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 Quote: Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active.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. Wikileaks does verify the authenticity of documents it publishes and many documents it has published has since been acknoweldged as authentic.. However I personally feel that Wikileaks in itself should only be used in the absence of another, more mainstream and widely accepted source on the same matter and statements by Wikileaks should be attributed otherwise.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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Options 1, there have been numerous claims made here that Wikileaks do not have any "fact-checking", yet no backing up of this notion has been provided. Other people are raising issues about WP:UNDUE, which I do not believe are relevant because we are talking about the reliability of the source, not due weight. As for my take on the issue, I believe that Wikileaks is generally reliable. Wikileaks, their publisher and their journalists have won multiple journalistic awards and claim a "perfect in document authentication", which no one here has been able to disprove so far, despite many claims. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 If something in Wikileaks is good enough it would be reported in RS. Treating a repository of allegedly authentic stolen documents will only feed the rightgreatwrongers and conspiracy theorists. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2, the Italian first class RS treat Wikileaks with great respect. I am not aware of any glaring cases of data falsification or anything of this kind.--Mhorg (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 maybe even Option 4, this isn't a question of whether Wikileaks is itself a reliable source. It's not a source to begin with but a repository of primary sources. Regardless of whether the material it publicises are authentic or not, on its own it's not usable. News organisations with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight might use them as a source but that does not mean we should too. They could be used as an additional citation alongside a news report which discusses its material although that might be pretty redundant. If they publicise something that isn't covered by any reputable news organisation then that material lacks both due weight for inclusion or an adequate filtering process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Wikileaks is reliable as a repository or republisher of primary sources. Whether those primary sources are themselves accurate is a different question, and needs to be assessed by individual case. It is very well established that Wikileaks is highly reliable as a source for the content of the primary source documents it republishes. In many cases, it would be used with attribution ("According to an internal US state department cable..."). Cambial foliage❧ 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for the purposes of selecting one of these options, but I'm in full agreement with comments by Rhododendrites, Aquillion, JBchrch et al. that this is a misdirected RfC. We're asking whether Dropbox-with-an-agenda is reliable, which on face should be answered no. We should be waiting for these primary sources to be used by other independent news orgs with better resources for fact-checking, etc. The well-known concerns about Wikileaks being compromised only add to this. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• None Wikileaks should be considered a primary source, so our usual 4 categories do not apply. I personally like citing some primary sources as complementary information for the reader. That is, right after a reliable secondary source discussing the document is cited. Otherwise, citing random Wikileaks document is generally not appropriate. MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Absolutely not. Claims that are not covered in RSes are not suitable for inclusion in this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with JBchrch, Jayron32, and ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Incidentally, "does your answer change" is a terrible question since the same answer has different substantive meanings depending on the person answering it. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Echoing Thryduulf. As for the "Is there any evidence the material is incorrect?" question — if RS say Wikileaks is boosting untruth in some way then would certainly weigh their view heavier than WL. --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. Stop it. Just stop it. See also WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• If "a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject" then we should be even less inclined to use them as a source. If this question is implying that RS ignoring it should grant some kind of exception to allow us to use it, I wholeheartedly disagree. If there are no good sources covering something, we should not accept bad sources as a substitute to allow us to cover it, we should not cover it. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. My vote for Option 2 clearly states that I believe this should be taken into account, but they can still be cited in circumstances where an official government document/view on something is acceptable with a primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh No as per MP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, if more information cannot be found, the information from the Wikileaks document still needs to be attributed to the document in question, and Wikileaks would need to be mentioned as well, as the publisher. Contrary to some editors above, I do think that Wikileaks could be cited, even in a case where a journalist hasn't covered the document in question. In that case however, in-text attribution of the information both to Wikileaks and the document in question would be absolutely essential, since we're dealing with a primary source. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Trivially, tautologically no. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS, no coverage. That might leave us "biased" in various ways, but as Jayron32 said, lowering our standards doesn't fix anything. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• No. It seems kind of weird that we are even talking about this. We go to considerable lengths to rely only upon reliable sources and to limit use of primary and tertiary sources. Then it's suggested that, specifically because we don't have any information as to reliability, we're going to turn to an unreliable repository of primary sources as citable information? That seems twisted. John M Baker (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. WP:DUE issues are a separate matter from the initial question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• No It will be a form of bias. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Lack of coverage in secondary sources merely means that the information in the documents was not noteworthy. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Wikileaks documents about events not covered by RS are the ones most likely to be unreliable, and the use of Wikileaks in this case would be unambiguously unacceptable WP:OR. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• What?, an RS, any RS is better than the conclusions of a "reasonable editor". They don't all have the same biases. This just verges on asking whether we should allow original research on Wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• This question is self defeating and irrelevant, I voted for option 2 in the first question, however if consensus finds that Wikileaks is not an RS then Wikipeadia policy is clear on this, no RS, no coverage on Wikipedia, no exceptions. If it fails WP:V then should not be on Wikipedia at all, period. RedAlert 007 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 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)

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[4] in TheJournal.ie[5] 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)

So unless you want to reply to this for a WP:LASTWORD, you've now agreed we're still at the point we were five days ago, which is the same as the first point made in response to your opening remarks here, seven days ago; there is a consensus that The Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Grand, so! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's the conclusion here; has anybody provided evidence of a robust fact-checking or editorial process, or substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS? As far as I can tell, the former is lacking, and the responses to the latter don't appear to reflect substantial use for facts without comment. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that we don't even agree why we're here in the first place and so we're talking about different things.

Are we discussing whether or not The Beacon should be considered generally unreliable or even deprecated as a source? Because as far as I know, it's only ever been used the one time on Wikipedia, in the article on John McGuirk. Nobody has pointed out any specific negative issues with their coverage, like claims they've made that turned out to be false—only a general lack of positive factors like information about their editorial process, use by others, named authors, etc. And that's fair criticism. I still maintain that plenty of reliable sources have the same or similar issues: sources are rarely entirely transparent about their editorial process, both the Associated Press and Reuters regularly publish articles without bylines, and so on. But that's your criteria, I get that.

However, I don't think anyone is arguing for The Beacon in general, like to be used across Wikipedia. My argument is that The Beacon is fine in this context. They have editors, they have journalists, they adhere to a Code of Conduct, the claim being made falls within their scope of expertise, the claim isn't about a living person, and the claim isn't even particularly exceptional. (This is 1 of 3 sources making the same claim, after all.) It's not like this is some random person's LiveJournal being the sole source about some juicy piece of gossip. Our use of sources always depends on context. Even bottom-tier, deprecated sources might be appropriate for about-self claims, and top-tier, reliable sources might be inappropriate for, say, claims where they have a conflict of interest. I think The Beacon falls somewhere in the middle, but that should be sufficient for how we're using them in this specific case. Woodroar (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What information do we have that this would be within their scope of expertise? I understand that they say that they're experts on the issue, but this is exactly the problem with WP:SPS, any motivated group can create a web page, self-publish a book, or claim expertise. They self-admit to being activists, which may well make them a WP:BIASED source, but I really don't think that the source adds anything in light of the problems we've discussed. Its reliability in turn affects other conversations on wiki, particularly how to label the political leans of the website that McGuirk runs. The question isn't whether or not the source says what other sources say (even unreliable sources like The Sun can say the same thing as The Times when reporting on everyday events), but it's a separate question altogether whether The Beacon is a reliable source that should be cited in its own right. Source reliability also impacts weight considerations within the article, and since we're discussing the source in the context of a BLP, we should apply additional scrutiny to the sources.

