain zoonotic virus during certain period of time. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Let's not forget the spirit and the meaning of WP:MEDRS. What if someone is using our articles as a medical advice, will be misinformed and will damage his health. But whatever had happen in the lab has no any practical health implications whatsoever. People should vaccinate just the same, etc. This is merely a political controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, claims about the origin of a disease are considered biomedical information per the explanatory WP:BMI that has consensus. Epidemiological information for active or recent epidemics is certainly MEDRS required. MEDRS isn't about individuals necessarily reading, but it's about presenting the best possible information about medically relevant topics. It's not historical yet by any means. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to WP:MEDRS WP:BMI (What is biomedical information?), it does include "Population data and epidemiology", i.e. (explanation) "Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc." Yes, this is certainly a biomedical information, no questions. It also tells "What is not biomedical information?", and in that part it includes such things as "Beliefs", "History", "Society", etc. As it stands right now, the "lab origin hypothesis" does not belong to science (including epidemiology). This is just a claim by spies, an urban legend, personal beliefs, a hypothetical possibility, etc. This is not biomedical information, and it has no implication on epidemiology (mortality rates, transmission rates). Speaking, on the origin of disease (also a biomedical information), this is a zoonotic disease. If it was studied in a lab does not affect this conclusion at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  You may have meant to link to WP:BMI, as you are quoting extensively from it. It's hard to tell, but it seems you might be arguing that studying the origin and transmission of a disease is not the purview of epidemiology. It is. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. In addition, WP:BMI is an explanatory supplement that hasn't necessarily had every single turn of phrase exhaustively vetted (though its advice is generally sensible). XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, I just said (see above): "Speaking, on the origin of disease (also a biomedical information), this is a zoonotic disease. If it was studied in a lab does not affect this conculsion at all.". So whatever was published in the scientific literature on the origin of the virus can be used for sourcing scientific aspects of this. But whatever was published in WSJ or CNN on political aspect of the contoversy (this is neither science nor medicine) can be use for covering the political aspects (and such aspects are defined as "What is not biomedical information?" in WP:BMI). My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: This is merely a question if a lab worked with the certain bats or certain zoonotic virus during certain period of time. This is the issue, the actual source (that is, the US Intelligence report) doesn't seem to state anything about COVID-19, making the connection WP:SYNTH. Even if the source is reliable, it can't be used if the topic is UNDUE or attempting to SYNTH a connection the source doesn't make.

What if someone is using our articles as a medical advice, will be misinformed and will damage his health. But whatever had happen in the lab has no any practical health implications whatsoever. People should vaccinate just the same, etc. Given that one of the conspiracy theories regards intentional engineering and release of the virus in order to sell vaccines (including variants where the vaccine is more nefarious than just profiteering), we should be careful not to dismiss the potential harm here. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with My very best wishes here. If I'm not mistaken the reason why we have strict MEDRS policy is the concern that readers may decide to use medical information they read on Wikipedia to make medical choices for themselves that could result in harm. Misinformation claiming a number of harmful, mercury related, effects of thiomersal might lead some readers to decide to avoid vaccines that use thiomersal as a preservative. However, in a case like the lab leak conspiracy, I'm having trouble seeing how readers would be harmed if we said, 100% true, 100% false or anywhere in between. Certainly scholarly works and opinions of experts (with attribution) are our best sources in a case like this but I don't see how the stated (and very sound) reason for having a MEDRS standard vs our standard RS policies apply in this case. Springee (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The potential harm that Bakkster Man outlined seems entirely plausible to me. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That people might think this was a scam to raise money? In that case should we apply the same standard to any article about finance and investing? I mean there is a possibility that someone will consult Wikipedia for the beam stiffness equation, get it wrong and over estimate the strength of a bridge they are designing for personal use. I think that example crosses out of the legitimate concern over bad medical information in our articles. That is far different than if our article on poison ivy were to suggest concentrated bleach is an effective itch relief. Springee (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that we do, in fact, have elevated standards that come into play regarding finance and investing, like stringent notability rules that apply to financial organizations and general sanctions regarding cryptocurrencies, largely because the hazards of Wikipedia promoting a scam would be high. But, more to the point, conspiracy theories about medicine erode trust in medical expertise, which leads to people making bad health decisions. (Why get a vaccine if you think the disease is caused by 5G radio emissions?) MEDRS is about playing it safe, and I don't see a reason to be less cautious with one aspect of epidemiology than another. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've been following closely the information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 on Wikipedia since March 2020, and the switch in editors' reaction on US Intelligence information is incredible. I remember vividly that last year US Intelligence was disregarded as unreliable, and many editors called out their reports as a "push to cover their own failures". It was unreliable when Trump was in power, what has changed since then? Are we, as wikipedia editors, changing our degree of confidence of sources based on whether we like the politics of the person in charge? It seems like, if Trump runs office, we don't trust US Intelligence. If Tedros is in office we trust WHO no matter what. If Biden gets in office, we suddenly trust US Intelligence again, and if tomorrow Redfield gets appointed as head of the WHO, we will begin to find them unreliable. I feel we need to be more honest about our own biases when discussing sources. For example, the abrupt closing of this discussion about WHO's credibility was a clear sign of editors judging sources by their personal compass, instead of what is an objective objection raised by reliable sources. Forich (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Forich, I agree - but I'll note that I've always said we should wait for scientific consensus statements, not political intelligence statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Who's trusting US intelligence? To quote the WSJ story: Current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed differing views about the strength of the supporting evidence for the assessment. One person said that it was provided by an international partner and was potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and additional corroboration. With the provenance of this "intel" up in the air, questions about the relative trustworthiness or lack thereof between administrations seem beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @XOR'easter:, let me break it down with an analogy: US Intelligence says in 2020: The sky is blue -> most WP editors dismiss the information as a push from Trump to cover his failures. Then, US Intelligence says in 2021: The sky is blue -> WP editors accept the quote as representative of what the US Intelligence believes, and proceeds to discuss whether the sky is indeed blue. This means that we discontinued our distrust on the source, without any change in the written guidelines on the RS Noticeboard, which suggest we had hidden considerations in the first place. Either admit editors were wrong in 2020 distrusting US Intelligence outright, or concede that we should continue to distrust US Intelligence, so that their new report should be invalid even for the claim that 3 people were found sick. Forich (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable, but only for what the source is actually saying: that according to a US intelligence report some people in Wuhan had covid-like symptoms. Since the source mentions it in the context of the covid epidemic, it's not an improper synthesis and can be mentioned in the relevant articles. However it needs to be given due weight, considering that anonymous US intelligence reports turned out to be wrong more than once in the last few years. (The part in cursive has been added later to the response) Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not reliable for that claim. It's only reliable for the claim that anonymous US officials claim that they have intelligence suggesting that WIV researchers went to the hospital. Whether those officials actually have that intelligence, what the intelligence might actually be, whether this is disinformation, etc. is completely unknown. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. We can't even say "covid-like symptoms" - we could at most say that they had non-specific symptoms that could've been COVID but just as likely have been some other seasonal illness such as influenza. And we don't even have access to the primary source used to verify if even that's okay! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't know if any element of the officials' claims is true. Unsubstantiated claims by anonymous officials have a poor track record of turning out to be true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing with each other here - the point of my last sentence is that this is source laundering at its best. We are taking what nobody would consider reliable for any reason (an anonymous report that three people were hospitalized) and treating it as potentially reliable just because reliable sources have repeated it. It shouldn't be used for anything at this point - but certainly not to suggest 3 people had COVID. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's a good point, I agree with it and I've edited my original response (see the cursive part). Alaexis_¿question? 05:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that part of the difficulty here is that it is important to understand why we have MEDRS. There is an excellent essay WP:WMEDRS and probably a few others. Biology is difficult. Medicine, especially human medicine, is at least an order of magnitude more difficult. But when you scale it up to the level of big-picture public health, which is where epidemiology belongs, the complexity increases even further. No one individual is really capable of properly synthesizing things at this level, intuition can be even worse than random guessing, even among experts. So for this sort of thing, you need to gather virologists, epidemiologists, public health administrators and policy/regulatory analysts, pulmonologists, emergency physicians, data analysts, and I know I'm leaving some people out.

  What does this mean and what is my point? Taking a few quotes from an interview, or a journalist's report, or even a letter from a few experts, is not very helpful. We need to be relying on systematic reviews and government agency reports. MEDRS says we need to do this, and I could just keep wikilawyering that point, but I'm trying to explain to non-specialist editors why this is so important, because those are the only sources that are going to be considering all of these angles together and synthesize them for us. Consider the parable of the five blind men and the elephant, that is the problem of relying on primary sources when no single source is really capable of seeing the entire elephant on its own. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• reliable per Alaexis( somethings got to give, this should be ok...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable News Corp (the owners of WSJ) has continuously pushed unreliable content regarding China and COVID-19: [11] [12]. It is also important to note that in China, the hospital is used as primary care, and it is commonplace to go there for minor illnesses such as cold & flu. This fact is also mentioned in the WSJ article. Because of these two reasons, I would say the WP:SYNTH that WSJ claims that the hospitalizations have links to COVID is not reliable and should not be used. Jumpytoo Talk 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ article is commenting on the report from the US [13] and not directly on the China situation. It is improper to question the WSJ on reliability in this specific area related to US politics, but we do have to recognize that the statements made by the report or the people the WSJ spoke to related to the virus outbreak should clearly not be treated as MEDRS to alter the perception of the lab leak story. --Masem (t) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ is one of the most highly-regarded newspapers in the world and has won 37 Pulitzer prizes as of 2019. Its editorial board is independent from that of other News Corp Publications, and we allow for different levels of reliability for different sources published by the same corporation. The question of general reliability (which this response points towards) is whether a source has a reputation for editorial independence, strong fact checking, and accuracy in reporting. The WSJ cearly does. The question of whether or not it has specific issues with general reliability as it pertains to COVID-19 would need to point to evidence that it lacks editorial independence, strong fact checking, or accuracy in reporting. I don't see evidence of that here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as a news source (not a MEDRS), unusable due to other issues in this specific context The real problem isn't that WSJ isn't reliable or biased in matters regarding US politics or whatever. Even if we ignore everything about MEDRS, the issue is that the only thing the WSJ has which could be usable basically boils down to "based on a US intelligence report (with many question marks about said report attached), some people in Wuhan were sick with some undetermined illness in late 2019". Placing this in any article about COVID would be misrepresenting the source (unless we spent a couple sentences explaining the many issues with the alleged intelligence report, which would be UNDUE and quite frankly NOTNEWS-level of excessive) and would lead the readers to make the improper synthesis that the sickness was COVID (a claim not supported by the source). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• For those who might have a distaste for Science publications, here is what they have on letters: Letters (up to 300 words) discuss material published in Science in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal (https://cts.sciencemag.org). Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply. Letter submissions are acknowledged upon receipt by Science’s automatic system, but letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters rejected for print publication may be posted as eLetters. And considering the controversial nature of the topic, I am sure the 13-author letter was not peer reviewed before publication into Science. Seems like some wikiactivists think they have more expertise than editors there. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  We're not discussing the Science letter. "May be reviewed" does not mean "was reviewed" and certainly does not imply peer-review. Re. "activists": let's not even get started about the Twitter activists who've found their way over here, shall we? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment seems like a lot of the "unreliable" commenters here are ignoring the current status quo: "the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus" and "unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology". Meanwhile, US intelligence, Fauci, and a few tenured professors argue for investigations into the "unfounded speculation". The current versions do not allude at all that "mainstream" entities/individuals think that the "conspiracy theories and unfounded speculations" should be investigated further, and instead, imply a close and shut case. Very wp:NPOV. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Arguing for further investigations does not change what MEDRS say, which is that current evidence does not support the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. Asking a scientist whether there should be further investigations is a lot like asking a realtor whether this is a good time to buy a house. The answer is always "yes, please spend lots of money on this, preferably into my pocket". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — I'd like to note that this incident about researchers at this lab falling ill actually isn't terribly hot-off-the-presses new information. Here is brief March 2021 report in NBC News where Marion Koopmans (part of the WHO team) alludes to such a thing, but also says evidence does not indicate a lab leak (among other things said). The main distinction I notice is that the WSJ says three researchers were ill and Koopmans says "one or two". I think this is probably pertinent to the discussion. At the very least, the amount of people fallen ill appears to be in dispute; even in this NBC report you have the State Department seemingly (?) disagreeing and their language implies they place the number a bit higher than Koopmans' estimate. --Chillabit (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for its news reporting on this issue. The WSJ is one of the world's most reputable news publications, and while it's not a WP:MEDRS, it's certainly reliable to source the claim that U.S. intelligence reports said X. It's not clear to me that origins of a particular virus actually fall under WP:MEDRS; this would lead to an odd situation where the origin of biological species that do not cause human disease (i.e. tobacco mosaic virus) would have different reliable sourcing requirements regarding its origins as a virus species than would E. Coli regarding its origins as a species of bacteria. The motivation for WP:MEDRS is described within the guideline, which says that Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. In this framework, it doesn't seem to me that origin is itself biomedical information; it certainly intersects with biology, but origin itself doesn't appear to be related to human health per se. The study of the origin of E. Coli as a unique species, for example, doesn't describe any information pertaining to human health, whereas the symptoms of and treatments for infections of E. Coli. The same logic should apply to SARS-CoV-2; the biomedical information is the information that pertains to human health, not the information that pertains to the virus origin per se. It's certainly better to use peer-reviewed journals and academic scholarship on the topic than secondary-source analyses published in reliable newspapers (and certainly more than primary-source pieces published in reliable newspapers), so weight should be reflected in a manner consistent with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But, I don't think that applying WP:MEDRS here is warranted, as the origin of the disease itself doesn't appear to fall within that guideline's scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: I agree with you that the news report is a reliable source (for its content). The issue is that the information provided could not be included without either A) putting excessive weight on the report by also having to include all the doubts with it [along with explaining to our readers that there is absolutely no concrete evidence the illness in question was actually COVID] or B) being misleading to our readers by not explaining the doubts and leaving them with the false impression the illness was actually COVID [because the sentence would be in an article about COVID...]. Hence, as I said, "Reliable, but unusable due to other concerns". As for applying MEDRS, I'm going to shamelessly copy from myself (here) and say that the existing guidelines about using the best sources available (especially in topics where there is some controversy about a scientific topic) naturally lead to the use of WP:MEDRS (or at least, topic relevant academic literature: one wouldn't use a paper about engineering to source a random historical fact; neither should we use papers about (for ex.) cancer research to source claims about virology). Ignoring the fact that analysing a virus' genome, comparing it with existing ones, studying possible spillover events, ... is clearly something which requires scientific expertise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: I'd agree that it would be odd to use the particular WSJ article as evidence in a discussion to move the lab leak hypothesis's classification, but the most recent RfC on this found no consensus on whether a lab leak was WP:FRINGE. I also don't think that WP:MEDRS are always the best potential sources here; if it were to emerge, through investigative reporting, that lab safety records had indicated a lab leak or that there were internal local government documents indicating a lab leak, I think it would be perfectly fine to use the reporting. Investigative reporting by news agencies obviously fail to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. But, I do think that there could exist the sorts of situations where this distinction between it being a good practice to use medical journals and it being the only acceptable practice could manifest.