It's obvious to me that the reason that this conversation was started was the specific use of the source in John McGuirk, and I understand to discuss with a limited scope to that article, but I think there's some fruit in discussing the source's reliability more generally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We know that's what they cover because of how sources describe The Beacon, positioning them as experts on the subject: a website which monitors Irish far-right activity according to Vice, a website which tracks and reports on the far-right in Ireland according to TheJournal.ie, a website which reports on Ireland's far right according to Independent.ie. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I see little to no evidence on its website that it's RS. I went back almost a year in the 'news' section and all articles were attributed to 'The Beacon'. Almost all in 'analysis' were by Bryan Wall, who (assuming it's him) describes himself on twitter as "Anarcho-Journalist. Founder of @thebeaconirl". No staff are mentioned. The website's statement that "It is dedicated to anti-racist and anti-fascist principles" shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that they are experts in those topics, any more than if I stated the same thing. I see a website that's probably run by one person who gets a few others to contribute an occasional opinion piece. Maybe I'm wrong in that, but we should have better evidence that this website is RS for anything before we use it for anything. EddieHugh (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Update... I didn't read Woodroar's recent comment immediately above. The first two sources quote Bryan Wall and mention the Beacon; maybe I need to subscribe to get the third one to work, because I don't see Wall or the website mentioned. This is still minimal evidence of it being RS (the sources quote him and mention the website, which he founded). EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The Independent.ie source is indeed behind a paywall. I registered and found this code on their site for free trial access. Woodroar (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you paste the relevant paragraph here, if it's not too long? Does it also mention Wall, or just the website? EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, here's the full paragraph: "It's not really about masks. That's just a convenient cover for recruitment and fundraising purposes. [They] attract people who aren't necessarily racists or members of the far right. So you end up with a crowd consisting of people who are probably vulnerable, scared, and simply want answers, alongside men who are members of the National Party and Generation Identity. And these people can then be radicalised and used as a source of funding, as foot soldiers, or both," according to Bryan Wall, who writes for The Beacon, a website which reports on Ireland's far right. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So all three mention The Beacon in association with its founder. EddieHugh (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the FuJo piece, one of the three sources used on that John McGuirk article, which again was not meant to be the main topic of discussion here, has been amended to state that it is not saying Gript are far-right. It has been added to the bottom of the piece. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/ Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• The subject of this discussion is the lead section of the John McGuirk article, the OP's account having been created for the specific purpose of removing this classification. The Beacon is one of three sources cited for the "far-right" claim. As a DCU graduate and member of the (first-generation) Irish expatriate community, I have my own personal issues with both the other two sources, on which issues I will not go into detail, but given these facts I'm already quite sceptical about whether a discussion of whether The Beacon "is reliable" should be given any attention at all, let alone the amount of attention it has been given so far in this thread. Even a conclusion that the source is unreliable and should be deprecated would not resolve the issue at hand, i.e., whether our article on McGuirk should call his website "far-right", since there are currently two other sources that, whatever our personal issues with them might be, do support the content in question and are probably considered "reliable" for this kind of information by the majority of Wikipedians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally, the relation to John McGuirk was only brought up as it was evidence the publication is being used as a source and therefore a discussion of its reliability as a source, more broadly, is justified . In relation to the SPA designation I believe it's unfair as, whilst I did create the account to change what as I saw as that particular inaccuracy, I have contributed, and hoped to continue contributing, to other topics at this point.

I would also note that one of the other sources used here, the DCU one, has now been amended to say that the piece does not class Gript as being far-right.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And you noticed that the very same day, too! And you have indeed contributed two edits to articles other than the John McGuirk one! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyway - given that you say above My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally, it should be noted that - as stated at the top of the page - This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. Given that The Beacon is not being used as a general source, this whole question is moot, and has been nothing but a huge waste of time. I suggest this discussion is closed without further ado. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the changing of the DCU source does add another layer to this discussion. You were adamant that your read of the DCU source was right, and that it backed up the Beacon. As you were wrong about the DCU source, absolutely and resolutely, even as I explained to you why you were wrong, so perhaps that indicates that you are wrong about the Beacon as well.

Beyond that Bastun, I seem to recall seeing a query that you yourself had opened asking if Gript should generally be classed as a reliable source - with you saying it should not be - based on basically the same situation that's happening here. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• MPants at work, The Four Deuces, EddieHugh, Hijiri88 - you may be interested in the ongoing discussion here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 18 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)
• Allow - the most desirable sources would be ones written by neutral third parties, e.g., some international organisations or whatever..with that said, if that cannot be done and all of the data must needs come from parties to the conflict, you cannot only include only sources from one side. Since what appears to be the vast bulk of references are directly from the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, the Tamil sources cannot be excluded simply because they lost the war (and therefore conflicts with the so-called "official" data, which is accorded its official status solely for the grace of having been the victor in a military conflict). if there are comflicting data, just give both versions, with attributions. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd suggest removing the RfC format here. I don't think we'll list this source at WP:RSP just based on some edits to a single article. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Nothing about the formatting on the website inspires confidence in me, and seeing the last modified date on some of the pages it's not an older website that just withered away. I'm not comfortable saying it's WP:GREL owing to its seeming lack of maintenance. There's a list of press releases on the website that indicate that this is an advocacy group, and some of the material regarding living people seems to be extreme. It's not clear to me that it has a history of fact-checking or accuracy, but also I really can't find much about this group from reliable sources (google news search returns very few results for their name), and the UN seems to not have looked favorably upon the group's objectivity or neutrality. None of this points towards reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mikehawk10, on a closer look, you seem to be pretty correct. I had the impression that it was related to the May 17 Movement and didn't check further, apparently it is not. It is an affiliate of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which makes it a primary source. There's a Frontline article which mentions this. The website's likely not maintained because LTTE is pretty much dead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Is BlackCatholicMessenger.com a Reliable Source?

As far as I can tell, this website, though claiming it is a "news" site, is a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE. The author of the posts I have seen used as sources in Wikipedia articles is: "Nate Tinner-Williams is co-founder and editor of Black Catholic Messenger", and is also the Wikipedia editor who has been using this website as a source: User:Natemup. He OPENLY states on his userpage (through his links) and in one edit summary [here]: that he is the author of those posts. Also note the author list of the website shows Nate with 208 posts, and the next highest author with 7 posts; so I would call this HIS site.)

I have tried to explain that Wikipedia's policies regarding sources do not allow self-published sources, unless certain criteria are met, in my edits and reverts on Henriette DeLille - see article history.

From: WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

I was hoping other editors could offer their input. (pinging user Natemup)

• No - I have seen no evidence that this author has a proven reputation, or that the "news" site has any evidence of editorial oversight or been recognized for the quality of its work, and is anything more then a self-published blog that uses a newspaper-like theme: "World Times is a newspaper / magazine style highly content focus theme for ghost blogging platform. You can remove this text and add text you want. May be you can show small text about your site." (bottom left of website) ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Natemup Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Not sure if I'm actually allowed to vote, but there it is. Also, I have been interviewed in America (magazine), and BCM has been mentioned there and in the Philadelphia Inquirer. natemup (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Natemup, see WP:NOTVOTE; we don't vote here on Wikipedia, we follow policy, and I'm not sure what "being interviewed" and "blog was mentioned" have to do with independence, or a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." natemup (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you provided a link to the interview you had and the place your site was mentioned, rather than wanting us to take your word for it; then we can see for ourselves what those people say about you and your site. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • So you've had a biographical profile and two articles with a pull-quote. How is that your "published work"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