That being said, this WSJ piece does not provide any sort of detailed investigative reporting along those lines. I agree that we should use caution here, given that extent of the sourcing is a U.S. government report whose confidence is internally unclear. It's probably reliable for a statement that U.S. intelligence indicated that there were some hospitalizations of researchers at the lab with COVID-19-like symptoms in the month of November 2019 and for the statement that The Wuhan Institute hasn’t shared raw data, safety logs and lab records on its extensive work with coronaviruses in bats, which many consider the most likely source of the virus. I'd also note that there appears to be some recent reporting from The Washington Post on the timeline of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis that's different and more recent from what we have in our COVID-19 misinformation article. We probably want to review that section a little more in-depth to better reflect public reporting (especially in existing areas in the section that already rely heavily upon public reporting), though that's a topic for a different discussion altogether. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Despite the people insisting otherwise, the Wall Street Journal story does not actually grant any more credence to the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. There is not a single word in that article that does. Anyone attempting to use it as such is engaging in the sort of novel synthesis that we discourage at Wikipedia. This discussion is pointless because, while the WSJ is a perfectly reliable source, the story in question is entirely irrelevant as a source for the information people are proposing we use it for. --Jayron32 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This conversation is frustratingly out-of-date. First: It is far from novel synthesis to cite WSJ reporting on the lab leak theory. Consider this article, which is more recent and in-depth than the one currently under discussion. It reads, with emphasis added:

Extended quotes

"Now, unanswered questions about the miners’ illness, the viruses found at the site and the research done with them have elevated into the mainstream an idea once dismissed as a conspiracy theory: that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, the city where the first cases were found in December 2019. The lab researchers thus far haven’t provided full and prompt answers, and there have been discrepancies in some information they have released. That has led to demands by leading scientists for a deeper investigation into the Wuhan institute and whether the pandemic virus could have been in its labs and escaped. Even some senior public-health officials who consider that possibility improbable now back the idea of a fuller probe. They say a World Health Organization-led team had insufficient access in Wuhan earlier this year to reach its conclusion that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely.” Most of those calling for a fuller examination of the lab hypothesis say they aren’t backing it over the main alternative—that the virus spread from animals to humans outside a lab, in the kind of natural spillover that has become more frequent in recent decades. There isn’t yet enough evidence for either idea, they say, nor are the two incompatible. The virus could have been one of natural origin that was brought back to a laboratory in Wuhan—intentionally or accidentally—and escaped." and later: Last year, 27 scientists signed an open letter condemning “conspiracy theories” suggesting that Covid-19 didn’t have a natural origin. Now, three of them since contacted by the Journal say that on further reflection a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration. Others continue to deem it too unlikely to justify investigation.

Also note the Fauci and Gottlieb statements, as well as the letter from Science, which was signed by several leading virologists. Who, exactly, is engaged in synthesis here? Editors noting a clear, marked turn both in RS and among scientific experts, both of whom are beginning to allow that the lab-leak theory is indeed plausible enough to merit investigation? Or those clinging to the state of affairs circa Spring 2020, however unverifiable and out-of-date, and flinging every WP rule in the book at those seeking to introduce obviously relevant evidence? 67.245.37.188 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a prime example of why we don't use WP:MEDPOP. "Elevated into the mainstream" is just plain wrong. Maybe in some newspapers and in the realm of political grandstanding. In scientific matters, quite clearly no. At least, I've done a thorough search through MEDRS sources and if anything the origin of the virus is unanimously considered to be zoonotic (with some details still requiring further investigation). See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling; and then you can also make a search at Pubmed to look for relevant papers (example query). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To add, keeping to even the reliable mainstream sources, all we can get out of this is not a new take on the lab leak theory, but only that some subset of scientists and politicians would like a second review of the research/study that was done to back the original WHO report that made the assessment that it was very much likely not a lab leak. Or more shortly, they're just saying these groups want a second opinion. That doesn't negate how WP should handle the WHO report per RS/MEDRS, simply how we wrap up the governmental and respect to the report. --Masem (t) 13:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

67.245's quotes above are evidence that the bullshit lab leak story exists. They, however, have little effect on changing the stance that it is bullshit. There is the key difference. There is an attempt to equate "a lot of people are commenting on a bullshit story" with "actually, it isn't bullshit". Nothing in any of their quotes has ANY clear conclusion on the second point. Noting that some people have been taken in by the bullshit is not, in itself, a refutation that it is bullshit. The WSJ knows this, which is why its reporting on this is not "There is evidence that the lab leak theory is true". Their reporting on this is "Some people believe that the lab leak theory is true". You can't use the second idea as proof of the first. THAT is novel synthesis. --Jayron32 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• clinging to the state of affairs circa Spring 2020 is not what's happening. The lab leak hypothesis wasn't even mentioned on most of these pages beyond as a conspiracy theory until earlier this year. So the pages already reflect the shift in mainstream weight, these sources don't change that evaluation IMO. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lends no more credence to the theory - There's actually a great deal of evidence that the WSJ story is based on rehashed and repackaged disinformation spread by third parties with no connection to Wuhan. Overall, there is very little *actual evidence* to back up the unsubstantiated claims. See this twitter thread and this surprisingly on point NY Post piece. Psaki is saying this is not a CIA report, or official intelligence. It's the inter-governmental equivalent of a rumor. I think until we have an RS quoting a primary source that has evidence of multiple covid-19-like illnesses in a reasonable proximity to the outbreak, it doesn't belong in any article except as a passing note in Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per the Washington Post, the lab leak hypothesis is no longer a conspiracy theory or unfounded, it's now credible. [14] Geogene (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article this morning. Among the highly reliable sources they cite are the Daily Mail, Mike Pompeo's Twitter feed, and random essays published on Medium. I cancelled my subscription an hour after reading it (not joking). Hyperion35 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which has any bearing on whether WaPo is a reliable source (it is). Why does the WP:MED clique even use noticeboards, when all you do here is argue and bludgeon everyone that disagrees with you? Geogene (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment media sources labeling this a conspiracy theory a year ago is adding editor's notes into those 1-year old articles Example: Editor’s note, May 24, 2021: Since this piece was originally published in March 2020, scientific consensus has shifted. Now some experts say the “lab leak” theory warrants an investigation, along with the natural origin theory. Some language in this article was updated in April 2020 to reflect scientific thinking, but it has not been updated since then. For our most up-to-date coverage, visit Vox’s coronavirus hub. Even wikiactivists' preferred biased news sources are telling said wikiactivists that it's ok to label this as something else than a "conspiracy theory". 2601:602:9200:1310:4065:8EBB:AD8:41E6 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for there being a hypothesis. This isn't a medical claim, this possibility is given serious weight by news organizations. All these serious sources, however, just keep it as a possibility, and that's really all that can be said about this possibility at this time. Whether something came from a lab handling wild animals, a seafood market handling wild animals, or cave bats is not a medical claim affecting human health. Whereever this came from, it doesn't affect the medical diagnosis of those afflicted.--Hippeus (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hippeus, affecting a diagnosis is not the only potential harm that can come from medical information. This is quite clearly covered under "epidemiology" of WP:BMI, an explanatory page that nobody has provided any reason for violating. As others have pointed out, vaccine uptake has been hampered by these conspiracy theories - which is clearly harmful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  User:Berchanhimez, to the contrary, read What_is_not_biomedical_information? where you link. The origin of this disease falls within histoy, legal, regulations, and ethics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the disease itself. It is not "Attributes of a disease or condition", "Attributes of a treatment or drug", "Medical decisions", "Health effects", "Population data and epidemiology", or "Biomedical research". Specifically "Population data and epidemiology" states: "Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc.", it does not refer to historical data and specifically not pre-human history. The origins of COVID have nothing to do with treatment or diagnosis - treatment and prognosis are the same where ever this came from.--Hippeus (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Something can't be historical before it's even known. That's inane to suggest that current investigations are "historical" somehow. And again, BMI does not only cover things that affect "treatment and prognosis" directly. But even if you think it is, there are many people who have vaccine hesitancy or make other choices based on their belief as to the origin - so it clearly does affect those things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Origin shouldn't affect the beliefs of people on treatment and vaccines, if people were rational. People aren't rational. However, What_is_not_biomedical_information? specifically excludes Beliefs, including "why people choose or reject a particular treatment". I personally would take a vaccine whether this came from Mars, a seafood market, a lab, or a bat cave. Other people maybe aren't so rational. But rationality of people isn't biomedical, beliefs aren't biomedical.--Hippeus (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  But we aren't talking about beliefs, nor historical information. Something can't be historical when it isn't even known with certainty yet - nor when it's ongoing! You keep pointing at all of the "what it's not" things - but it's none of those. Every time I point out that you're wrong to say that it's "x" or "y" you move the goalposts to say "well it can still be z". The origin at this time is not historical information and is not exempt from MEDRS sourcing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: "Something can't be historical when it isn't even known with certainty yet": AFAIK many unclear topics are considered historical, see en:Category:Historical controversies for instance."nor when it's ongoing!": the origin of the virus (or the origin of human infections) is clearly not an ongoing topic! Apokrif (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable as journalistic reporting, not MEDRS two reliable sources from completely different ends of the ideological spectrum, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have reported on this (disclaimer: I subscribe to both.) The purpose of MEDRS is not to censor RS reporting on information related to medicine. The Post and Journal are not making biomedical claims. They are reporting on factual events. When two highly respected publications begin reporting on it, not reporting on it becomes a WP:NPOV violation.
  Now, that does not mean we endorse the lab leak theory. That does not mean we say that the people had COVID-19. That does not mean we report anything other than what the reliable sources say. In fact, I would personally note both sources in any text so it is clear we are not reporting as fact, but instead doing our job as a tertiary source and summarizing the reliable secondary sources.
  But lets not kid ourselves here, both WSJ and WaPo are reliable sources for the facts they report. If we really are going to say that we have to exclude major medical stories from them that are not reporting on the science behind the medicine because of MEDRS, then MEDRS is coming dangerously close to violating WP:NOTCENSORED. These aren't fringe blogs. These are two of the most respected journalistic publications in the United States. I'm not sure how Wikipedia should report on them, but when they both run a story, it does become a question of how rather than if. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, they aren't reporting facts here - they're reporting unconfirmed, and unidentified reports from anonymous sources on an unpublished "US intelligence" reporting. This is why I wrote User:Berchanhimez/Laundering - I wrote it primarily because of times when reliable sources re-print information from sources that are otherwise not reliable in the medical field, but it applies here too. And if you read both articles, they both make very clear that they are reporting on unconfirmed, unpublished reports from anonymous sources - and we should not give those more credibility just because they're repeated by an otherwise reliable source. We shouldn't accept this sort of "laundering" where something that's unreliable as a whole is considered reliable just because a "reliable source" republishes it. Note that single articles by reliable sources can include unreliable parts - I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) trying to say that the WSJ or WaPo are reliable source for facts. But they can't be used to "launder" unreliable information to somehow make it reliable when they themselves make clear how unreliable the information is in their reporting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  The three most important newspapers in the United States are: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. When 2 of 3 are running essentially the same story, there's really not a policy-based argument not to include it in some fashion. If you want to argue that those sources aren't reliable, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone who is familiar with journalism in the United States. We don't take the word of anonymous contributors on the internet on the reliability of the information professionals collect. We assess the overall editorial policy and journalistic reputation among other things. WaPo and WSJ are unquestionably reliable for what they report, which in this case is not science but claims and hypothesis.

  You can argue how to present this. That's fine. You can make it extremely clear in the text exactly what they are reporting on. That's fine. You cannot, however, exclude a story run by two newspapers that for any other story would be considered the gold standard of reliable sourcing. That becomes a major WP:NPOV violation. Yes, the early reporting on the lab leak theory was run by fringe people and many who were racists. Now we have serious mainstream reporting on it specifically arguing that it is not fringe. We can't ignore that per our policies.

  For the record, I don't have an opinion on this myself and don't really care which origin theory of COVID-19 is true. I do know Wikipedia policies fairly well, however, and there is no policy that justifies completely excluding stories run by papers of record on significant geopolitical events. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with TonyBallioni, and I find their arguments to be compelling. That much coverage cannot be simply ignored, as if it never happened. To willfully do so would be to ignore balance and NPOV. As Tony said, they are newspapers of record. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• "You cannot, however, exclude a story run by two newspapers that for any other story would be considered the gold standard of reliable sourcing."

Well, @TonyBallioni:, then we should be immediately be questioning them as the gold standard of anything, because these articles are trash. They don't even present any evidence, the WSJ reporting is literally trying to make a conspiracy about 3 people getting sick with seasonal illness symptoms and having nothing else to discuss, literally not a single piece of evidence beyond that. It is literally the exact sort of trash we'd expect from the Daily Mail. And the Washington Post "Timeline" article manages to be even fsrther below the line, using Medium articles, tweets from the likes of conspiracists like Tom Cotton, and worse. Both of these articles are so bottom of the barrel that we should immediately be questioning their reliable source status if their articles are going to be literally making up conspiracies and using known conspiracy pushers as their primary sources of evidence. Silverseren^C 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, the basis of Wikiepdia's policy on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view is that we rely on the expertise of the editors of reliable sourcing to make judgement calls as to what information is credible enough to publish. We typically do not assess whether or not individual articles are reliable, but whether or not the publications as a whole are, as we as editors do not have the competence to make the judgement calls on individual articles since the overwhelming majority of us are not professional journalists who are aware of professional ethics and publishing standards.

Both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are papers of record with editorial policies we consider stringent enough to make them reliable. We don't simply get to throw one article away because we disagree with the choice to publish. When multiple papers of record publishes something, it isn't just something we ignore. Contextualize, sure. Give it due weight, sure. Name the source in the text of the article, sure. If there's reliably sourced criticism of them running the articles, but it in there. These are all valid ways to deal with the concerns you have. Simply ignoring them and pretending like the publications are not reliable for what they report is not a valid response, though.