      I'm not aware of a biographical profile, but the America article is located here, and the Philadelphia Inquirer article here. natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that it is that it is an WP:SPS (in particular, a group blog). To be fair to Natemup, I think that they're attempting to make a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. I don't think one is there for the general case, but that they've been noted by The Congregation of Holy Cross and one of their articles has been republished by a diocesan Catholic paper. There's a minor mention in a news report from a Columbia University-affiliate, some mention of the site in Our Sunday Visitor, Review for Religious seems to point to Black Catholic Messenger as being reliable with regards to the biography of Harry Dorsey, S.S.J., and Tinner-Williams himself appears to have been published on the topic of African-American Catholicism by other University-affiliated projects. I personally would like to see more widespread use before I'd be willing to accept WP:USEBYOTHERS as a reason to classify it as reliable more broadly. In a very limited sense, it might be usable with attribution. I'm wondering if there might be something here along the lines of certain articles being considered "expert sources" on the topic, especially where other sources explicitly point to them as being such. This is a tightly limited case, granted, but I might think that WP:USEBYOTHERS could indicate that its coverage of, say, Harry Dorsey, S.S.J. would be reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for that contribution. I wasn't even aware of all those appearances. I've added additional ones above. Also, what would be the technical difference between a group blog and a small nonprofit new site (which we claim to be, are registered as with the government, receive donations as, and are recognized by national and local publications as)? natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  A non-profit is certainly capable of running a blog; the two aren't mutually exclusive. There isn't a lot in policies and guidelines that defines what a "blog" is, but my general understanding is that a blog is a web source published by an individual or a group via a process that lacks meaningful editorial oversight. By "group blog" I mean to say that there is a group (the nonprofit) that runs the blog; it isn't a merely personal blog. If there was a robust editorial process and/or significant WP:USEBYOTHERS (such as in the case of SCOTUSblog), then the source would likely be considered reliable. Meaningful editorial oversight could typically be demonstrated by the existence of verification/fact-checking policies and a retraction policy (see this Washington Post link for their fact-checking and retraction policies). Demonstrating meaningful oversight would typically also require the existence of a structure for reviewing writings prior to their publication (which is part of why Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable, as they can publish their stories live with little-to-no oversight; Forbes staff writers, on the other hand, are subject to robust editorial oversight and are considered to be generally reliable for news reporting). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't mean merely that we're registered as a nonprofit, but as a nonprofit *news organization*. This is how we are recognized by other sources that mention us (some of which have been cited above). Also, while I would probably agree with you about what defines a legitimate news source, to what degree is that codified in Wikipedia policies such that BCM could be definitively deemed here as *not* a news source? We have an editor (myself, as noted in at least some of the sources mentioning us), but obviously it's hard to establish a policy (within BCM) about who edits the editor. In any case, it has also been shown above that we are used by other reliable sources to at least some extent. natemup (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying. It's partly that according to the site (as of now-ish), the site's editor has made 217 of the <300 posts themselves, and it's not clear that there's editorial oversight on that content. In that case, it would fall under the self-published sources policy, which would render it only reliable inasmuch as the writer of that content is an expert source. And, to be considered an expert source, work in the relevant field has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Typically, this is taken to mean that the author has written something along the lines of peer-reviewed academic papers that have been published, but I'm unaware of that in this case. Even if the particular writer is an expert, an SPS can't be used in a biography of a living person and some care has to be used to ensure that it's due content.

  Candidly, the WP:USEBYOTHERS provides some evidence of a reputation for accuracy, but accuracy is only a part of reliability as understood by the community. I'm not sure use by others of this sort of scope is enough to get around the editorial process requirements that we have to consider a source generally reliable within its topic area, though if the site continues to see increasing use by others then this conversation should probably happen again so we can re-evaluate.

  Some material might be truthful but not produced through a reliable process that involves independent fact-checking (that is, independent of fact-checking conducted by the writer crafting the piece themselves), which is (I think) what we're mostly running into here. We also don't typically view official filings as a way to determine this stuff; a nonprofit registered as a news organization could be considered to be a blog or other self-published source under our standards absent an independent editorial process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• No - No evidence of an editorial structure, fact-checking processes, or a known reputation for accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest closing this discussion: this issue is currently being handled at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Natemup. MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that "this issue is currently being handled at ANI and COIN"; I have read both of those threads in their entirety and participated, and neither of those is dealing with this SPECIFIC issue; those are dealing with Natemup's issues/disruption with multiple users. This issue still needs to be decided; other editors may try to source articles with the BCM blog entries, even if Nate does not. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences

I found [this book] it’s called Sex Differences Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies.

I was thinking about using it as a source for sex but I’m not entirely sure about using it as a source on that article. Because the author is a psychologist. Or more specifically a evolutionary psychologist, so I’m not entirely sure if she would be a good source for an article relating to biology.

Also the book is 21 years old, so it may be outdated.CycoMa (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What specifically in the article are you planning to use it for? It seems to be a textbook from 2000, and its self-description at the link says that it is for courses in evolutionary and human biology, psychology, and sexuality and gender studies. In general, I would have some worry that a 21-year-old book in a might be out of date on human biomedical information, but if it's for a definition of "sex" or something about biological sex that hasn't changed in the literature since then, then it's probably fine. I'm not an expert in the field, however, so I can't say the extent to which the field has changed since then. If you're using it to describe studies related to the article topic from up to the point of time of its publication, it would certainly be good to use.

Also, just a general note, if you have a specific question regarding a specific addition to an article, don't be afraid to be bold and make the addition without seeking pre-clearance. Usually, if a source is contested, there's discussion on the article talk page before it floats over to here. If it's the addition winds up being uncontested, then it's probably fine to use, especially so for an article heavily seen by active editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa: Participants of the WikiProject Medicine (WT:MED) or Biology (WT:BIOL) might be able to provide you with good guidance. MarioGom (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Just copying over my comment from WT:BIOL: Limited use. It's not only rather old (2000), but the author is a psychologist and ethologist (behavior), not a genetics/biochemistry/sex differences academic. So I would consider her involvement in such subject matter to be not as high quality as those focused on the topic at hand. Silverseren^C 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren yeah I honestly noticed that detail about her being a evolutionary physiologist, which is why the only time I used this book as a source was for sex differences in behavior. Since that is an area she probably has better knowledge on.CycoMa (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC — TheBlot

What do you think of the reliability of TheBlot? --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US. https://www.theblot.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

(Website link)

I submit that theBlot should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

1) According to the above Wikipedia page about Benjamin Way (in Summary and Career Sections):

“Since 2016 he has been facing a defamation suit stemming from statements in his website The Blot,[12][13] which he has used to attack journalists.”

The links: *https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/court-orders-online-tabloid-not-to-post-any-articles-about-former-obama-nominee-to-the-federal-cftc/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/lawprof-defamation-case/judge-lets-georgetown-law-professors-defamation-case-against-online-magazine-proceed-idUSL2N16B2BR * https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

2) The website is proved to be used by Benjamin Wey as his personal retaliation and defamation tool (see the above sources from The Washington Post, Reuters and Bloomberg) and there cannot be considered as “reliable source” of information.

Here is the list of the people attacked by theBlot (journalist and politicians)

• Chris Brummer, a banking expert and Obama nominee for a governmental position

(See Reuters and Washington Post above)

• Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php

Source: Columbia Journalism Review

• John Carnes and Francine McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_McKenna

https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2014/04/benjamin-wey-threatens-investigative-reporter-francine-mckenna/

• Here is more information from the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Wey with all the sources verified in his Career Section:

Wey also publishes and writes extensively for the digital publication TheBlot (launched in 2013), where he describes himself as an "investigative reporter."[31][32] In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending.[33][34] In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech.[35] On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.”[36][37] In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime

• Hanna Bouveng (won defamation and sexual harrassment lawsuit). She is a former employee of Wey and was personally attacked by his tabloid (later the post was removed by the court’s order) after filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment: https://nypost.com/2016/04/08/intern-accepts-reduced-5-6m-payout-from-horndog-ceo/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2016/04/01/403993.htm https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a44618/hanna-bouveng/

The case of Hanna Bouveng is in particular worrying, to tell the least.

3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention.