We have to deal with the publication in some way. I don't know how to do that, and don't particularly want to be involved with that, but I very much disagree with completely throwing out coverage by WSJ and WaPo because we disagree with a choice made by their editorial teams. That's very much against the intent of the RS and NPOV policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

When an "article" is just a timeline of snippets, we're well within our rights to question whether it constitutes significant coverage and thus changes the weighting that ought to be accorded. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, as XOR'easter said, we are well within our right to determine how reliable a source is, and how much "weight" is "due" to give those sources. Yes, both papers are generally reliable. No, that doesn't mean that every single thing they post is due weight to include, nor that the information contained within is reliable. Yes, it's verifiable to say based on those stories that "an anonymous source referencing an unpublished and undescribed US intelligence report, said X". No, that's never due weight to include, just as we don't include all the anonymous sources referencing unpublished sources about the recent plane hijacking in Belarus, or about any other topic. You seem to be taking a "if it's published by a reliable source it's GOLD" - but that's simply not true. We have a duty to evaluate the source in its entirety - not simply look at the publisher and say "welp we must include it then". This isn't disagreeing with the choices by their editorial team - it's disagreeing with your claim that we must republish something just because it's published. It's in no way due weight to republish anonymous reports based on unpublished "intelligence" just because for-profit news organizations chose to publish them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said we had to report on it as fact. I said that when two highly reliable sources are reporting on it as serious, the question becomes how we present it and with what weight, rather than if we present it. Simply pretending that these two sources don't exist is not an option. Since this thread started The Atlantic, another publication generally considered reliable, prestigious, and within the mainstream of US journalistic publications published an article that says It might have started in the wild, or it might have started in a lab. We know enough to acknowledge that the second scenario is possible, and we should therefore act as though it’s true.

That is a third reliable source taking the position that this isn't just crazy talk. Again, I am not highly invested in the origins of COVID-19. I do, however, have a very strong belief that when three highly respected journalistic publications start discussing it not as lunacy but as a serious hypothesis, NPOV considerations come into play. As I've said multiple times, this is not a MEDRS issue to report that there is now mainstream sourcing discussing this and not just nutjobs. Figure out how to report it. Figure out what to report, but we don't get to not report it. That would be substituting the judgement of anonymous internet volunteers for the editorial judgement of professional journalists in respected publications as to what to publish. We don't get to substitute our judgement on what and how they should have covered this for their judgement. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I just heard a story about this on NPR today, too. This hypothesis is already a part of the mainstream discussion. It would be against the spirit of the encyclopedia not to mention its existence. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question. This is just a matter of context, but what do we know about the alleged program of biological weapons in China, reardless to COVID? I am not familiar with publications about it. Yes, China signed agreements, but it means little. One recent CNN article [15] say this: "The Chinese government is party to the major international agreements regulating biological weapons which prohibit developing, producing, transferring or stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons. The US government has said that it believes China maintained an offensive biological weapons program even after joining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1984.". OK. But what exactly US government (and other sources) say about the offensive biological weapons program of China? My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I think this paper might give you the answer. It mostly concentrates on facilities rather than types of biowarfare products maintained, but it might be a good source for you (at least I haven't found anything better than that). PS. Apparently another leak (now cable leak) published by Josh Rogin said that [Edit: in late 2017-2018]the lab was understaffed for level 4 biohazard protection (as mentioned in the article).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! So, they do have such program in general and facilities. What gave me a pause were reactions and actions by China, such as today. They even promised economic sanctions to Australia, because someone from Australian government said something. Speaking Russian, "на воре шапка горит", meaning a reaction of a gulty conscience. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, acording to this source, "Four named BWA [biological weapons] production facilities (mentioned as ‘factories’), affiliated, in general, with the ‘Institutes for Biological Products’ system in: Kunming—dealing with research and cultivation of BWA; Chongqing—research and cultivation of BWA; Wuhan–Wuchang—cultivation of BWA; and Changchun—cultivation and experimentation of BWA.". And they name Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (main developer of their COVID vaccine) as one of the facilities associated with Chines "defence establishment". Interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

While that might influence your opinion, I very much doubt that Wikipedia allows us to draw adverse inferences from the lack of evidence/sources, and certainly we should not reflect our willingness to do so while editing. That said, the Russian expression describes the situation brilliantly.

PS. Its English equivalent is more or less "the darkest place is under the candle". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable because the sources don't even say that The article in question doesn't even present any evidence or claim toward anything regarding the lab leak conspiracy theory. It tries to wave its arms in the air with wiggling fingers because less than a handful of people (ie 3 out of hundreds at the lab) got a standard seasonal illness sickness. There is no connection to COVID even given and the following Washington Post article is even worse, not even having any sources whatsoever for any claims even being made. Honestly, the trash level of both of those pieces makes me question the general reliability of both newspapers, because this is Breitbart and Daily Mail level crap. Silverseren^C 04:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  You say there were hundreds of people working in the lab. Do you have a source you read that from? I was curious myself about how many people work(ed?) there, but turned up little information. --Chillabit (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Chillabit: The latest figure I was able to find was from 2014: As of 2014, WIV has 295 faculty and staff members, including 34 principal investigators and specialists, I'd expect the number to be far over 300 at this point. Silverseren^C 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable as journalistic reporting, not MEDRS per TonyBallioni above. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• This piece should not be used to give further credence to the lab leak conspiracy theory, but it might be used to show that anonymous US intelligence officials are apparently pushing that narrative. -Darouet (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The number of WP:SPAs showing up to try and push the pseudoscience conspiracy claim is pretty interesting. They're all over the place here and in every related thread to the Covid topic. Is there brigading going on from somewhere else on the internet for them to be finding their way here to this thread in particular? Silverseren^C 05:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Silver seren, Is there brigading going on from somewhere else on the internet for them to be finding their way here to this thread in particular? Yes. Absolutely. In fact, every time that a popular political conspiracy theory, or a popular conspiracy theorist of any bent makes the news, there will inevitably be brigading of any discussions about it on Wikipedia. This is an extremely common tactic used by groups which engage in deep personal investment into these conspiracy theories, and find our rejection of them deeply offensive.

  On normal controversial subjects, this doesn't happen so much because WP will have numerous editors on all sides of the issue, so the curious supporters of one side who read these discussions will not be so troubled by them. But with conspiracy theories, because of WP's strong bias towards reality, they see their side failing to make headway in the discussions, and cannot abide this, so the calls for brigading go out. It's basically inevitable anytime something like this is discussed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  MPants at work, can't there be a mass blocking for meatpuppeting? Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Tyrone Madera, No, not really. There's no technical way for that to work. We have no ability to tell if a particular editor was part of a discussion about brigading on, for example, 4chan, unless we wanted to engage in some mix of MITM and XSS type malicious coding that would likely trigger firewalls across the world and undermine trust in WP significantly. This would still not be a perfect solution, as it would only catch people who used the same machine for both.

  The proper response is to keep an eye on controversial subjects, especially those involving bigotry and politics, and as the brigading becomes apparent, transition from working to actively improve and update such articles to maintaining them until the furor has died down. WP:NOTNEWS makes it clear that there's nothing wrong with WP being a few days or weeks behind the present.

  I personally would prefer if admins would take a firmer approach during such times, using temporary topic bans and blocks more liberally to target obvious participants in these brigades, but the reasons they don't are deeply entrenched in the WP community culture, and not without merit, so that change would likely require a deliberate push by a significant portion of the community. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Can we please clarify whether this discussion is about the very unlikely "lab-leak" of a deliberately-engineered biological weapon or the more plausible "lab-leak" of a natural, non-bioengineered virus? 09:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to separate the accidental lab leak while experimenting on coronaviruses origin hypothesis, from the, maliciously engineered and released bioweapon conspiracy theory, that the current version of the article seems to be trying to blur together High Tinker (talk)

Actually, scientists modify viruses all the time in order to try to make them more contagious to study them in what is called "gain of function experiments". In fact, we know that the Wuhan lab was actually performing these types of experiments on bat coronaviruses. They don't do these experiments in order to engineer a bioweapon, they do them to learn about how viruses work in order to better understand them and how to make vaccines against them. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Washington Post story literally actually I swear I am not making this up refers us to The Daily Mail, Twitter posts, and essays on Medium. It sucks that a normally reliable source published a shitty substandard article, but anyone who looks at that article, just as an article without bias as to the subject, has to admit that this is really bad journalism. I mean really really bad, someone should have been fired. The fact that it might further support someone's existing beliefs should not magically make it more reliable. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a timeline of what's been said about the lab leak hypothesis. Your claim, which you've now repeated here more than once, that Mike Pompeo's tweets (etc.) from 2020 are the sole reason why WaPo no longer thinks the lab leak hypothesis is fringe in 2021 is disingenuous. You fundamentally misunderstand that article. Geogene (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

While WaPost may be considering the lab leak (in its new form under the Biden admin, not the Trump version) as something with more credence, WP is still bound by MEDRS, as the only fundamental MEDRS study that has been done to evaluate the origins of COVID is the WHO report. We can talk that there has been more demand for further review by politicians, scientists, and analysts by evidence and aspects that seem counter to the WHO report, but as has been pointed out, under MEDRS, none of these are MEDRS sources to invalidate the WHO report to the point that we on WP can give any credence to the lab leak. We can absolutely talk to the questions of the WHO report that that some want more evaluation if WIV was more involved than WHO dismissed from these standard RSes, but until an actual study is done that meets MEDRS, we're not going to change the medical reporting that has dismissed the WIV lab leak as an origin of COVID. Only a MEDRS source can chip away at that. --Masem (t) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak theory doesn't fall under MEDRS because it isn't connected to medical advice, and the WHO report doesn't substantiate calling it a conspiracy theory. Geogene (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The scope of MEDRS is "biomedical information", not "connected to medical advice". Some aspects of a virus's origin are biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't interpret the scope of MEDRS that way, and the point seems to be in contention. Geogene (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No interpretation is necessary, just read the actual words of the guideline: "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge". That is the WP:PAG. WP:BMI provides supplementary guidance, and for background understanding WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ can be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support requiring MEDRS for information about the actual source and composition of the virus. Oppose requiring MEDRS regarding whether some particular hypothesis about the origin of the virus is a conspiracy theory. The question of what is or is not a conspiracy theory (or some other wording implying a fringe hypothesis that no serious expert or official would entertain) is more political than scientific. At this point (May 26, 2021), continuing to state in wikivoice that lab-leak is a baseless conspiracy theory while reliable journalistic sources have President Biden ordering serious inquiries into that theory just looks ridiculous. Vadder (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as journalistic reporting and I don't believe MEDRS applies. A year ago in a similar discussion, I dismissed the possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory. It's now unequivocally clear that I was wrong. The continuing efforts by certain editors here to label a particular possible origin as a "conspiracy theory" adds a level of animus and bias that clearly defies NPOV. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think, as others have stated, that we need to be very careful about how we phrase this regardless of the outcome, particularly regarding use of the word "originating" which can have several different meanings. While there is an argument to be made that there is a possibility that the virus accidentally leaked from the lab while being studied, we should be very careful that out phrasing does not lend credence to the idea that the virus actually "originated" (i.e. was intentionally created) in the lab. There will be, and in conspiracy circles there already is, a concerted effort to conflate the two. We should also be careful not to use sources that are terming the intentional creation of the virus as a conspiracy theory to say that any lab leak type origin is equally implausible, and vice versa to not treat sources saying that a lab leak as possible as saying that a lab-created origin is possible. We need to be sure which origin the sources are actually discussing. NonReproBlue (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable this text and source is classified as Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?, MEDRS doesnt apply to history. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  That is under discussion at the RFC mentioned below (and even if it doesn't require MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP still tells us academic sources are preferred), and I for one am going to shamelessly copy what I said there: how is this "history" when we have A) a still ongoing pandemic and B) still ongoing calls for further investigation (from the WHO report, from other scientists) and C) still ongoing spread of dis-/misinformation about the topic? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for the ongoing investigation's existence; unreliable for biomedical statements of fact -- I've been following the WHO working group reports.[16] I recommend two sources of particular interest, this Politico summarization of experts' opinions, wherein virologists explain the newfound interest in the lab leak possibility, and this recent preprint (with comments at [17]) which states:

Lab Leak scenarios are inconsistent with several established facts regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The majority of early cases were linked to different markets that sold wildlife or wildlife products in Wuhan. All theories of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 must account for the linkage to different market engaged in wildlife trade. Theories on SARS-CoV-2 must also account for the fact that two distinct lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were distributed at different Wuhan wildlife markets. Scenarios where an infected laboratory worker, an escaped lab animal or faulty waste disposal spread not one but two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 specifically to different wildlife markets are difficult to rationalize.

Given the gulf between these different opinions on current thought, I recommend citing and excerpting from both without making any biomedical statements, but stating the opinions held by the differing authorities. Finally, this timeline is particularly useful for explaining how the situation has developed. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't use preprints for controversial matters (or for the very vast majority of matters). The WaPo timeline (reposted on other sites) has its problems, being mostly based on fellow newspapers, US politicians, and poor non-scientific papers (i.e. the already explained "influential paper" issue and also the assessment of the piece by Nicholas Wade as "credible"). The quote farm isn't useful, since quotes are essentially WP:PRIMARY and we don't base articles on controversial matters on primary sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Not for statements of fact, since the MEDRS sources are in agreement that the question is still open. We don't need a MEDRS to support descriptions of the positions of differing authorities, do we? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you just made up that bit about MEDRS sources bieng in agreement that the question is still open? What the MEDRS sources are actually in agreement about is that the lab leak theory is extremely unlikely. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Technically, aren't MEDRSs supposed to have stood the test of more than 1.5 years' time? I was referring to sources meeting the remaining MEDRS criteria, as I'm sure you are too. And I don't need to point out the obvious that "extremely unlikely" is absolutely not the same as "closed" in science, especially in this case when "extremely" isn't quantified such as with a sigma value. And I'm pretty sure you missed the excerpt I quoted is in agreement with your position. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable in this instance While under normal circumstance WSJ, WaPo, et al are reliable, in this case there is nothing to indicate this conspiracy is any more true than it has been for the past year, "anonymous government officials" are not reliable sources, especially for something like this, not to mention the [WP:MEDRS] concerns. The only thing I would say could be fairly sourced from this is that some "anonymous US government officials" belive that Covid leaked from a Wuhan lab, which we already knew. BSMRD (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as to the lab leak theory being investigated as a possible source of the virus, which MEDRS does not apply to. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable This Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory being pushed right now is nothing more than US government propaganda attempting to manufacture consent to go to war with China and distract from how horribly the US government has handled the pandemic, and the so-called 'Free press' has fallen in line. The scientific evidence and consensus surrounding the origin of COVID has not changed whatsoever, and no big lie propaganda campaign being pushed by the US govt and the US media will change that. Let us instead stick to what reliable medical sources have to say about the origin of COVID. X-Editor (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the U.S. government and media are conspiring to start a war with China? And how exactly are medical sources going to confirm or disprove the lab leak theory when China is refusing to cooporate with any investigations into the lab in question? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

China is authoritarian, so they will refuse to cooperate regardless of whether or not it came from their lab. As for the war part, of course that is what the US wants to do. The US cannot handle the idea of another superpower, so they will try to make up any excuse they can to go to war so they can stop China. Whether it will end up being proxy wars or a direct war is something I am not certain of. I am not trying to defend the Chinese government, I hate them too. But I do not see why the US is anymore trustworthy in regards to what their intelligence officers say than what China says. Let us instead stick to what medical sources have to say on the matter. X-Editor (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with the conclusion, I don't believe the rest of the argument is valid in WP settings. All of what you say is adverse inference combined with personal reflections on geopolitical matters, which I'm afraid is not a good argument as it doesn't constitute evidence. Lack of evidence isn't evidence for any option at all, even if that lack of evidence comes from one party (supposedly) maliciously denying any permission to investigate/interrogate. Btw, there are both ways to investigate SARS-CoV-2 origins without access to WIV and apparently the Chinese weren't that uncooperative as some would argue. Also, read the SBM article posted below by Guy Macon. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I did put too much emphasis on my opinions regarding geopolitics and I apologize for that. X-Editor (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No needs to apologise, just bear in mind not to repeat in the small mistake in the future. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "If the question is “are both hypotheses possible?” the answer is yes. Both are possible. If the question is “are they equally likely?” the answer is absolutely not. One hypothesis requires a colossal cover-up and the silent, unswerving, leak-proof compliance of a vast network of scientists, civilians, and government officials for over a year. The other requires only for biology to behave as it always has, for a family of viruses that have done this before to do it again. The zoonotic spillover hypothesis is simple and explains everything. It’s scientific malpractice to pretend that one idea is equally as meritorious as the other. The lab-leak hypothesis is a scientific deus ex machina, a narrative shortcut that points a finger at a specific set of bad actors. I would be embarrassed to stand up in front of a room of scientists, lay out both hypotheses, and then pretend that one isn’t clearly, obviously better than the other."[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is certainly not if they are equally likely. The question is is the lab leak theory a plausible theory that should be mentioned in some kind of meaningful way alongside other origin theories, or is it a fringe conspiracy theory that should be downplayed as having any credibility. And as far as whether the Chinese Communist Party could cover up such a lab leak for a year, the U.S. government has covered up "top secret" things for decades, so that doesn't seem that implausible. And we do know that China initially tried to cover up even the existance of the virus in the early stages of the pandemic, which allowed the virus to spread more quickly around the globe. Actually, I would think that there are many governments around the world that would try to cover up a lab leak that lead to a global pandemic. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Biden administration has renewed US calls for a fuller investigation into the [conspiracy theory]"

According to plenty people above, seems like the entire world outside of Wikipedia is pushing for [what is described herein] "a conspiracy theory". I took the time to just list a few of the headlines posted in the past 24 hours or so. I am really curious how are wikiactivists going to try to dismiss these many news outlets discussing what wikipedia still rates as a conspiracy theory:

• Financial Times: US renews calls for investigation into origins of Covid-19
• CNN: Why scientists are suddenly more interested in the lab-leak theory of Covid's origin
• FoxNews: Ted Cruz mocks Washington Post as 'clowns' after fact-check declares Wuhan lab leak theory 'suddenly' credible
• NYMagazine: Latest Developments in the COVID Lab-Leak-Hypothesis Debate
• WaPo: Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible
• WSJ: Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin
• Reuters: Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed
• CNBC: Gottlieb says there's growing circumstantial evidence that Covid may have originated in a lab
• WSJ: The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage
• Reuters: U.S. agencies examine reports of early COVID-19 infections in Wuhan lab
• RCP: Will Media Get Away With U-Turning on Lab Leak Theory?
• Seattle Times: Fact check: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory for pandemic origin suddenly became credible
• Fortune: Why the ‘Wuhan lab leak theory’ is getting a second look
• EconomicTimes.in: Theory that COVID emerged from a lab leak in Wuhan gains traction in United States
• ABC.au: WHO member nations, including Australia, call for fresh probe into origin of COVID-19
• National Review: ‘The Suddenly Popular Lab-Leak Theory’
• The Hill: The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab
• France24: Covid lab origin theory gains traction in United States
• Toronto Sun: We need an open investigation into the Wuhan lab leak theory

71.197.184.205 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's always somewhat amusing when someone logs out to complain about how "the entire world outside of Wikipedia is pushing for" something. If this were actually the case, it would be very, very easy to get Wikipedia community consensus on one's side. It's quite clear that the above editor either (a) hasn't actually read the 19 sources he links or (b) has read them and knows that he is misrepresenting their context. Most of them explicitly clarify that the "Chinese laboratory" thing is still a far-out conspiracy theory with very little chance of holding water and zero chance of being completely true in its original Trumpist form (which was, without a doubt, a baseless hoax, regardless of subsequent evidence that may emerge of something superficially similar). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

A great deal of the news media has pivoted recently from "lab leak is a fringe conspiracy theory" to "this is a reasonable hypothesis that must be investigated". It's about time Wikipedia caught up. Indeed here, is a collection of stories showing the recent tone shift. High Tinker (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@High Tinker: Where do you think we still need to 'catch up'? The change on our COVID-19 articles in how we discussed the lab leak (from 'conspiracy' to 'minority scientific opinion') happened months ago after the WHO-China study was released. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I think a good place to start would be NPOVing this, perhaps restore the Covid-19 lab leak hypothesis page rather than auto redirect to a conspiracy theory page High Tinker (talk)

@High Tinker: I completely agree on the phrasing in the misinformation article to distinguish better between the science and the conspiracy (see past discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Break for rewrite). My only disagreement was with the impression that we haven't made any progress at all, but that was probably my misinterpretation. What's the redirect you're referring to? I'd suggest redirecting to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Investigations would probably be a better (and quicker) solution for the redirect than Misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to call attention to this: The Hill: The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab The most common thesis has always been that the virus jumped from some form of animal, most likely bats, to humans... Again, most scientists still believe the virus occurred naturally. This is how we treat the theory, as an unlikely possibility. Notable, but with low acceptance in the scientific community. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these reports are current as of a few hours ago. A few things on that:

1. Berating, shaming, or implying bad faith on people who commented well before such reports were made is bad form, and misrepresents the chronology of this rapidly developing story.
2. Per WP:RECENTISM, As a rapidly developing story, a matter of hours is far too fast to determine if this is worthwhile to put into Wikipedia articles, or just a passing blip. Give it a few days and see what becomes of it. It is sufficient to say that on May 26, there have been calls to deepen the investigation of the source of the virus, but we should NOT (either explicitly by our words or implicitly by proximity) make any connection to these as confirming conspiracy theories. I would be fine with a simple sentence, far away and entirely unconnected from the "lab leak" silliness, that there has been additional pressure to further investigate the origins of the virus.
3. If it turns out, some number of years from now, that the lab leak story turns out to be correct, okay, fine, when we have a definitive answer in that direction, we can add it to the article. We should not fall victim to the sensationalism that news sources have when deciding what to publish and how to phrase things, they have different motivations and purposes than Wikipedia does, per WP:NOTNEWS, and how we present our information should not lead people down garden paths of lending credence to ideas that have not been yet established as credible.

That's all I have to say on this stuff. In short, allowing for the slim possibility this may turn out to be true at some unspecified future date, we aren't even close to that now and should not lend more WP:WEIGHT to WP:FRINGE ideas than prudence would dictate. --Jayron32 20:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There's so much false information out there on COVID. So much information. Wikipedia needs to use only the best academic sources here.PrisonerB (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not within the scope of wikipedia to decide on the origin of Covid. It is not even within our scope to decide the likelihood of the various theories about hte origins of covid. Our role is limited to reporting what reliable sources say about it. It's at root a scientific question, but at this point its one quite capable of being understood by the general public. It's not something to be resolved by quoting authorities. Rather, its one to resolved like all content disputes, by reporting what reliable sources say The various statement of the CDC and the WHO and similar agencies elsewhere over the course of the pandemic have left me a little skeptical about the value of assuming that official medical sources are necessarily credible, on this or any other aspect of the disease: they all seem to have said what thtey thought would be acceptable-acceptable to the general public, or to their political masters. The recommendations and statements wee not necessarily based on the best science at the time--they were based on what was politic to say at the time (the Us is not the most extrme example of this--many European countries did at least as badly) .To analyze what politicians and politically influenced scientists say, we have to look at general sources also. We have news sources we routinely use for question s of public policy. In general, the most accurate of the US sources have indeed been the NYT and from slightly different perspectives, the WaPo and WSJ. We've been very reluctant not to follow them, especially because they were saying things most of us wanted very much to believe, not just about this, but about US politics and US public health in general. Now we have a situation where these sources are saying very clearly that something many of us disbelieved might well be true after all. I note that none of them are saying the lab leak theory is correct: they are saying it is an open question.

I thought better of Wikipedians. I thought that many of the people above reluctant to accept that consensus is no longer clear did believe that they were devoted to following the best sources. Now that the the same sources are not in agreement with their prior preconceptions, they are saying : the reliable sources are the ones that conform to our prejudices. They are the churchmen refusing to look through a telescope because they might see something they didn't want to believe. DGG ( talk ) 09:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a telescope. There is people, who also haven't looked through any telescope yet, because it doesn't exist yet, saying "we should build a telescope". We should not say that the telescope exists when it does not yet. I'll be the first to look through it once it does. What I won't do is speculate on what the telescope that doesn't exist yet might or might not show me. Its is not refutation of any position, it is a "let's have some prudence and wait to see once we have built the telescope". --Jayron32 12:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It is important to understand the dynamics of the situation here. Prior to, say February 2021, the lab leak theory was strictly one made on wild mud throwing and for the most part, baseless accusations related to xenophobia of China. The WHO report essentially identified that the possibility of COVID coming from a lab was statistically unlikely, publishing how they arrived at that conclusion, and dubunking that theory. To that point, this meets all the MEDRS and standard ways we would treat a theory under FRINGE. What has changed since Feb 2021 is that more saner review of the WHO report and additional evidence, while not rejecting the WHO report, ask questions that these people believe leave the WHO report in suspect and have challenged it. This doesn't mean the WHO report is suddenly wrong (eg at this point, we still use MEDRS/FRINGE to treat the original lab leak theory as a debunked conspiracy theory), but we (WP) are not at a point that the questions by newer sources should change how we report it, as they haven't also claimed the WHO report is wrong either; they only say its suspect and are trying their own investigations to validate their own hypothesis. We should also be reporting that aspect, and that is capturing what RSes are covering now too. We should be clear that the newer lab leak theory is less about a xenophobic, purposeful leak, and more that, "hey, WIV possibly had more to do than China is really letting on even if the release was accidental", but again, we're not touching what's concluded by MEDRS's WHO's conclusion at this point. (The "fun" will start when we get gov't intelligence final reports in a few months that assert the lab leak was the origin, and then we'll have to restart this own discussion at that point.) --Masem (t) 13:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it is reliable, and the information has been widely rereported by dozens of other reliable sources. Older sources which contain obsolete information should no longer be considered reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  The question is not whether the sources are reliable, it is whether they are sufficient for making certain statements in Wikipedia's voice. Prudence needs to be taken, especially, in making sure we at Wikipedia don't say more about this than what the sources themselves are saying. That some people have called for further investigation is true, and probably should be reported. Anything beyond that, including what that means for the veracity of the lab leak hypothesis, we should be silent on because that would require a novel synthesis beyond what the sources themselves say. We need to be scrupulously careful that whatever text we add does not, by either explicit writing or by implicit writing such as proximity, imply that the calls for more investigation amounts to an endorsement of the verasity of the hypothesis. --Jayron32 14:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: Mind suggesting a better wording for SARS-CoV-2? It currently has "Some individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, based on circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute. This has led to calls in the media for further investigations into the matter.[93][94]" (in the relevant section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Since you asked, what I would say is "Some individuals, including a small number of virologists, have questioned the prevailing evidence for the origin of the virus. This has led to calls in the media for further investigations into the matter.[93][94]" --Jayron32 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Only to add This CNN article seems a good summary of the events of the last few days and the important difference between what's being asked about the lab leak now and what was being asked then. Then, it was, as CNN's article calls it "cherry picking" to want to point the finger at China. Biden's new order for investigation is meant to eliminate cherry picking, starting with all possible hypothesis on the origin to be back on the table and thus using scientific methods to eliminate the least likely cases. Again, doesn't yet invalidate anything WHO has said nor how we are treating the lab leak as presently debunked by WHO, but as long as we explain the recent history like this, we're fine to address these newer calls. --Masem (t) 21:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Overview at Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far | Coronavirus | The Guardian concludes by quoting WaPo – "Although the resurgent chatter may suggest new clues or proof, the inverse is in fact true. It is the persistent absence of any convincing evidence either for or against the theory that has prompted calls for more investigation." . . . dave souza, talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• A good article at Wired effectively on why we are doing it right (sticking to MEDRS), no evidence has changed at all, but now the playbook by more rationale heads (read: not Trump) is to have better assurance that the lab leak theory is not true by closing all the possible loopholes on it with further investigation with more rationale, scientific thought. Unfortunately, that's being seen as "giving weight to the lab leak theory" by media and politicians, hence the problem being created by poor/non-RSes. That is, even those scientists asking for a further probe are only looking to increase the statistical numbers against the lab leak origin to fully disprove it, feeling the WHO report didn't go far enough. --Masem (t) 19:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Call it what it is: a hypothesis. It is neither proven nor disproven and awaits verification by the scientific community. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"I have now asked the Intelligence Community..."[19] 173.224.187.47 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything brought by the Intelligence Community needs to be considered plausible or possible by the scientific community. They must work hand in hand. Likewise, the scientific community alone is going to have a tough time getting information from the People's Republic of China, and must work with the Intelligence Community to gather reliable information. This doesn't change the hypothesis status. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera:, I'm not sure why you believe that is the case? Intelligence and spycraft are orthogonal to scientific investigation. In addition, most scientists, (and anecdotally, myself included), do not consider themselves to be agents of the state, the way that intelligence and spies must be. Just because a spy says something does not necessarily grant it any credibility from a scientific perspective IMO... BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. There must be some sort of miscommunication because your correction doesn't feel contradictory to what I said. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been thick, I read it as implying that scientists should take the stuff that spies say at face value, or at least, provide an unusually large amount of credibility. I must have misunderstood! BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: No worries :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet, Science Based Medicine, and Snopes/AP

• Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 --The Lancet
• The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited --Science Based Medicine
• WHO Report: COVID Likely 1st Jumped Into Humans from Animals --Snopes/AP

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for starting this whole discussion. Just a few days ago you were completely confused on this topic [20], but now you’ve become a real expert with all the right sources [21]. What are we spending billions on the World Health Organization and their International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response when we have such smart editors as yourself who can figure everything out without any investigation? I don’t agree much with your assessment however and I tend to agree more with DGG that the assessment of which hypothesis is more or less likely is not a question for Wikipedians like you or me to answer. There is a scientific and political controversy around the investigations into the virus’s origins, so we should not be putting anyone’s opinions as facts in WP:WIKIVOICE, yours and Alexbrn’s included [22]. I agree with Terjen that we should quote the most reputable scientists with WP:INTEXT attribution, giving their expert opinions, whatever they may be. CutePeach (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That is the last snarky ("smart editors as yourself who can figure everything out without any investigation") comment I am willing to read from you. I am setting the notifications in my preferences so that I will not see any pings from you, and from now on if I see your signature on a comment I will jump down to the next comment without reading whatever you write. Have fun shouting into an amply room.