I'd be glad to hear any opinion from the experienced editors here. --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@DrIlyaTsyrlov:, can you provide a link to the article or articles which are using The Blot as a source, in a way you object to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• @DrIlyaTsyrlov: What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4000 bytes, this RfC is far too big for Legobot to handle; the resulting entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals consists of a heading only and the RfC will not be publicized via WP:FRS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: Good point, but easily fixed because it was already there, just not signed. I normally only post messages like that when no brief statement can be discerned at all - such as if that nine-word sentence had not been present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable' TheBlot is an obvious mouthpiece for Wey dressed up with some churnalistic content. It is not used in many articles (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atheblot.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) and sometimes it is not used poorly (example play review) but it is not a reliable source and anything where it is the only possible source is probably not NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Just another political "influencer" personal opinion vector, with a clear agenda of going after mainstream journalists. It's part of the "the mainstream media are a leftist conspiracy" theory. So also WP:FRINGE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable Most of the post are not from a reliable source and are poorly written. Sea Ane (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The about page notes that The feature that sets us apart from other online publications is that you the readers can have your own voices heard, in any way or style that you would like. We welcome sensational and opinionated articles from you – the readers. You write, we publish, as long as the articles are in compliance with our Terms of Use. The Terms of Use notes that TheBlot does not edit their [user-submitted] content, therefore is protected under the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. All of this indicates that it is no more reliable than an WP:SPS and it reflects poorly upon the site's editorial standards, as there are zero editorial standards. The terms of use seem to imply that the site doesn't issue retractions under legal threats, and will keep content—even false or fabricated content—on its website, stating that for any reason if anyone is threatened with legal actions, you should know TheBlot Magazine does not settle any claims, we fight them, expose them till you the bully types drop dead. This sort of material appears to be never due, and indicative of worse editorial standards than The Daily Mail. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Probably not reliable, but given the limited usage and apparent lack of previous disputes in Wikipedia, I see no reason to deprecate it or list it at WP:RSP ([WP:RSP] is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.). MarioGom (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Ape that Understood the Universe

I found this book. I was thinking about using it as a source sex. But I’m not entirely sure it’s a good idea because it doesn’t list itself as a biology book but the writer is a evolutionary psychologist.

What do you guys think?CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I find no problems with it, also, as mentioned before, don't be afraid to be bold. Regards, Heart ^(talk) 03:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing tho, some sources don’t belong on some articles. Sure the writer is technically a biologist himself. But, the book doesn’t label itself as a biology book.

And the article on sex is exclusively a biology article.CycoMa (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how the book labels itself, it still seems to possess relevant content under a heavily accomplished and likely peer-reviewed background from a reputable professor. I don't see any reason not to go for it. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's the "likely" in "likely peer-reviewed" that worries me. A review article for specialists, for example, would probably get closer scrutiny than a book that appears to be pitched to the Scientific American readership. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ehhh, it's a popular science book that isn't peer reviewed. I wouldn't use it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's Cambridge University Press, so I'd say that's as good as it gets. Aren't those all peer-reviewed or of equivalent reliability? Still, given that sex is not really about humans and the author of this book mainly studies humans, it may be less than ideal. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's a book published by a University of Nottingham psychology professor (with a research emphasis on evolutionary biology and sex differences) through a reputable university publisher. I don't have a copy of the book, but signs point toward this being a scholarly monograph, which is one of the better source categories that we have. It also appears to have received reviews which may be worth considering in terms of what it gets used for. I'm also seeing it in some peer-reviewed papers as a cited source, for what that is worth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The second review describes it as aimed at laypersons (albeit educated ones). I'd be wary of relying on a source that is at least semi-popularized when more formal academic literature is surely available. My university library is only able to access the latter two sources linked above at the moment; Panov et al. (2020) is kind of kooky. (I don't know if it's like this for all subjects, but for physics and mathematics, the peer-review standards for volumes in Springer book series are in practice lower than they are for journal articles. Reviewers have to approve a book proposal before the book can happen, but the content of the book doesn't always get careful attention.) Beaver and Wright (2019) is only a passing mention. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Are Buzz Plus News and The Asahi Shimbun reliable source for a BLP

The article is Kozo Iizuka. Both sources are used to discuss the Japanese Wikipedia. and the Asahi Shimbun is used at least 4 times. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I don't know about Buzz Plus but Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's oldest and largest newspapers. It's an equivalent of, say, Chicago Tribune or similar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Eggishorn that Asahi Shimbun is a Japanese newspaper of record and a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the Asahi Shimbun is the #2 of the big Japanese newspapers, and is well respected in most areas. It sometimes adheres a little too close to government lines, and can be a little anti-American (especially anti-American forces in Japan) but it doesn't have a particular reputation for falsehoods or sensationalisation (outside of the US Forces in Japan issue.) But should be perfectly fine for a BLP. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looking again I agree. But I can't see Buzz Plus as reliable. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Should GB News be "depreciated"?

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.

---

Although this brand new UK TV News channel is a properly regulated entity, the same can be said about the Daily Mail and other shitty British sources, so I think we can safely ignore that. All indications are, and this seems confirmed by their initial output (in just twenty minutes I personally witnessed them getting the roles of two guests wrong, causing their first contribution to be a correction/complaint), this is going to be a TV version of the Daily Mail. They will basically be selecting and ramping up certain hot button right wing triggering stories, not for their news value, but their commercial value. In other words, pushing a strident right wing world view is baked right into the business model, which doesn't make it very usable by the neutral Wikipedia. As with the Daily Mail, it cannot even be said that their high profile contributors (basically Andrew Neil) can be trusted when it comes to, say, the contents of interviews, not when they are divorced from their usual editorial oversight (i.e. the BBC). It should probably be killed before it can even take a foothold here. James Tiverton (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Given that it has only been on the air for a few days, I think this is premature. Per gbnews.uk   we have a whopping 0 citations to GB News outside the GB News article. That said, give it six months to a year, then we can have a real discussion on its reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what it is even after just a few days, just watch it, and you will see. Why wait six months, when God knows how many times it will have been used as a citation here by then? This will be used to support everything that Wikipedia has been able to keep out of important British politics articles, by excluding the Mail. Everything from immigrants steal our jobs to the Labour Party want to nationalise your potatoes. Pleb worthy junk. Not usable for an encyclopedia. James Tiverton (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's existed for less than a week and you're suggesting that it shouldn't be used because of what you think it might do. Being neutral on Wikipedia doesn't mean not using sources that some people describe as being right (or left) wing. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A week is a long time in 24 hour TV news. That's hundreds of stories in a paper like the Daily Mail. How long does it usually take you to figure out the commercial model of an obviously partisan source? And Wikipedia bans such sources all the time. You think people seriously checked a representative amount of content from, say, the similar TV channel, RT News? Just as that is a vehicle for Russian state propaganda, something which is obvious from watching it for a day, this channel is obviously a vehicle for the dark forces that brought us Brexit etc. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The term is "deprecated." Please find sources to support your view, User:James Tiverton. If the issues are as egregious as you report, begin accumulating critique in RS so that when this discussion is appropriate, you can make a better case than "just look at it yourself and you'll agree with me" (which is the definition of original synthesis). BusterD (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Did any one do that for the Daily Mail? Not that I heard. This process is about canvassing the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and they can use whatever they like (including their eyeballs) to make up their own minds. You might be thinking of the rule against Wikipedia editors putting their own thoughts into an actual article. That is obviously disallowed. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I appreciate your fresh eyes on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail has been telling lies in public for many years so we have source material upon which to build a case for deprecation. I point out this massive and contentious discussion in 2017, another huge confirming discussion in 2019 and the more recent discussion about the DM headline claiming it was reliable in 2020. I'm going to link WP:Original synthesis so you can see the rules concerning using our own eyeballs for anything except sourcing, imaging, and keyboarding. This policy applies in every aspect of the encyclopedia, and certainly on a noticeboard where the subject matter itself is about WP:Reliable sources, which I've also linked. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you winding me up or what? After failng to spot any source material being given by the first five or so people in that first discussion, I decided to stop reading, since the point seems proven. And I similarly decided to stop reading the Original synthesis policy after I noticed, very early on, that it says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" If you have any concrete proof that deprecating a source isn't supposed to feature Wikipedia editors just giving their opinions, and basing that on whatever they choose (evidence if they wish, no evidence if they do not wish), may I see it in a clearer format than this? Because I think you're trying to pull a fast one here. James Tiverton (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@James Tiverton: There are other potentially biased sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Times which are considered reliable on WP:Perennial sources. Even Fox News is considered reliable there for non-political news. Reliability isn't necessarily based on the outlet's political leanings, but rather its commitments to fact-checking and providing accurate information. Since GB News is pretty new, we simply don't really know how well it does on that yet. If/when reliable fact checking websites criticise the accuracy of GB's info, we can consider labelling it unreliable or deprecating. For now, we simply don't know enough about its accuracy and fact-checking to label it reliable or unreliable. IronManCap (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What fact checkers have proved Fox News is inaccurate for politics? None that I can recall. What they tend to do, is merely prove their output is the result of bias (such as having not mentioned a pertinent fact). This is not a problem in mainstream sources, where the purpose of the exercise doesn't include pretending inconvenient facts just don't exist. There is no point waiting, anyone with eyeballs can see what GB News is (and not for nothing did they choose to emulate the Fox News format). Britain doesn't really do fact checking anyway, since we have a pretty robust legal/regulatory system against printing outright lies. In America, any Fox News anchor is legally allowed to say the sky is green, call that a news report, and nobody can do anything about it. Not even the Daily Mail is allowed to actually say the sky is green. Nor is GB News. But if they want you to think that, if that suited the right wing agenda, you can guarantee they will find a way to present that view in a way that gets past the UK regulatory system. No need to wait to see what is already obvious. James Tiverton (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's too early to determine if the source is reliable. As such, the default position is that it is not reliable until proved otherwise, which should be fine. The chairman, Andrew Neil, was editor of the Sunday Times for over a decade and worked for the BBC for 25 years, even having his own show. He absolutely has the capability of producing reliable news programming. (Whether or not he does so is another matter.) I don't think we should ban sources because they have a right-wing editorial policy. CNN had Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as anchors, while PBS has had Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan as regular contributors. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is filled with wacky right wing conspiracy theorism. TFD (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Premature - It took us YEARS of discussion before we deprecated the Daily Mail (and that is still a controversial decision)… we can at least wait a few months to properly examine GB. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Premature They have an editorial charter and it doesn't appear that people are... saying it's unreliable. I'm seeing at least some reporting from reputable sources that seem to have a relatively optimistic outlook regarding its ability to cover regional news. And, it's got veteran reporters and people with editorial experience. But I don't think that we're ripe for this conversation in a perennial sense as of now. Even if it is a source with a stated political lean, it can still be reliable if it has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and a significant level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Time will tell. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• It is premature to ascribe any level of reliability or unreliability to GB News. Reliable sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, unreliable sources have a reputation for the opposite but GB News is too new to have established any reputation. It is almost certainly going to be a biased and/or partisan source, but that is independent of reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It looks as though it will have a right-wing agenda and has "backing from pro-Brexit tycoons and a mission to produce “anti-woke” US-style news content". It will have "a focus on generating opinion and controversy, rather than original reporting". Some activists have said it aims "to monetise divisive political issues and to push the boundaries of UK TV news regulations, which require politically balanced broadcasts". Burrobert (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment it looks like it is heading down the Infowars route, and already is a byword for crapness. But then it is also early days, too early to say where it will end up.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment proposal is premature, but from coverage I've seen about them, we are probably heading that way. -Roxy . wooF 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment (and please, close) obviously too soon. No disputed usage (no usage, actually), no previous discussion. I would suggest to close this thread. MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment So far, why would you use it? It seems to be mostly comment. I would personally steer clear until we know more. If it is covering something that nobody else is then there may be a need to use it, if so until it is established as reliable it would have to be attributed. BLP might also be a worry. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:53, 18 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.

RFC: Scientific journals versus news reports on the origin of COVID-19

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.

---

The current sourcing situation on the origin of COVID-19 is curious. As ably described at WP:NOLABLEAK, scientific journals agree that it is a Zoonosis. Older news reports also tend to be dismissive of the Lab Leak Hypothesis, though some of these older reports have since been corrected. However, recent news reports generally describe a "battle" over the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Various versions of this hypothesis exist. All involve release of a virus from a laboratory.

This discussion is difficult. One reason is that it touches multiple areas of policy. People differ on whether or not it is a purely scientific question, whether or not various actors have conflicts of interest, whether or not WP:MEDRS applies, and more. No single Wikipedia forum is a perfect fit. In light of the situation,

1. How should Wikipedia describe the origin of COVID-19?
   • Option 1 It should follow the academic journals.
   • Option 2 It should follow first-rate news reports.
   • Option 3 It should describe both, i.e. "Academic journals generally support the Zoonosis Hypothesis, while recent news reports say scientists are divided."

Responders should feel free to improve the formatting of this RFC question and to add other options to the above list. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Origin of COVID-19)

• Bad RFC. This isn't the noticeboard to have a discussion on the content of a specific article, or to propose general content solutions for articles. Option 3 seems to be doing that by proxy; the discussion should be on the relevant article pages rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. On top of that, the 3 options are unnecessarily reductive; there are arguments (including an OPEN RFC on WP:BMI, for example) that have a lot of discussion regarding the different reliability of the two for different components of the various origin hypotheses. It's best to wait until the RfC at WP:BMI is resolved before we open a discussion on sourcing here; there's a lot of good discussion at that page about the application of WP:MEDRS to pandemic origins (more broadly), but to make an RfC while there is another one ongoing that would heavily influence the scope of our analyses here seems to be procedurally imprudent. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Other users are invited to take a better shot at asking the right questions. As I said, the discussion is difficult. I think the discussion needs to be had. I am open to better ways of starting it. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• This RFC fundamentally assumes (and is a loaded question which the user cannot answer without assuming) that academic journals and news sources are both equally reliable - which they aren't. Our policies already cover this - if academic sources (such as textbooks, articles, etc) say one thing, and the "news" says another, we follow the more reliable sources. This is disruptive and laughable to say that news is as reliable and noteworthy as academic sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'd look at it a bit differently. Wikipedia assumes that the journals are better. I'm asking if we still feel that way. Or at least that was my intent. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RFC: Close and Collapse.

• First, it isn't formatted correctly. That can be fixed; if anyone has trouble creating a properly formatted RfC, just ask me for help on my talk page. I help anyone with Wikipedia formatting issues whether I agree with them or not.
• Second, it is in the wrong place. This noticeboard is only for discussing the reliability of specific sources. We don't make decisions about article content. The correct place to post such an RfC is Talk:COVID-19 misinformation -- the talk page of the page where the content will go.
• Third, we have determined the answer to this several times. The question of where Covid-19 originated is a purely biomedical question. We are only allowed to use sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, ignoring all other sources. The question of how various politicians and governments have dealt with the pandemic (including reporting their claims about the origin of Covid-19 in the form of "The Trump administration claimed" or "The position of the Chinese government is") may be sourced to the popular press, but never with any hint that such claims are true or that any claims that are based upon MEDRS-compliant sources are false or even questionable.