If you are interested in the actual evidence, it is all laid out at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak#Science. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I really think you're misunderstanding the consensus among scientists here. While plenty of experts have called for a more thorough and involved investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, very few actual virus experts have said they think the lab leak is all that likely. In fact, several of the scientists who signed the Science letter to the editor have come out and said they still think the zoonotic origin is the most likely. More investigations are warranted. But the consensus has not changed that most relevant experts believe the lab origin is not very likely. As per WP:NOLABLEAK, as per the sources cited above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: the authors of the Science letter represent an extraordinarily high and diversified level of scientific expertise, and they state that hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. The science letter isn’t a consensus statement on which hypothesis is likely or unlikely, and I don’t believe anyone here is trying to say it is. Let’s continue this discussion in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 so that we can find common ground and improve the article. CutePeach (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If you haven't seen it, Vanity Fair published an excellent article on the topic: The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Healthgrades and Courthouse News

I'm reviewing an article for the mainpage DYK and have come across the use of Healthgrades.com being used to cite information and link to primary sources for a BLP. It's not at all what I would normally consider a reliable secondary source. Normally I would dismiss this out of hand but the page claim is about state licenses (more accurately, whether these have been revoked, suspended or surrendered.) Statements about such licensure (under disciplinary actions) appear to be linked to case numbers and primary documents. For example, the statement that the subject has voluntarily surrendered his medical license in New York is being used to verify the subject was once licensed to practice medicine in New York. A routine calculation perhaps.

Another source I'm seeing is CourthouseNews.com. This is being used to verify assertions of wrongdoing on the part of the subject, sometimes pointing to courthouse documents (primary sources). I have no doubt that members of the legal profession might find such information useful but I have doubts we can use this to make assertions about a BLP. What do others think? BusterD (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Article has been put up for speedy deletion now, but I'm still interested in the sources. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Courthouse news is fine to augment existing legal case info from other assured RSes but I would definitely not use it for backing BLP information if its the only source for it; they are too close to simply repeating the court documents and being just a primary source to be used that way. --Masem (t) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Heathgrades? Anyone? I think it's slightly more reliable than Glassdoor, but that's not saying much. BusterD (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for a secondary source is that there has to be some analysis, evaluation, or improvement of primary sources. Just taking court documents and republishing the outcome doesn't count. In the case of Healthgrades, I think it's clear they're not really doing anything with the documents beyond just repeating what the documents have said akin to a background check service (the heading they describe the licensing information under). WP:BLPPRIMARY makes it clear that we don't use court documents to support assertions about a living person, and while medical boards aren't actually courts I believe using documents from a quasi-judicial entity such as a medical board falls under the spirit of the rule at least.

In terms of Courthouse News though, I think it's clear they're a reliable and secondary source. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 04:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courthouse News seems like a reliable source. Its about page spells out that it links directly back to primary source documents, and it appears to be an intentional choice in order to better provide lawyers with the underlying materials so that they can independently verify the veracity of the claim. There appears to be some sort of team in place. They seem like a high-quality reliable source for the topic of civil litigation. I could definitely see an argument that content only reflected on the site may not be WP:DUE, owing to its specialist market focus, though I don't think that impugns the reliability of the site itself. But, owing to that same focus, I would personally feel comfortable using it to support facts in a BLP regarding the occurrence of convictions, the filing of charges, the length of sentences, and the like. Healthgrades seems like a user-generated review site, which would be unreliable and almost always undue for inclusion within an article. At best, the bios might be considered WP:SPS, but that would never be acceptable unless there is evidence that the subject of the Healthgrades page wrote the bio themselves (and then it only be OK for uncontroversial statements about self). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Visually confirmed loses in the Syrian war

This blog counts the images of the destroyed tanks to figure what is destroyed. It's the most reliable way to figure casualties if you ask me .........https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/02/the-idlib-turkey-shoot-destruction-and.html Operation Spring Shield 85.103.50.211 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We don't know what that is an image of, where it is from, what its provenance is, and what is the reliability of the organization that is presenting the narrative behind the image. If a reliable news organization or other source wants to do that research and stake their reputation on it, then we can follow what they write. We don't do the job of reliable sources for them. We just cite their work. --Jayron32 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

images are taken by Turkish drones 85.103.50.211 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Who analyzed the images? Who did the counting? Who verified the story? Etc. --Jayron32 01:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stijn-mitzer-4a9a9419a/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/joost-oliemans-1628a091 as it says in the article 85.103.50.211 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd understand Jakub Janovský doing the analysis, though whether he is an expert is highly dubious. Sure, he has written two reports in Bellingcat about the Syrian War, but his job is network engineering and not military history - we don't just include military history enthusiasts' accounts unless they are recognised in their field (and not that he seems to be particularly so). Google Scholar searches give negative results, so it's a mixed case here.

Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans apparently specialise in the military of North Korea, but, again, no mentions of them having expertise in the Syrian War, so again, a mixed bag. Their scholarly work remains to be seen. The previous discussion said they might be subject matter experts, but you really should look for better info in other sources, which are less of "well, yes and no" and more of "sure". I will be fine if you cite it if this specific blog post is cited in a few books/articles written by other subject experts, but I'd still refrain from using the source if that's the only source of information.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

riiiiiiiiight, yet the article includes a russian imageboard as a source for destroyed turkish equipment for more than a year lmfao, sounds reasonable to me https://lostarmour.info/syria/item.php?id=22513 85.103.50.211 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs and wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

please read wp;crusader mindset, oh wait, there isn't such a rule but there should be 85.103.50.211 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I suggest you immediately read WP:RGW and especially WP:NPA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@85.103.50.211: The word you're looking for is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 00:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

85: If you believe a source doesn't comply with our sourcing requirements, the correct solution is to discuss removing it and anything sourced solely to it, probably first at the article talk page and then somewhere else maybe here if you cannot get consensus. It isn't to add more unacceptable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look and found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#lostarmour.info and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#lostarmour.info which seem to agree it's not an RS and I checked the page and AFAICT the infobox content of concern lacked and other sources (or mention in the body for that matter) so I removed them. While we thank you for alerting us to the problem, you did not need to start off by trying to add more crappily sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Beacon a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?

The Beacon is an Irish opinion website that focuses on "Reporting on the Far-Right." (https://the-beacon.ie/). It is a pseudo-anonymous platform, started in 2019.

The Beacon: Presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan. A large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld. Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site. Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site. Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.

It's currently used on at least one article as a source to identify an organisation as being far-right, which is why I am seeking to find out if it should be considered a reliable source. I am unclear if the site actually has any staff at all or if it is effectively a personal blog. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So, it's not being used a source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs, but is instead being used as one of several sources as a citation for describing an Irish website as 'far-right' - which is its specialist area. Fine as a source for that; it doesn't claim or purport to be an Irish/international news and/or current affairs site, so not reliable for those separate purposes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A glance at the stories posted on the Beacon shows that it covers Irish and international news and/or current affairs. They may have the common thread of alleged links to the far-right, although a number of their stories, such as their piece on Israel's "white supremacy" and another piece on mental health supports for asylum seekers don't seem to fit neatly into that, but they still cover Irish/international news and/or current affairs. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

My point stands. Now let's hear from others, which is the point of the noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on usage. In this case, I'd already looked into the matter and the sourcing is solid. Perpetualgrasp should read WP:1AM and WP:FIXBIAS. WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:STICK are also essays which may be of some benefit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have significant concerns regarding its editorial practices, and the source looks rather questionable. The website does not assign names of authors to articles (at least in the vast majority of cases), lacks an apparent editorial policy, and self-describes as an entity founded in August 2019 by a small group of writers, researchers, and activists. Based off of its self-description, this appears to be a group blog; I don't think that the website could be described as a newspaper or magazine blog. As noted by WP:SPS, [a]nyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs...), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Given that the site admits to being an activist-founded source and there isn't strong evidence of editorial oversight, the source is one that does not appear to be reliable for facts and it should certainly be avoided as a source for a contentious label. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think the site is fine for how it's being used at John McGuirk, which is why we're here. The Beacon clearly separates its articles into News, Analysis, Opinion, and Investigations sections, so it's not an "opinion website". In fact, the article in question is from their News section. It's absolutely a NEWSBLOG. Most articles do have named authors—by my count, ~62% of articles in the News, Analysis, and Investigations sections. Sure, some articles are credited to "The Beacon" but this isn't all that unusual. News agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters do that, too. The Beacon has pledged to adhere to a Journalists' Code of Conduct which suggests that their editorial process is fine. Now I wouldn't advocate using the site by itself for a controversial claim—especially about living persons—but this is a claim about the political leanings of a website that's also backed up by 2 other sources. It's also a claim that's within their extremely niche purview, "the far right in Ireland". Woodroar (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • On the John McGuirk point that was the initial cause of my query, but I think it's probably worth looking at it as a source more broadly now, as it may arise in the future.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Woodroar: When we look at news pieces and investigations (the factual content), that number drops a lot lower. With regards to news pieces (category) it doesn't look like there's a real effort to name the journalists who publish the news. With regards to the investigations page, there is one author that is named, "Bryan Wall". Again, there's really not that much evidence here that the content that the source labels as factual is thoroughly vetted or that there is a robust editorial process. It's also a biased source, owing to its activist nature, and when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. A pledge to obey a code of conduct is good, but without evidence a structured editorial process I can't conclude that it has strong editorial control. If there's substantial use of the source by reliable sources for facts without comment, that might help to show reliability, but I earnestly can't find much at all along those lines. The source is also not a WP:NEWSBLOG, which would imply that the source is hosted as a blog by a newspaper, magazine, or some otherwise reputable news organization; WP:NEWSBLOG isn't a classification for standalone organizations as a whole.

In general, if there are reliable sources that are making a particular claim, then it would be appropriate to cite them provided that the inclusion of that content is due. However, we generally shouldn't lump on a questionable source as a citation if there exist reliable sources making the same claim; it would be a best practice to just cite reliable sources for the claim. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the website is new, it is difficult to find information on it. However, I found the following: it is mentioned by Michael Lanigan in Vice and[23] in TheJournal.ie[24] I would say therefore that it is probably reliable but so far we lack sufficient evidence. It will depend on the extent to which reliable sources such as news media and academic papers use it in future.

Otherwise, I found the question prejudicial. We don't call major media "highly partisan" because it writes disparagingly of fascism and the far right. Similarly we don't ask if other niche media are reliable sources for topics outside their area of concentration. Who would ask for example if the Irish Chicken Farmers Monthly is a reliable source for a plane crash in China or an earthquake in Peru? Even if they reported on those events, they wouldn't be my go to source.

TFD (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the point there regarding their partisan nature is that a) they themselves say their team is partially comprised of activists, and b) if a major media source's entire output consisted of writing disparagingly of any political viewpoint I think it would be fair to class them as highly partisan. If being highly partisan, in relation to any particular political philosophy is good, bad, deserved, or undeserved, is a value judgement which I think is outside the scope of this discussion.

On areas other than the far-right the Beacon have reported on immigration and foreign affairs, including on the Israeli Palestine conflict. Therefore I think it is of relevance if we also consider their reliability when discussing those news items. It seems the unanimous consensus is that they are not a reliable source on these areas, but that would, I think, give rise to further questions regarding their reliability in relation to their core, niche interests - a highly reliable site, which specialises in one area, is likely to be reliable when discussing items outside its core interests due to the standard of their journalism more generally. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. I mean, it's an opinion, but that's all it is. It's not one I think most people would agree with. Just because they're not experts in - say - nuclear physics, the breeding cycle of the thylacine or the military campaigns of Alexander the Great - in no way prevents them from being considered reliable and/or experts on the far-right in Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If the Beacon were to publish articles multiple articles on the military campaigns of Alexander the Great, that were factually incorrect or unreliable in some sense, then I think it would be perfectly fair to say the lack of factual rigour in those articles should be seen as a sign of the general level of journalistic standards within the blog as a whole. It is their choice what they write on. I don't think it follows 'at all' that a media source can be considered reliable on a particular topic, and unreliable on others, when they regular writes about others, without their general standards being considered. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that because they concentrate on fascism and the far right they are highly partisan, even though they are saying exactly what major news media would say. I disagree. They would only be highly partisan if what they wrote differed from major media. Furthermore, writing exactly what major media would say does not make them unreliable. Do you not like how mainstream sources cover fascism and the far right? TFD (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying they're highly partisan because they themselves say they are partially comprised of activists on this topic. I don't really get what you're trying to say with the rest of your comment I'm afraid - their writing does differ from what is published in reputable media outlets. In the instance I gave above they're saying that a media source generally described in the Irish mainstream as right-wing or conservative, and which has never been called by a mainstream Irish media outlet as far-right, is far-right. If, for instance, the Irish Times or the Irish Independent had called Gript far-right we could argue their position represented the position of the mainstream media in Ireland, but that's not the case. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perpetualgrasp, no outlet could possibly be nonpartisan and simultaneously not oppose political extremism like fascism and anarchism, because failing to oppose one of those extremes is, itself partisanship.

The fact that this outlet is based on opposition to the politically extreme ideology which is in vogue right now cannot be used to argue that they're partisan with any credibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Any outlet which takes a strongly antagonistic approach to a political ideology, to the extent that they arguably should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology, is highly partisan towards that ideology, be it fascism, communism, socialism or anything else. That partisanship may be justified, it may reflect dominant cultural norms, and it may be seen as the moral stance to take, but it doesn't change that the underlying approach is partisan.

Regardless, this is moving us away from the core of this issue, which is a question of the reliability of a source which which is making a claim that has not be repeated anywhere in the Irish mainstream press, and which; presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan; a large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld; Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site; Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site; Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.