I call for an uninvolved editor to apply Template:Hidden archive top to this Pseudo-RfC. This should not be done by anyone who has expressed an opinion on the article content in question. This includes me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Origin of COVID-19)

The following is shamelessly stolen from WP:NOLABLEAK. If one limits oneself to peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, it remains valid:

Peer reviewed publications agree that COVID-19 is a zoonosis

Anyone who knows how to get the sources inside of the collapse should feel free to do so. In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020) Immunity, May 19, 2020 In their commentary they wrote “there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin” and that “some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported”. However, authors have not cited any authenticated source or literature that has claimed the “laboratory engineering”. Le infezioni in medicina (Italian), September 1, 2020 Another unconfirmed hypothesis that has received mixed response is the possibility of the virus originating in Wuhan’s Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, located just 300 yards away from Wuhan’s animal market or the Wuhan Institute of Virology located eight miles away from the animal market. Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 1, 2021 Our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that will require more studies and more specific targeted research. Similarly and connected to this hypothesis is also the one including the possibility of transmission through the trade of frozen cold-chain products. There we are making the difference between the introduction of the virus into the human population and the possibility of the circulation of the virus through long-distance and through different settings or the introduction of the virus into a particular setting like a market for example. Then the hypothesis of a direct spill-over from an original animal source into the human population is also a possible pathway and is also generating recommendation for future studies. However, the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain introduction of the virus into the human population and therefore is not a hypothesis that will imply to suggest future studies into our work to support our future work into the understanding of the origin of the virus. World Health Organization, February 9, 2021 Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. The complete genome of SARS‐CoV‐2 is deposited in the public database shortly after the outbreaks based on advanced next generation sequencing technologies. There is also no record of laboratory accidents at the WIV, and the former SARS‐CoV accident did not occur at the WIV. Additionally, a recent study further supported the natural origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 from viruses found in Rhinolophus sp. However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Reviews in Medical Virology, February 14, 2021 Another hypothesis is the accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses. Accidents happen and have already been reported during the SARS epidemic in Taiwan, Singapore and China (Webster, 2004; WHO, 2004). This is not limited to SARS-CoV (Heymann et al., 2004). When it happened in Beijing in 2004, the information was immediately released and an investigation involving both WHO and Chinese governmental agencies was conducted, patients were identified and treated (WHO, 2004). There is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2. Because of the incubation period of COVID-19, the weak symptoms, the significant rate of asymptomatic patients and the low virulence (with an estimated fatality rate of 3.26%, but more likely around 1% to 2% which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV with 9.6%), an accident could have easily remained unnoticed. But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020). One must remember that SARS-CoV-2 was never found in the wild and that RaTG13 does not exist as real virus but instead only as a sequence in a computer (Zhou et al., 2020a; Ge et al., 2016). It is a virtual virus which thus cannot leak from a laboratory. This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team (Dyer, 2021). Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, March 18, 2021 Sources

And portions of the following are shamelessly stolen from [6].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)

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.

Deutsche Welle alternative language quality.

Although dw.com is generally regarded as reliable source, I think the alternative language version of the site should be used with care. https://m.dw.com/bn/ For example here it's mostly interactive sentences slides.[8], [9], [10] The articles do not fully conform to standard spelling convention used by most Bengali nespaper and sites and is more of transliteration based on 'that's about right'. This one doesn't even use spaces [11]. Here they say ঝটিতি instead of ঝটিকা ,

The reporting isn't wrong but mostly meta, and not up to general standard. --Greatder (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It probably depends on the language and topic. Spanish edition is certainly not the most reliable source for every topic, but I wouldn't consider it generally unreliable. MarioGom (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Starship Campaign

Wonder if we might get some experienced eyes on a question. Is the website, "The Starship Campaign", a WP:RS for purposes of verifying statements about various bits of prototype rockets being built, partially built, or final disposition.

Source: https://starshipcampaign.com/ The site seems to be a fan site of some person or persons who are interested in following the detail of SpaceX iterative development design and build process for their Starship very large (9-meter diameter) new launch vehicle at the SpaceX Starship build and test site in South Texas. The site provides a great deal of detail on every prototype rocket, from the time people first spot a new subassembly or tank part to the time a ship is built, through ground test, and if flight occurs, through test flights. I was unable to locate a "masthead" or other information about the person(s) operating the site, or learn about their editorial process.

Links to past discussions: I searched and have found no prior discussion of this site on WP:RSN.

Article: This website is currently (18 June 2021) cited six times on the article SpaceX Starship development history, in each case to support statements about a prototype ship that had a descriptor assigned, some subassembly weldments were spotted by site watchers, and then SpaceX apparently has decided not to continue to build/construct these large prototypes. I did not do a search to see if the site is used on other Wikipedia articles. Perhaps someone here has a good tool to do this?

Content: Six statements in that article are sourced with the starshipcampaign.com website. Three are in article prose, and three support the table statement "Scrapped" in a wiki-table.

SN17 scrapping is in progress, SN18 and SN19 may be cancelled,

Name	First spotted	Rolled out	First static fire	Maiden flight	Decommissioned	Construction site	Status	Flights
SN17	December 2020	—	—	—	—	Boca Chica, Texas	Scrapped	0
SN18	January 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Boca Chica, Texas	Scrapped	0
SN19	February 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Boca Chica, Texas	Scrapped	0

I have endeavored to follow the guideline for starting this discussion. If I've missed something, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. N2e (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That website says SN18 and SN19 were "Decomissioned" (sic!) in 2018. Prototype that were started in 2021. Nonsense years and spelling error - not a sign of a high quality source. --mfb (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The site is self contradictory and appears to be complete speculation and personal opinion. It's someone's fan blog at best and very clearly not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Notes

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

I found [this source] How reliable do y’all think it is?CycoMa (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability is context-dependent. Can you please provide the information that's requested in the instructions at the very top of this page (links, source, article, and content)? Thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s for sex, male, female, and isogamy.CycoMa (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Content? ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a good source as far as it goes, but "A little learning is a dangerous thing", as the poet said; it is not safe to draw general conclusions from any one paper. Best is to use a wide range of review articles and recent textbooks to get an overview of the subject, i.e. preliminary study and reading is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Its an OK source. But if you have another to back it up, would give more weight to the content. HaughtonBrit (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Law & Crime

Are there any thoughts on the reliability of Dan Abrams' Law & Crime? I don't think the source has been brought up at the Noticeboard yet, and here's their about page. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Law & Crime (previously known as LawNewz) has been brought up a few times: [12], [13], [14]. The discussions haven't been very thorough, but it seems most editors agree Law & Crime shouldn't be used for contentious BLP edits. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Doc. When searching, I must have used "Law and Crime" instead of "Law & Crime". Carelessness/lack of thoroughness on my part, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The search box isn't very user-friendly. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: - what you write about most editors is actually a sample size of three editors, from your links. GRuban says questionable in 2016. Newslinger said Marginally reliable in 2019. R2 said one of those borderline outlets in 2019. The others didn't give direct comments. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I meant "most editors" within the context of those three discussions. As far as I see it, no one has argued that Law & Crime is a RS, but you're more than welcome to make that case. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

OpenDemocracy

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#Antony_Lerman_at_openDemocracy
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Sources_used_in_Rojava_and_related_articles

What is the reliability of openDemocracy for statements of fact, especially those with contentious implications for BLPs? The above discussions seem to say it's okay for attributed WP:RSOPINION (and so inclusion would be due if the person making it is an expert) but does not have an established record of fact checking? I am asking in relation to the use of this source on these articles, for statements of fact:

• Lubov Chernukhin
• Brandon Lewis
• Viktor Fedotov
• Lev Mikheev

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any cases where they got the facts wrong. At least they are cited in government reports (EU, Canada, the Netherlands) and in numerous scholarly papers from what I have seen; also, it seems that pretty many scholars publish there; and that Reuters, Euronews, Deutsche Welle etc. treat their reporting seriously. While it is certainly a biased source, it is, IMHO, generally reliable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between reporting and opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are rarely rs unless written by experts (i.e., writers with published articles on the topic in academic journals and books.) Bear in mind that opinion pieces generally summarize news stories to form an opinion. Per broken telephone, it is better to use the original news articles than opinion pieces discussing what they reported.

Much of their reporting is investigative journalism. While we don't have a policy or guideline for this AFAIK, I would not use them because of problems of undue weight. Only information that is picked up by other sources has due weight.

None of the cases referenced were straight news reporting. I would assume however that given the reputation of the site, that it would be reliable.