Even were we to disregard the point regarding partisanship it would still leave us with the rest of the issues regarding the site, not least of which is that it could easily simply be a small group blog of uncertain authorship. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perpetualgrasp, to the extent that they should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology So you're arguing that they're unreliable because you insist they're unreliable. I think we're done here; this sort of argumentation doesn't merit serious engagement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That point was made in response to your argument above, that an outlet cannot be considered to be partisan if it opposes what it considers to be extreme ideologies, it is not a general comment on the Beacon. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perpetualgrasp, so instead of using circular logic, you're now claiming you were tilting at a straw man? That's really not any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I responded to the point your comment made. If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would again point out that you have not commented on the other concerns of substance I brought up, but are instead focusing entirely on a point that seems to be related entirely to you own unorthodox definition of partisan. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perpetualgrasp, If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would note that the claim that my argument is poor because I pointed out that your argument didn't actually address it is a non-sequitur. We've gone from informal to formal fallacies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comments are, either willfully or accidentally, derailing this conversation, which is meant to be about the reliability of the Beacon. I'd appreciate if you could refocus on that. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perpetualgrasp, okay, how's this? Bastun, Woodroar, TFD and I all agree that it's being used properly for the disputed citation. You disagree. Mikehawk "has concerns" about their reliability, but TFD pointed out some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would directly address those concerns, and Mikehawk never opined that it's not usable here, just that it might be generally unreliable.

So there you have it. We already have a consensus here, you just don't like what that consensus says.

On top of that consensus, we also have two other sources whose reliability even you seem to accept, saying the same thing. Which then establishes that the consensus here is beyond reproach: it is not just the consensus of editors engaged with the subject, but a verifiable fact that this source is reliable for this use. Therefore, this thread can be closed.

Alternatively.... You could continue to litigate this until someone decides you've been allows to continue long enough and points out to an admin how disruptive it is for you to continue to shop forums until you finally get the answer you want. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Better I will say. Not terribly relevant considering I originally started this question asking was it a reliable source for "Irish/international news and/or current affairs", as you can see in the section title, but better. I mentioned the reference in question to show it was now being used as a cited source, and we got derailed into talking about it as if that was the only issue here, but it's not the main concern - as you can see above on the list of potential issues.

On your point regarding disruption, and relating to your earlier, I would say incorrect, accussation that I was edit-warring, I would point to the following statement on the Disruptive Editing page - "If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

See The header at the very top of this page which makes it clear that we must consider not just the source, but the way it's being used to come to a determination here before the next time you complain that an RSN discussion got "derailed" discussing the use a source was put to.

Your complaints about my links to some of our behavioral guidelines makes it quite clear that you haven't read and internalized those guidelines, which would be much to your advantage to do. For example: I never accused you of vandalism. In fact, I was implying that your continued refusal to accept the answer you've gotten everywhere you've brought this up is tendentious editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We are having a discussion, that entails a back and forth and people are free to engage as long as they see fit. I get that you disagree with my position in this case, as I disagree with yours, but to suggest that continuing to engage in an ongoing conversation should be considered tendentious editing is nonsense. I am responding to your comments as they are directed at me, if you wish me to stop commenting then all you have to do is stop yourself. This discussion is clearly coming to an end anyway, and it seems to have come down on the view that the Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rethinking sex assigned at birth

Hey I found this thing on The BMJ Called Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions, link here. I haven’t read it yet because I don’t have access to it. But, I was thinking about adding to transgender and intersex related articles to give some due weight to a certain view on the topic, what do you all think?CycoMa (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a piece of correspondence rather than an article, so don't add it unless you have a good reason to do so, even if that person specialises in medical care for non-binary patients.

If you want to access the whole of the commentary (which I also can't do), you can ask people at WP:RX, though personally I don't believe you need to do that in the first place. She has proper articles which are something we should cite. Of course, context in which you would like to cite the commentary would be helpful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Its not a journal or an article. Therefore, its not helpful. What do you need to cite it for? HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit I knew the BMJ is considered a reliable source, so I was thinking about using to give due weight to certain view in the topic.

I honestly don’t many opinions to be honest, also as the other user said one of the individuals has expertise on this.CycoMa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In my view, this is a high-quality WP:RSEDITORIAL which might very well be WP:DUE, depending on where and how you want to mention the opinion of the authors. The BMJ seems to have standards regarding such "Editorials": Editorials are 800 word articles which usually respond to a topical issue. They must be evidence based, but journalistic in style and written with an international general medical audience in mind. We particularly value pitches authored or co authored by patient advocates, representatives, and leaders. Authors with financial ties to industry are not allowed to write clinical editorials. JBchrch talk 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is a high-quality WP:RSOPINION piece, but only for what it specifically says. And by my reading it is a very specific opinion, so I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to use it - the question of "should clinicians ask for assigned sex at birth?" probably requires an actual MEDRS source, since it's specifically and directly discussing medical treatment, and even if this qualifies it's not exactly a question that comes up much. What certain view on the topic did you want to use it to illustrate, and where? (You might also look up other papers by the researchers who wrote it - there may be peer-reviewed ones that touch more directly at the questions you want to cover. At a glance, Ash B Alpert has written a lot of papers about eg. treating trans patients with cancer.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jazzdisco.org versus Jazzdiscography.com

• https://www.jazzdisco.org/

The Jazz Discography Project ( jazzdisco.org ) has been cited on Wikipedia for about 12 years, with Dickdock referencing them in a few articles in 2009, including New York Journeyman – Complete Recordings. The website has been cited or listed as an external link in about 500 articles since then.

Nobuaki Togashi, Kohji "Shaolin" Matsubayashi and Masayuki Hatta are listed as the editorial team at jazzdisco.org. The project appears to be attempting to list every appearance of prominent jazz musicians in recording sessions. They don't have a mission statement.

I looked at a handful of musician entries at the website, and none of the sources were cited. It's not clear where jazzdisco.org is getting their information. To me, it looks like they are copying mostly from jazzdiscography.com and other websites. I fear their jazz project will suffer from circular reporting such that a wrong entry published in a blog somewhere will end up repeated by jazzdisco.org.

On the other hand, Brian Rust started organizing jazz session details from the 1940s onward, and he published books documenting jazz sessions. The website JazzDiscography.com is based on Rust's work. The JazzDiscography.com people explain their philosophy and their methods, crediting Rust extensively, but the Jazzdisco.org website does not list any sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that jazzdiscography.com is based on Rust's work, except in some aspects of approach. I believe that Rust didn't have much interest in post-WWII recordings. The accusation that jazzdisco.org is plagiarising from jazzdiscography.com is a serious one. jazzdiscography list 1 and jazzdiscography list 2 present the coverage of artists. Here's jazzdisco's for comparison. The only overlap in the first ten listed at jazzdisco is Tina Brooks (I haven't looked beyond these ten). But jazzdiscography presents only his recordings as a leader, while jazzdisco covers his recordings as a leader and as a sideman. jazzdisco also lists Japanese releases, which jazzdiscography does not. So, based on this very limited check, the accusation isn't substantiated. Maybe jazzdisco is copying from other websites... which ones?

Discographies in the jazz world often cite very few sources; instead, they offer acknowledgements. I'm looking at a discography of Pepper Adams: 1.5 pages in the bibliography versus 3 pages (mostly lists of names) of acknowledgements. And copying (with amendments) from other discographies is common – Tom Lord's is/was notorious for this. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Searching what I have easy access to, I find jazzdisco used in the following:

• West & Titlebaum Teaching School Jazz: Perspectives, Principles, and Strategies Oxford University Press ("jazzdisco.org, which provides an extensive chronological discography for most major jazz artists")
• Gluck The Miles Davis Lost Quintet and Other Revolutionary Ensembles The University of Chicago Press (uses it as a source)
• Giddins Celebrating Bird: The Triumph of Charlie Parker University of Minnesota Press (uses it as a source)
• Adlington Sound Commitments: Avant-Garde Music and the Sixties Oxford University Press (uses it as a source)
• Goodman Mingus Speaks University of California Press (refers readers to it)
• Petersen & Rehak The Music and Life of Theodore "Fats" Navarro Scarecrow Press (listed in 'discographies' section)
• Myers Why Jazz Happened University of California Press (uses it as a source) EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Very serious crime, but only deprecated sources

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

---

• Marek Kukula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In 2018, an individual pleaded guilty to holding "several hundred" pornographic pictures of child sexual abuse; but this was only reported in The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6887460/dr-marek-kukula-astronomer-doctor-who-book-child-abuse-images/) and The Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6002381/Greenwich-Observatorys-Public-Astronomer-downloaded-407-child-porn-images.html ), each of which we try to avoid using. I have waited over two years to see if others would emerge; they have not.

The individual's Wikipedia article documents their positive contributions to science, but makes no mention of their crime or the end it effective put to that career.

Should we cite the available sources?

I know the policy says we can, where no others are available, but my experience is that these will be removed anyway, even it removes valuable content, or leaves it not, or badly, cited. Hew can this be prevented? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's not been published other than in the Daily Mail or The Sun, then it's probably undue. Marek Kukula is only borderline notable anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints; I don't know that anyone seriously holds the view that he was not convicted of the crime. It ended his career, so it is a major part of his life. He is either notable or not notable; his notability seems well established to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I'm tempted to turn this question around and ask if no other sources covered this event, is he actually notable? The existing article is cursory. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I started looking into this. The first two sentences (his birth year and his position and time period thereof at the Greenwich Observatory) aren't verifiable in the cited source. That source does nothing but document a public talk Kukula participated in. The second and third sources verify the content they're use on, but the fourth (a different page on the same site as the first) does not. There's also unsourced statements in the article. I think you're right; this article needs an AfD to determine if we should keep it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing enough hits in Google News (though mostly as a quoted individual due to his position) pre-2018 as to say there should be a deeper WP:BEFORE analysis before rushing this to AFD, considering that WP:NPROF is applicable here.

But I did investigate for post-2018 sources related to the event and simply can't find anything outside deprecated sources. And it is not like the Sun is magnifying the crime - cops arrested him, a trial happened, and he's been sentenced on non-prison terms (in contrast to when Fox News tends to puff up "crimes" of liberals), just surprising a name that BBC + Guardian had bantered around just not mentioned after a clear trial. That said, even with the DM and Sun sources, there's no much more after this event that we can say "his career was ruined" though it can be read into that. I think in such a situation (assuming we keep the article) we simply can't say anything about it until a non-deprecated source appears that talks to it. We are not required to be up to date, and we're not going to sully our sourcing to achieve up to date information, even if that is "critical" information as I'd agree these charges and impact on career are. --Masem (t) 21:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, an AfD being a discussion is what I was aiming at. I'm not convinced this article needs to be deleted, I'm saying whether it should be deleted should be discussed. I did do a google news search, and found much the same thing as you. Most of those seem to be passing mentions, but two of the sources used on the page are clearly about him, so there's some depth of coverage.

One thing strikes me as odd: His position was as a science communicator. I would have expected a lot more coverage and ghits for a science communicator. I'm left wondering if, perhaps, he'd taken steps to reduce his internet profile after his conviction.

In any case, I just think we should discuss it. I mean, AfD has a way of generating sources, as Blueboar notes below, so it's not as if the deck is stacked against keeping it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

As I recall, some of the people he as associated with have wiped all trace of him from their websites; that'll be their decison, not his, due to the nature of his crime. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, that would certainly help explain the lack of sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

[ec] He wasn't "sentenced on non-prison terms", he was sentenced to prison, and that sentence was (and, AFAICT, remains) suspended. We don't need to say "his career was ruined", but we do need to say he admitted a very serious crime, and was sentenced accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the sources currently cited, I am not sure if he passes WP:Academic (much less GNG). Worth taking this to AFD, even if the goal is to see if other sources show up on the course of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Kukula. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The AfD closed as "keep", so I've restored this section; the original point still requires resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• A very tricky question. On the one hand, the use of sources known to push falsifications especially for a contentious BLP remark seems to be problematic. British tabloids frequently engage in questionable practices in regards to BLPs. On the other hand, this seems to be significant context for the article. Thing is, if only the DM and The Sun are publishing it, how do we know it's true? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • For two reasons: logic dictates that the chances of the two rival newspapers, from different publishing houses, inventing an identical claim on the same day is so remote as to be implausible; and because there has been no retraction, complaint to a regulatory body, nor libel case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have the same stance as in the AfD. If the Daily Mail and the Sun are the only sources reporting on this and are recognized as unreliable sources, then we have no actual evidence that the event/crime even happened. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Silverseren^C 21:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Does there happen to be a public British sex offenders/convictions/arrests database that we could use? It would be a primary source, though we could probably use it under the relevant policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says not to use public documents and records as sources for statements about living people. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of that policy; thank you for letting me know. The only way around I see is the part that says that [w]here primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. But in any case this would require a secondary source reliable for the claim of arrest and/or conviction for the primary source to be used as a bolstering citation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• A claim like this about a living person must be cited to a reliable source per WP:BLP. The Daily Mail and the Sun are not acceptable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this and the fact that we've been unable to find one does call into question this subject's notability. A recent AfD was closed keep. The closer did not explain why but several votes mention his position as "Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich". We do appear to generally lack sources to write a detailed article. My opinion: It is unusual that secondary sources have not seen this as worthy of more coverage but trailblazing ahead is not the task of an encyclopedia. Spudlace (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It does not call into question notability, it calls into question the reliability of the claim from these tabloid articles. If we have no actual evidence that this happened and the only available sources are deprecated ones, then we have no presumption that the claims in said articles even occurred. Until we have evidence to the contrary, we should proceed with the assumption they are wrong. (And I say this thinking that they're right, but that's irrelevant right now) Silverseren^C 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary already exists. His Observatory profile has disappeared without trace, and without explanation. He has also dropped off the map in terms of being cited as an expert in astronomy. All of this is consistent with a serious conviction that would nullify any kind of career involving engaging with children. If nobody has any actual evidence that they are untrue, they should be assumed to be true, on the obvious basis that whatever people think of tabloids, British national newspapers aren't in the habit of producing false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature, not when it concerns someone with enough of a publc profile that someone would have noticed, and certainly not when including actual quotes from judges and prosecutors and lawyers. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope that if you are ever accused of a serious crime you get a fairer shake than you have given the person accused above -- you might not like being assumed guilty based upon someone's silence. British tabloids do produce false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature. We have caught them doing it. British tabloids do lie about people with a public profile. We have caught them doing it. British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it. If the only evidence you have is British tabloids and silence by colleagues, you have no evidence at all. See Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict for just one example of a British tabloid making up direct quotes. Also see [25]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Was that a serious comment? That story was online for two minutes, and was acknowledged as mistake, a mistake that actually led to several newspapers running the false information. Is this your idea of substantiation for an extraordinary charge like "British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it."? Because if it is, then I fear for anyone who would appear in a court overseen by you. I am even more convinced that nobody on Wikipedia has ever actually seen either the Sun or Mail producing a false story of this nature, where someone has been reported as having been convicted of a serious crime, and the piece contains quotes from a judge, lawyer and prosecutor. It has never been clearer that these objections are based on nothing but nakedly absurd prejudice, and quite deliberately do not take into account the context or circumstances, which is what the Wikipedia policies on Verification and Reliable Sources actuall require. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• The council minutes of the Royal Astronomical Society might contain something? In 2016 the minutes (which coincidentally mentions Kukula in a different section; he won a prize) contains dealings with "an alleged contravention to the Society’s Code of Conduct by a Fellow who had been charged and found guilty of multiple offences including: downloading indecent still and moving images of children". The matter was continued for further examination. Now... If these minutes are available, and deal with criminality by a Fellow (the proposal being to expel them from the RAS), then it may well be the case that Kukula's offending is also covered in subsequent minutes. The obvious issue is that the 2016 minutes don't actually name the Fellow concerned, so even if Kukula's 2018 charges are dealt with in subsequent minutes it may be impossible to prove that they refer to him. I'm not sure how useful this is: It may in fact be a wild goose chase, and in any event a primary source (although probably useable in an ABOUTSELF manner if they did expel him, to back up an assertion that they did so). But I thought I'd drop the possibility if anybody can do anything with it. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be 100% original research to assume those minutes connect to this person if they do not explicitly name him, and against BLP to make the assumption. --Masem (t) 18:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • As I said, yes, the chances of them being useable are a long shot. But first we would need to find them and see if any name them, if any even exist; he may have left voluntarily, have not been sanctioned, or the tabloids could just be plain wrong. Hence, quite possibly a wild goose chase. It's the only vague lead I've found, however. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

      The minutes from the following council meeting name the expelled Fellow, it was not Kukula. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

      Well, yes, since they predate the reported conviction. The long shot would be to try and track down minutes that postdate it and see if the same process was used for Kukula. Even then, I suggested this before I was aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY linked above which to my (admittedly inexpert) mind means that even if such minutes are out there... They'd still be useless for sourcing purposes. Sorry, but it looks like my idea is a write-off. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if the Sun and the Daily Mail were considered reliable sources, unless it was mentioned in the broadsheets it would lack weight for inclusion. UNDUE in fact covers both facts and opinions. Facts are referred to as "aspects" and are written about in the Balancing aspects section of UNDUE. The Sun is in fact "magnifying the crime" in the sense that neither the crime nor the perpetrator were significantly high profile for it to be of any interest to broadsheet readers. Tabloids however cover crime more extensively and include stories that their readers will find titillating. Otherwise respectable person caught doing something naughty provides entertainment for their readers.

If the subject were more notable, then the broadsheets would have covered the story but then they would have covered other aspects of his life in detail as well. The fact that he received a suspended sentence shows that the judge probably decided to take into account other behavior that mitigated this crime. A detailed impartial account of his life would include this. But we can't add that because we lack secondary sources.

TFD (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As has already been shown, the broadhseets have covered aspects of this man's life in detail, just not as nominal News, only ever as Lifestyle/Culture. There are lots of reason why they might have chosen not to cover the later conviction, but it seems insulting in the extreme to suggest that mere titillation is behind the Sun and Mail's choice to consider it worthy of reporting. This was a man who got a high profile job in a public museum where access to children and schools was a necessary and indeed desirable component. A man who we now know had already been looking at underage pornography of the most serious kind, a fact which could have easily been discovered by the museum if institutions had the legal power to perform background checks of the sort you would perform on a sports coach, the sort of checks that the police can do. There is an obvious public interest angle here, one which perhaps doesn't appeal to the left wing broadsheets, public broadcaster and academic publications that had previously profiled him. And on what basis are you suggesting this was leniency? I don't know what the sentencing guidelines say, but I would certainly be surprised if a prison sentence is mandatory for a first offence of possessing indecent images, even 30+ Category A images. It could be said that is the very fact he got a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, that shows the seriousness with which what he did is viewed by the criminal justice system, both in terms of what he downloaded, and his public profile and access to children for years after the event. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Describing a named individual as a pedophile (or even reporting accusations of it) is obviously one of the most WP:BLP-sensitive things we can cover; it clearly requires high-quality sources, and clearly depreciated sources are insufficient. If no high-quality sources cover it then we can't, either. I would just set up some news alerts and wait to see if higher-quality sources pick it up later. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not a case of reported accusations. This is a case where national newspapers have reported, as fact, with quotes attributed to a named Judge, that this man plead guilty to possession of 30+ Category A indecent images in Crown Court. If Wikipedia thinks that's an aspect of this man's life that it can't risk including because it might be untrue, that's fine, but the record needs to be clear as to precisely what it is rejecting, and why. Accusations, these are not. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr Happy Shoes, but are there sources other than the Daily Mail or The Sun? Because those are sources one can not trust, these are (well were) page 3 publications.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information from, but the Daily Mail has never been a Page Three publication. But I would of course be open to any argument or scientific proof that shows that the presence of a picture of a topless lady on page three, increases the likelihood of the page 17 story which says an named person working at a public museum has been convicted of a serious crime and includes quotes from a judge, lawyer and prosecutor, cannot be assumed to be accurate, given that there are no other indicators of falsity, except the title of the publication. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a source that can be trusted. Some of what they report is true. This might be true. But for these very serious crimes a more reliable source, one with public trust, is required.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Prejudices aside, this can quite easily be assumed to be true information, unless you can present convincing evidence to the contrary. Nobody has, so far. Not on the specifics, nor in the general use case. Only at the level of pointing to the title. On which, you seem to be ignoring the very pertinent fact that if this story is false, which it isn't, then there must be some reason why a false story has been run by two newspapers, the Sun and the Mail, under different bylines, with the exact same quotes. Have you a likely scenario, one that fits these facts, as opposed to your opinions? This illustrates your prejudice. You are singularly unprepared to consider context and circumstance, which is actually what the Wikipedia policies on Verfiability and Reliable Sources requires. For example, on what grounds are you claiming the public doesn't trust the Mail to perform its journalistic duty when it comes to reports of this nature? Have you any studies? Reports, condemnations, legal findings even? Have you got anything, other than the Amanda Knox story being online for two minutes, that would support this extraordinary claim, to use a term of art I have seen used here. Any reliable source will do. Any source at all, in fact, other than your own opinion. Since nobody knows who you are, and therefore wouldn't know if you were for example, employed by The Mirror, and so had a vested interest in smearing a competitor. It is the very fact that this is a serious matter, the most serious, that people can absolutely trust that the Mail has got it right. Celebrity tittle tattle, this is not. A mere tablid accusation, this is not. This is a factual report whose factual basis can be checked by anyone who has access to the court records, which I presume is quite a lot of people. You are free to even contact the judge to ask if these are her words, if you want to stand by this absurdity. I suspect when it is framed that way, you will decline the invitation to put your money where your with is. On which score, you should of course be mindful that Wikipedia is a publisher, for the purposes of your responsibilities regarding making statements you seem to want to claim are reasonably supported by the evidence, but then might wish to retract later, should that claim be challenged. There is a simple truth here, one that nobody seems to want to acknowledge, despite all their naked prejudices against tabloids. It makes absolutely no sense at all for anyone to try to argue that it would make good economic sense on the sensationalism/tabloid business model, for any newspaper to knowingly print false stories concerning serious convictions of people with a public profile by virtue of being employed in a public facing role at a believed public institution, up to and including quoting judges. The very idea is absurd. A sure fire path to scandal and bankruptcy. Insane. Or at least, inane. I was more convinced when it seemed like you were going to make the scientific case for ther being an actual provable link between printing images of breasts, and the presence of false court reporting. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

When a sordid story on a pedophile appears in a tabloid, two tabloids, I assume it is false until proven otherwise.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good for you. I guess you missed the part where you're obliged to explain how, in this context, that makes for a viable business model. And out of interest, are you also in the habit of calling identifiable people pedophiles, when that word doesn't even appear in the "sordid stories" you apparently based that accusation on? This is your prejudice on full display. Only in your sordid mind, does the addition of an emotive headline and a handful of trigger words like sick and disturbing, turn an otherwise dry and factual report on a court proceeding, with precise legal terminology, quotes and dry background detail, into a "sordid story on a pedophile". It is your own prejudice that makes you think this is what these reports are, and therefore this is what makes them false. I can't otherwise imagine there is any logic or reason behind it. If there was, it would have manifested by now, right? You would have read and responded to my specific points, rather than simply restated your prejudices, as if they weren't already known. You need to properly own that obviously flawed line of argumentation and source classification, because such a mistake is not something any serious journalist would make, not even a tabloid journalist. Not that there is any training involved, but if there was, one of the first things a Wikipedia editor would be taught, would be to how to identify whether a prejudice is interfering with their perceptions, and manifesting in what they write. I will ask you a follow up, and feel free to ignore it because you will undoubtedly find it inconvenient to your deeply held prejudices. When narrowing it down to simply the category of "sordid story on a pedophile", in your experience, direct or third party, how many actually false stories featuring fabricated quotes form a judge, are you personally aware of? I am going to go out on a limb and say your answer would be none, and that this simple fact is entirely immaterial to what you just said above, and in prior comments. If so, if you accept these observations, are you prepared to own them? In other words, can I quote you on it? Can you say, write in your own words, that it doesn't matter to you if you have never ever seen the Sun or Mail fabricate a quote from a judge in a report about a conviction, if the context is a story about a criminal conviction involving sexual imagery of children, you are happy to assume the story is a fabrication, :until proven otherwise." And perhaps an explanation of your desired standard of proof, too. If it is as simple as The Guardian reprinting the story word for word, perhaps crediting the Sun/Mail, minus the emotive language, feel free to admit it. But if for example you need something more, up to and including someone from Wikipedia to contact the judge for conformation, feel free to say that too. Everything will help me convey the decision making attributable to the amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia editors. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Every claim in Wikipedia must be able to be verified in a reliable source, regardless of what the claim is. The Daily Mail and The Sun are not reliable sources so if they are the only places the claim is verifiable it cannot be included in Wikipedia. The Daily Mail and The Sun are unreliable because it has been proven they cannot be trusted to accurately report facts. If you want to challenge this then you need to demonstrate they have changed and now report matters accurately. The way you can demonstrate that is by demonstrating examples where the facts reported by the Daily Mail and/or The Sun across a significant number of stories over a significant period of time match the facts reported in sources that we do know to be reliable with, over the same time period, no counterexamples. By definition a story that is not reported in reliable sources cannot form part of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You have simply restated points I have already addressed, and nobody seems able to counter. Policy doesn't say any of this, and I don't know why people think it does. Context is king. No decision is made in a vacuum. And like it or not, there is an established and relevant track record here, to fit the circumstances. I have literally even asked the person who actually claimed that the Sun and Mail have an established track record of fabricating judge's quotes, and Wikipedia has "caught them", for proof that he didn't actually just make this claim up. I have yet to be given an answer. I suspect he has lied. I suspect he will face no consequences for this Wikipedia hosted slur on an entire industry, because it seems like Wikipedia editors are totally fine with the super ironic activity of telling outright lies about people they so obviously hate with a passion, if it sells. Do you have any proof that the Sun/Mail have more complaints against them regarding the simple dry act of reporting convictions than the so called reliable sources? On an identical dataset, story for story, case for case. Don't bother trying, I already know you don't. This is my job. I am paid to know this. I was mildly curious if anyone here would even reach that level of the debate. I have my answer. Masem basically just admitted it. Wikipedia editors genuinely want to treat two identical tabloid reports of a serious conviction, with actual quotes from a judge, as if it were equivalent to the grapevine, in terms of likely accuracy. It is an outrageous and obviously false position. If the Wikipedia editors stand by it, I aim to make them pay for it. Up to and including loss of donations. This decision does not stand in a vacuum. It does directly affect the safety of children. Nobody is EVER going to understand Masen's analogy between the disclaimer warning people to be wary of vandalism, and knowing that not every biography here will be including hyper-pertinent information like this. There is no hiding place. Two wrongs do not make a right. The right call, had you known you would be incapable of getting past your prejudices, would have been to decide not to host a biography at all. And Wikipedia is dreaming if it thinks people will ever accept that The Guardian and the BBC, the people who previously profiled this man, are the ones who get to decide if reporting on this specific career ending conviction is in the public interest. Wikipedia is properly screwed here. I gave you all every single chance to see where this was heading, but for whatever reason, you simply cannot dig yourselves out of this tramline repetition of the same old excuses. It is a prejudice. If not, show me the evidence. Relevant evidence. Show me you all understand the difference between celebrity tittle tattle, and court reporting. Or actually admit, clearly and for the record, that you do not care a damn that the accuracy to be found in one activity really has no bearing in the other. Not even a little bit. For reasons everyone not deeply immersed in Wikipedia and thus indoctrinated in this prejudice, is going to understand. No need to be a journalismm expert, knowing industry details like who does what and why. Only requirement being a working brain. If the Wikipedia editors want to address this issue, on the facts, well, miracles can happen I guess. Time is running out. Or rather, I am getting tired of being taken for an idiot. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If all you can respond with walls of text filled with personal attacks do not be surprised if the thread gets closed so you don't waste any more time. I will not be responding further unless and until you can demonstrate you have listened to what everybody has told you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is your proof that the Mail/Sun would think it wise to print a false story about a court conviction, including fabricated quotes from a judge? Where is your proof they have ever done this, such that I would need to convince you they no longer do it? These are questions that arise from Wikipedia policy when applied to this context, specifically Verification and Reliable Sources. Written policy, not people's wishes or inventions. I am listening. You aren't. Feel free to walk away as if I'm the one with the problem here, but please don't complain later if this tactic comes back to haunt you. You are on the record, as is everyone here who has tried to treat me like I am an absolute idiot. I get paid to know the difference between an evidence backed claim, and something someone just made up, and just want to genuinely believe it. If people here don't understand the meaning of the word prejudice, look it up now. You will be hearing it a lot in future, because it is what you are guilty of here. Bang to rights. Own it. Live with it. Or wise up and address the matter at hand. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The three closers of the 2019 RfC on the Daily Mail wrote: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case." The RfC on The Sun concluded: "the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article". These are controversial 'facts', so collectively (not everyone, but a consensus), yes, in Mr Happy Shoes' words: "Wikipedia editors genuinely want to treat two identical tabloid reports of a serious conviction, with actual quotes from a judge, as if it were equivalent to the grapevine, in terms of likely accuracy." It could be argued that DM+Sun = more than DM or Sun alone; perhaps that discussion hasn't been had. And there's still IAR as an option (in theory). EddieHugh (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That discussion definitely hasn't been had. Largley because nobody really wants to hear this issue from a specifics point of view. I have said from the very outset, how important it was that not one, but two tabloids, ran an identical story, with identical quotes, and different bylines, and there's no evidence anywhere that even in isolation, fakery in this area is what they have ever done. Nobody cares. Happy to treat me like I am an absolute twit who knows nothing about nothing. I am dying to tell them my real job. Egg meet faces, and make no mistake. And evidently this is all proof they have heard me, and wisely considered, but rejected, my points. Laughable really. Some haven't even noticed there is more to this than simply delivering the appparently required insult to the Mail, and wandering off, as if not having read up on the scenario makes them look like people whose opinions must count. They all desperately want to live in some magical fantasy world where tabloids are indeed on the same level as gossip, from page one to the back page, and so Wikipedia can happily ignore any and all of their reports, as if there wouldn't be any consequences. Well, meet the admitteldy unintended consequences. The paradox has been exposed. Wikipedia is now in the reputation repair business, like it or not, for not very well known people convicted of serious crimes that were totally pertinent to the one reason (job) that anyone here really used to decide they do indeed warrant a Wikipedia biography. Nobody here can pretend not finding a way to mention this information has no consequences, or worse, only had good outcomes for Wikipedia. It is a pretence. A delusion. Nobody here is willing to admit it, but they have created situation where, contrary to their best intentions I am sure, it is actually mandatory to read emotive tabloid junk alongside Wikipedia biographies. There's nothing else out there on this man. It's Wikipedia, and these two identical reports, that nobody can find any reason to doubt, except by resorting to their prejudice. Things really don't need to be like this. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than this pointless repetition of dogma. Wikipedia doesn't like tabloids, we get it. Just live with the consequences of taking that viewpoint to the absolute, unjustifiable extreme. Beyond all reason. Well into pure unadulterated prejudice. That is all anyone who doesn't want to spend their time here in this delusion, will be expecting. I certainly expected better. Fool me once indeed, as someone said. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

All else aside, see WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we summarize what is generally accepted to be true, or cover significant strands of thoughts and debates when there is notable disagreement. If something negative about someone is notable enough to receive significant coverage from high-quality reliable sources, we will generally reflect that; but we're not a tabloid and are not trying to compete with tabloids, so if you thought that reading Wikipedia could be a substitute for reading The Sun then you were mistaken. If you want to get a sense of what the tabloids are saying about someone, you should have to read both, because an encyclopedia is very different from a tabloid. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Happy Shoes has been blocked as yet another Brian K. Horton sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, this was a lot less obvious than his antics about the Daily Mail last year were (not that thats saying much), but the long walls of text with a syntax typical of Crows Nest socks is obvious in hindsight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Flamesrising.com

This website, which for intents and purposes comes across to me as a long-running fanzine-style blog about pop culture and arts, was brought up in this AfD to support keeping the article from being deleted. The argument is that the review provides WP:SIGCOV and thus it can be relied upon to demonstrate notability. When I disputed the website's reliability, as it was disputed by another editor a few years back during another AfD, it was suggested that I take it to the RSN and generate a discussion. It is currently cited in 70 articles across Wikipedia so it is good to get a consensus on whether it is appropriate to use as a cited source. Haleth (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. The site seems to be on the very serious side of amateur. There is something approaching an editorial process, and the submission guidelines look reasonably professional. However, they clearly rely on donated content from mostly amateur reviewers, state that they do not take responsibility for plagiarism in articles and make no mention of fact-checking. They do not offer payment to contributors. My view is that this is an exceptionally well-run fansite, is not RS except when publishing individuals who are already acknowledged/published experts in a particular field, and should not be used to establish notability in any circumstances. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the nature of Flames Rising, I largely agree with Boynamedsue--it's a very good fan site. I'd say the submission guidelines are fine. The plagiarism clause is basically the same as any "work-for-hire" writing site has (including places like like Science news and similar where the content mostly comes from freelancers). And I don't think "pay" enters into if a site is reliable. It is a well-run site getting content largely from volunteers. Where I differ is that none of that makes me think the site isn't reliable for details about the material it covers. It has a more in-depth set of submission guidelines than most paid sites and paying the freelancers wouldn't change things. I'd say it's reliable for things like game and movie content. I wouldn't use it for even mildly questionable BLP material or similar issues. (note: I was involved in the AfD mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps using it for facts in already notable articles is something I might not do, but probably wouldn't delete in a rage if I saw someone else had. Where would you stand on using it for notability of an article? I don't see it as being able to satisfy WP:SIGCOV as it is effectively self-published. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you say it's self-published? There are editors and a publisher and there are folks writing the articles that are subject to review (and editing...) by those others. Is it because money isn't changing hands? Something else? But yes, I'm fine with it as part of meeting the GNG for things like games and movies. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability comes from being of sufficient interest to be published by a publishing house, newspaper, magazine, journal of record. These are recognised institutions that sets the debate on a particular topic, a fansite is simply what enthusiasts decide to write in a given place. This fansite is published and edited by an individual who is simply a particularly organised fan, it is the same as a self-published book edited by a private individual. It should not be used to establish notability, per the guidelines on self-published sources. Links to policy: fansites are self-published. self-published work should not be used to establish notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

TheCubanHistory.com

Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of TheCubanHistory.com as a source? An editor at Cuba has been using it recently to add to the article. The source appears to be Wordpress blog. The blogger appears to also Tweet under the same id, i.e., @TheCubanHistory, and link from Twitter to his blog. He's been at it a long time, and he certainly seems knowledgeable, but there's never any sources, and it just looks like a one-man SPS. It could just be a labor of love, but I haven't examined it enough to determine if he might have a particular PoV; sources on Cuba not infrequently do. How are such things usually handled? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The site links to the twitter account of Arnoldo Varona, who appears to have been published relevantly on several occasions in Venezuela. I don't know enough about the journal concerned to say whether it engages in peer-review and fact-checking, but I have found his work cited in revista claseshistoria, a source which I strongly suspect not to be RS. I would say that the fact he is not directly putting his name on this website, and that, although he is possibly published he doesn't seem to be widely cited, means this is not RS. You will always find something better as a source, and if this is the only source, you would have to ask yourself why. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of its reliability, I would avoid it as a source because it is tertiary. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources. Tertiary sources are based on secondary sources, essentially the author(s) of Cuban History have read secondary sources and summarized them. That's something we should do ourselves. It helps to ensure accuracy because we are using the secondary sources first hand. Also, Cuban History like most tertiary sources lacks citations. Citations are helpful to readers who want to research a topic and to editors who try to resolve differences in sources. For example if a birthdate in two sources differ it is helpful to follow the footnotes to see where each got their dates. Then we can see if it supports the date used. TFD (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, The Four Deuces and Boynamedsue; this is good feedback. I'll link this discussion from Talk:Cuba for the benefit of editors there. More opinions always welcome. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Tamil Centre for Human Rights

In edit 1026680246, the source Tamil Centre for Human Rights was provided by IP Address 84.209.141.236 as WP:RS in the Article Sri Lankan Civil War, to support the original edit 1006099297.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Tamil Centre for Human Rights

• Option 1. The source is generally reliable.
• Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
• Option 3. The source is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
• Option 4. The source is not reliable and editors should not cite it.

Thanks for your time. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. You may want to use Template:RfC so that people could see that you have posted an RfC. Other than that, I have nothing to say on the topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, it is an advocacy group but taken that into consideration, it's usable although for things such as casualty figures attribution is necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bellanaija.com

Can Bella Naija be considered a reliable source for entertainment news? Thank you. TheSokks_(talk) 11:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be described as a blog. I checked the about us and the our team sections, but they both directed to the same list of email addresses to contact. No names, no editorial board. Some articles have named writers, but no idea if they are regular staff writers or not. Looks like scrapings from twitter and instagram. I would say not a R.S. Curdle (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is a blog and can not be used as a reliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oogamy inventing the sexes

I found this article, I was thinking about using it as a source for sex and oogamy. Is it reliable in y’all’s opinion?CycoMa (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be published by Cell Press, a part of Elsevier that also publishes the high-impact biology journal Cell. Looking at the source on the website of the publisher [26], the article is labeled as a "dispatch". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be peer reviewed; the current list of article types doesn't include it as such, but lists it as a portion of the "magazine section" of the journal. I don't think this would qualify as a WP:MEDRS, though I'd say it's probably reliable inasmuch as it is a reliable source of news. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Current Biology appears to be a legitimate academic journal, though the article is marked as a "dispatch" rather than a peer reviewed submission. That being said, it would still have to go through normal journal editorial processes, and the article doesn't seem to be making any patently absurd claims, so I would say reliable. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gamete competition

I found this article, I cited it for sex and am thinking about using for anisogamy. I was wondering if the source seemed reliable.CycoMa (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable It's an article appearing in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal published by a reputable publisher (Oxford University Press). The presence of peer review is evidence of gatekeeping, OUP has a physical personality, indexing demonstrates other RS consider it RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Spectrum Culture

Is Spectrum Culture considered a reliable source? There is currently a Spectrum Culture ref (this one) being heavily used on the article Everywhere at the End of Time, which I plan to improve to FA. The Wikipedia page of the publication doesn't have much but from what I searched, it seems to have a good reputation. It

• has an editorial staff and authors who have written for various publications used as sources on various Features articles (per quick insource:"[url].com" and incategory:"Featured articles" searches), including tinymixtapes.com, popmatters.com, and slantmagazine.com;
• is mentioned by Metacritic multiple times ([27] [28] [29]);
• is used in various good articles and in one featured article;
• has a podcast, which does not in itself indicate reliability but does indicate that the website has some audience.

Furthermore, according to its admitedly low-quality Wikipedia page, "Spectrum Culture's work has been featured on the official websites of various artists, films, and restaurants across the internet." It looks generally good to me; I have not found any reasonable reasons to doubt of its authenticity. This is mostly here exactly because of this though—I'd like to see if other people doubt its authenticity. Wetrorave (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's enough to consider it more reliable than unreliable, anyway. I've had limited involvement with SC as a source, but I was impressed by seeing a contributor like Kevin Korber, who's currently one of the site's assistant editors. He has written regularly for PopMatters (which is how I know the name) and Elmore Magazine; he was once reviews editor for the latter publication, apparently. So it might come down to the experience of individual writers on a case-by-case basis. JG66 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the article I've mentioned would probably be reliable enough. The author, Holly Hazelwood, has been writing reviews on the website for four years now, and given that the editorial (which y'know, deals with fact-checking and stuff) has also written for other well-established sources, I think Spectrum Culture is ok for FA's "high-quality sources" requirement, and perhaps for inclusion at WP:RSP as reliable for info on music and film reviews. The author does have a political bias but I don't see how that would affect the review of an album about dementia. – Wetrorave (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I found more info regarding SC as reliable after simply looking at the refs of its Wikipedia page. For instance, the website's work

• has indeed "been featured on the official websites of various artists, films, and restaurants across the internet";
• "is also a featured reviewer on music aggregator sites Cloudspeakers.com and Any Decent Music".

I'd say this is enough to ensure it is a high-quality publication, without considering the individual writers. Wetrorave (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion this is an unreliable source. Primarily because I was unable to find any evidence of it being sourced by unambiguously RS sources. Secondarily (distantly), it has no physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes (it provides no address on its website and a Whois search shows it's registered via proxy). The reasons cited for it being reliable are irrelevant: (a) having a podcast does not indicate something has an audience and that's besides the point anyway; the Daily Mail has one of the biggest news audiences in the English-speaking world and we consider it not reliable, (b) the fact that a source is used in WP articles does not make it reliable since WP itself is not a reliable source, (c) names associated with well-known writers are not a demonstration of reliability as we are unable to verify the veracity of bylines; a source that has no physical persona could byline articles to Dan Rather without consequence. No WP editor is qualified to engage in original media analysis. Our only method to judge a source's reliability is whether other RS have determined it to be reliable. Since no other RS have seen fit to source its reporting we have no evidence of reliability. The lack of evidence of reliability means a source is unreliable. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is "A Haber" a reliable source?

• They published a controversial article about a Turkish streamer. They heavily edited one of his videos to discredit him. No other major media outlet published news about this by the way.[30]
• Erkan Tan is one of their anchors. At the start of the news, mehter march was played. Then he went to claim "our country is under attack by allied Zionist and Crusader forces". After that he prayed to God to protect Turkey against these "forces".[31]
• They have titles like "Burcu Yazgı Coşkun surprised everyone! Nobody knew this." which reads like a tabloid newspaper.[32]

So, is this what you call a reliable source? @Adigabrek: @Victor Trevor:. --V. E. (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion A Haber is reliable. It has a gatekeeping process, a legal presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes in a country with reasonable standards for rule for law, and it has been referenced by unambiguously RS sources (e.g. The Week [33], Ottawa Citizen [34], Al-Monitor [35], etc. etc.). I was not able to find RS that challenged its credibility. All the points above may or may not be valid, however, as editors we are unqualified to engage in original media analysis. We have to go by what RS say. Since these are not points raised by RS we have to assume there's a reason for that and ignore them (probably, for instance, is the fact that Erkan Tan is an opinion presenter and not a news anchor and anything he says can be treated under WP:RSOPINION). Chetsford (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: You have a wrong take on this. Erkan tan is one of their anchors. Also a Haber is a member of Turkuvaz Media Group along with newspapers like Sabah, Atv and Takvim which have close ties to the government.[36] It has been unearthed that these media outlets recieved funding from various municipalities. After that yellow press cards of dozens of journalists were revoked with the initiative of Presidency's Communications Directorate.[37] This article states that Sabah-Atv Group (aka. Turkuvaz Group) published fake news during June 2019 Istanbul mayoral election.[38] This is clearly not a reliable and independent source.--V. E. (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Funding source itself is not an indication of unreliability as we established in the case of China Daily on this board. The BBC is funded by the British government and we don't consider it unreliable for that reason. I any case, as editors, we aren't qualified to engage in media analysis. A source is reliable if reliable sources indicate it is, and unreliable if they say otherwise. If your position is that Erkan Tan's commentary show makes A Haber unreliable, you'll need an RS that says so; neither you nor I are RS. Chetsford (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

In Support of Research Into Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria

I’m found [this] on springerlink. I’m haven’t read the whole thing yet but it appears to support the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria thing.

Does it appear to be reliable to y’all?CycoMa (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry if it’s pay walled, it wasn’t pay walled when I stumbled upon it.CycoMa (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a letter to the editor. At best it could be used for the opinions of its authors. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Film School Rejects?

What's the consensus around Film School Rejects? ~ HAL333 22:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is not a reliable source. It appears to have a gatekeeping process, however, (a) it has not been widely referenced by other, unambiguously RS sources [when I search "according to Film School Rejects", "Film School Rejects reported" and several variations of that on Google News, it doesn't return sources that are unimpeachably reliable; the closest was a single reference on Business Insider which is, itself, a marginal source], (b) it has no physical presence through which it can be held liable for what it publishes [there is no address on the website and a Whois search shows that the domain is registered via proxy]. Chetsford (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Game World Navigator as a reliable Gaming Source

Would Game World Navigator (Навигатор игрового мира) be considered a reliable source on video games, per this discussion? I'm considering adding it as reliable to WikiProject Video games/Sources. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)