TFD (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil

The source: NAPHTHALAN – A NATURAL MEDICINAL PRODUCT Pero Vržogiæ, Želimir Ostrogoviæ, Anða Alajbeg Naftalan Special Hospital for Medical Rehabilitation, Ivaniæ Grad, Croatia

The URL: [ https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/131453 ] (starting on page 178)

Relavent policies: WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE

A quote: "Naphthalan has long been known for its medicinal properties and beneficial effect in inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and psoriatic dermatitis."

Note: Naphtalan is a crude oil known for its high naphthalene content.

The page where this citation is used: Naftalan oil

What the science says:

• Naphthalene#Health effects
• Naphthalene poisoning
• Effects of Crude Oil Exposure
• Adverse Health Effects from Exposure to Crude Oil Mixtures
• What are the health effects of exposure to petroleum products?
• Health effects of non-occupational exposure to oil extraction
• Safety Data Sheet: Crude Oil (sour)

So, is this a reliable source for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Kind of in that gray area between reliable and not reliable. The authors appear to be legitimate medical professionals and Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica the (somewhat pretentiously-named) journal of the Croatian Dermatovenerological Society. On the other hand, dermatovenerology is not a specialization that is widely-recognized in much of the world, being apparently mostly limited to the former Eastern Bloc. That isn't a red flag or disqualifying but it makes evaluating such a source more difficult. It appears to be concerned with the intersection between sexually-transmitted diseases and skin diseases, with a side order of other infectious diseases of the skin. The article concerns itself with treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic or atopic dermatitis, none of which are sexually-transmitted or even infectious. Publishing a journal article that is outside the core of your specialty or the specialty of the journal but related is sort of a yellow flag. What is a definite red flag is that the corresponding author is on the staff of a clinic set up specifically to use this wonderful treatment. Overall, I would say that it can't be used as a source for the statement as it currently is. It could be used as a source for a statement like: "Some medical professionals in the former Eastern Bloc prescribe topically-applied high-naphthalene oil for certain dermatological diseases." I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the source and the WP:FRINGE claims about bathing in crude oil being good for you. I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit:[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, a source that talks about topically-applied high-naphthalene oil might be appropriate at Naphthalene#Health effects but not in an article about bathing in the stuff. For that, I think the sources about the effects of inhaling Naphthalene are far more relevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could keep the conversation about this topic less disjoint, and focus on the facts. I've already asked at least a few times on the talk page that we actually define the topic better. I've also presented numerous bits of context both in that article and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naftalan oil, and you're now insisting that because these people may have conflict of interest that we outright remove the entirety of the mentions of them, saying reasonably factual things, and that this actually improves this article? Notice that I explicitly did not copy their statements about medical effects - I only included a handful of statements saying briefly what kinds of things they did and what they say they observed. Let's actually work on a compromise wording, and *find* actual better scientific articles that help reader understanding, as opposed to dumpstering this because it *may* be construed to support tourist traps in Azerbaijan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I agree, and this is why I explicitly did not cite that source to say that. I only cited their factoids that are less likely to be in dispute. I would like us to have a claim saying "there's this hospital and they raise red flags", but let's do that with an actual source saying so, as opposed to us just making editorial decisions. Yes, these people's claims about the carcinogenic nature of something could be obsolete. That's why the sentences explicitly say they did their research in the 1970s. Etc etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Grouping dermatology and venereology is not specific to the Eastern bloc. It is also common practice in Switzerland. Also, the language "medical professionals in the former Eastern Bloc" is not compatible with WP:WORLDVIEW: the Eastern bloc doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced with independent, fully autonomous countries with distinct cultures and characteristics. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the reliability of the source, though. JBchrch talk 11:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I am from one of those places and I took no issue with the mention of former Eastern Bloc - it is indeed completely within the realm of possibility that the authoritarian governments of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia during whose reign this has started - had indeed intentionally promoted something bad, and they should be scrutinized for it. The trouble is, if we don't even mention what they did and when they did it, and if we summarily remove the 2003 description of what they did just because it's possibly related to these actions, while at the same time keeping a few elements of the same story that were sourced to that description, merely sprinkled with citation-needed tags - we're not actually substantially improving the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic. I've posted more about this specific series of edits and the content dispute in general at Talk:Naftalan oil. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with using a source that trumpets fringe science with the title "NAPHTHALAN – A NATURAL MEDICINAL PRODUCT" for non-biomedical claims such as "After the oil boom at the turn of the 20th century, the Baku naftalan started to be extracted in higher volumes, and exported to Germany". Could it possibly be the case that such basic facts are only found in a WP:PROMOTIONAL source by the staff of a clinic set up specifically to provide this particular alternative medicine? If so, I question whether the claims have enough WP:WEIGHT to be included at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a reason to tag those citations with {{better source needed}}, not remove them. I still think the proper way to address their "trumpeting" of their "fringe science" is to provide any citation to a more clearly reputable scientific source that addresses the topic. Surely there's something somewhere saying something relevant about a purported medical treatment that's been happening in Azerbaijan since 1933 and in Croatia since 1989? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

e/c You are wasting your time trying to pretend that bathing in crude oil with a very high Napthalene content is a reasonable thing to do. Wikipedia will never say such a thing, as no science supports it at all. Please stop. -Roxy . wooF 15:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you say that I'm actually advocating this position, have you not read what I wrote so many times now? (Also, this is really a violation of WP:Casting aspersions - Guy just warned me of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so tread lightly.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: "Why would you say that I'm actually advocating this position [that bathing in crude oil with a very high Napthalene content is a reasonable thing to do]", "We're spending a lot of time in the article talking about the underlying chemical substance, instead of addressing the idea that it has positive medical effects."[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Well yeah, that sentence is not me saying that it actually has them, it's me saying that there's an idea that it has them and this idea really should be addressed if we want to inform the readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would really "take issue" with the wording, as it is historically correct. However, we can certainly do better than choosing a terminology based on a geopolitical division that stopped existing 30 years ago (Croatia is now part of the EU) and on the assumption that central Europe is the geographical centre of the world. Regardless, I have now taken a more thorough look at the document, and I think Eggishorn made a mistake in evaluating the document: demato-venereology is not a specific medial specialty (i.e. the treatment of skin conditions caused by STIs), but the "grouping" under one umbrella of two medical practices: dermatology and venereology, which does not seem like a new or fringe nomenclature. So I don't really understand why they considered the article would be considered out-of-scope or out-of-specialty? See also the PDF of the journal on p. 3 Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica (ADC) aims to provide dermatologists with up-to-date information on all aspects of the diagnosis and management of skin and venereal diseases.. See also European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, not a fringe organization. JBchrch talk 15:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC) As the debate develops, I should note that I agree with Guy Macon's argument that the article has a promotional tone and is written by proponents (and beneficiaries) of this treatment and should therefore be given very little (if any) WP:WEIGHT. JBchrch talk 16:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Note also the angle that I'm advocating here - to describe the topic in terms of what's out there in real life. The core source of notability of this particular 'Naftalan oil' isn't the simple fact it contains naphthalene, rather it's that folks think it can help skin conditions and whatnot. If the encyclopedia just says "the thing inside the sludge probably causes cancer" that's actually less useful than saying "people tested whether the sludge helps skin conditions and the result was bad/meh/complicated/something else". (After all the news media coverage in the last few years about how eating meat causes cancer, I suspect there's a fair few readers that aren't automatically dissuaded by simple carcinogenicity.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The real life is that people appear to be advocating Napthalene baths as a good thing to do, healthwise, without evidence that it is a good thing to do. We would be crazy, in a reality based project such as this, to echo those claims, so we try not to, in all sorts of areas. That is POLICY. You wont find any reliable sources that support "Naptha Bathing" as a cure for say, "Yaws" or a reasonable treatment for anything else. -Roxy . wooF 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

See TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS From the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry[17]. And that's just regular crude oil. The fact that this particular oil has a high Naphthalene content, that people in Croatia are bathing in it, and that this necessarily involves breathing in high concentrations of Naphthalene fumes just makes it worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems so obvious to you guys, so why can't we simply find a reliable source that spells out the contradictory claim like "There is no evidence that this thing happening here is a good idea" or even "This thing here is not a good idea" and reference that? The CDC TPH profile says among other things "Very little is known about the toxicity of many TPH compounds. Until more information is available, information about health effects of TPH must be based on specific compounds or petroleum products that have been studied." and after listing a lot of toxic stuff, also "Other TPH compounds, such as some mineral oils, are not very toxic and are used in foods." Their description of naphthalene isn't entirely conclusive either. Which in turn leads to the obvious question - goodness knows what is actually in those specific "naftalan oil" baths? How much naphthalene or anything else is in there, really? This is also something I found curious in the 2003 article, it mentions how a number of substances are removed from "their" naftalan oil, but doesn't go into too much depth. There should be some sort of an explanation for at least some of this that is properly spelled out in sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that literally everybody but you agrees that there are no health benefits and serious health risks to bathing in crude oil. If anyone thinks that it is harmless or beneficial, now would be a good time to speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am absolutely not advocating the position that there are these benefits, or that there are no risks! I'm simply wary of a situation where we somehow have no proper sourcing for this after such a long time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: "I am absolutely not advocating the position that there are these benefits,", "We're spending a lot of time in the article talking about the underlying chemical substance, instead of addressing the idea that it has positive medical effects."[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also (from the above discussion) "The CDC TPH profile says among other things 'Very little is known about the toxicity of many TPH compounds.'" (ignoring the fact that a lot is known about the toxicity of other compounds found in all crude oil) and "also 'Other TPH compounds, such as some mineral oils, are not very toxic and are used in foods.' " (just because some TPH compounds are not very toxic, that doesn't change the fact that other TPH compounds are known to be toxic.) I am not buying it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You're assuming a lot of deductive power from the readers. I still think it would be much better if we had something describing this behavior in no uncertain terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought i'd jump in here. While the majority of miracle cure claims about the oil are obvious BS, the ones relating to psoriasis and other skin-related issues (such as those discussed in the academic articles) might actually have some basis regarding the damage naphthalene has on cells. It would still be a stupid way to go about it, but it might have some sort of impact that could then be claimed to be helpful for the related conditions. Silverseren^C 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that those sources discussed a topical treatment of Naphthalene. That tells us very little about taking a bath in crude oil containing Naphthalene and many other toxic components and breathing high concentrations of Naphthalene fumes along with other volatiles found in crude oil. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Phyllida Barlow

I kind of know the answer to this, but here goes: is this source:

• [intentionally left blank] (<––– you may want to highlight this ... )

sufficient for a statement at Phyllida Barlow that; "Barlow was awarded of art prizes: the Aachener Kunstpreis in Germany in 2012, Hepworth prize, the UK's first prize for sculpture in 2016 and Maria Anto & Elsa von Freytag-Lorignhoven Art Prize, first International Art Prize in Poland dedicated to woman artists in 2019."? I've already removed it twice, which is indisputably at least once too often. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

-You didn't give us an actual link or URL of the source, so unless you provide one, we can not comment. --Dial (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no source, so I've removed it. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Was this post made as some sort of joke? Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously. A good one, IMHO. -Roxy . wooF 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely; it was a serious question, to which however I already knew the answer. I couldn't act on it without further edit-warring, so brought it here. Please excuse me if I've tried your patience; thanks to Woodroar who took the point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You got it. You already had the answer. HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A very shrewd form of canvassing, eh..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Livedoor.com

It is a Japanese website and it is being used as a source for Bobby Rose (baseball) in a edit here[[19]]. Is this website a reliable source. Here is a link[20] via google translate for the article being used as a source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's an aggregate site. There's a thread further up this page right now about the Asahi Shinbun, and according to this Livedoor News posted an Asahi article that contained an error and posted a correction around an hour after the Asahi, and in the present case the article explicitly cites BaseballKing.jp: the original source seems to be here. Whether the above case of a retraction being issued means they can be counted on to fact-check aside, they are not really the "source" in this case, since they appear to have reprinted the BasballKing article verbatim. I've never heard of BaseballKing, though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Dylanchords.com.

There has been some disagreement about using dylanchords.com as a reliable source. Firstly, it appears to be WP:UGC. Users can log in and post. Admittedly, all the posts appear to be from one person, who apparently has a "PhD in musicology", but it still appears to be a blog with someone posting what they think the chords are. I could start my own blog and post my own interpretation and be no less reliable.

I also imagine the same copyright restrictions would apply as linking to an unauthorised lyric page.

Discussion has taken place here. [21]. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The above information is incorrect. It is untrue that "users" can log in and post at Dylanchords (which falsely indicates that it's a social media-style site to which multiple people have access). The site's owner and primary author is Eyolf Ostrem who is responsible for publishing all of the tablature, which is what I'm linking to. There's also no need to put "PhD in musicology" in quotes. You can easily verify his credentials online. He's a well-respected musicologist and published author who established his site in the 1990s. It is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative sites of its kind. Finally, as I've pointed out in our conversations elsewhere, a site that uses blogging software does not necessarily make that site a blog. - Tbonefrank

Some examples of claimed problematic use would help; I personally would have no problem using the site, with attribution, for broad, simple statements about a song ("Shelter from the Storm" is in the key of E Major, for example), but much beyond that I would get antsy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I can agree that something like pointing out the key would be fine unless disputed. I can't see how using as an external link is any different to an unlicensed lyric provider, which is considered a copyright violation. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think Doctorhawkes is correct here. While a fair use argument could certainly be mounted, there's no indication that there is any dispensation from any copyright holder to the site. Therefore discretion is the better part of valor, and we should avoid using it. I'd say it's largely broadly reliable, but unfortunately in s copyright danger zone. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we possibly link to the page and have some information about what the disagreement is about? If the author is a published musicologist, I suspect we are ok for simple statements of fact. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And same for the copyright issue. If it's just saying what cord a song is in, I don't see how that could rise to being a copyright issue. But without examples/context we've got little to discuss. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the site would have the the entire lyrics of the song. I've since found this "External links to copyright violations should also be avoided. Many archives and collections of lyrics on the Internet are not licensed and are likely to involve copyright violations." here at WP:LYRICS. An example is here: [22]. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with all the relevant policies, but I think if the copyright issue allows then there may be a case for Ostrem being OK under WP:SPS. His analysis of songs is discussed in Gezari, J., & Hartman, C. (2010). Dylan's covers. Southwest Review, 95(1), 152-166,348-349; and in Negus, K. (2010). Bob Dylan's phonographic imagination. Popular Music, 29(2), 213-227. (both available via ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library). His site is also mentioned (in passing) as a source consulted in works like Timothy Hampton's Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work and Oliver Trager's Keys to the Rain: The Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, and he gets a shout-out in Michael Gray's The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. The source is reliable, and while in real-world copyright terms, it may well be okay, I think it is not for Wikipedia purposes. Kind of a shame. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Vyasa

Which ones of these do you consider reliable sources?

Author Bruce Sullivan - [23]

Edited by Arvind Sharma - [24]

Author B.G. Ramesh -[25]. Section of the page Veda Vyasa Gurudeva states that Vyasa was founder of great religion.

Author Vettam Mani - [26]

Author Roshen Dalal - [27]. This reference doesn't show any proof of the content added to the article because their is no way to view the reference.

Author Devdutt Pattanaik - [28]

And then there are references like these that we have absolutely no idea as they are not viewable or reliable.

Skanda Purāṇa, Nāgara Khanda, ch. 147 There is no link to view.

Strauss, Sarah (2002). "The Master's Narrative: Swami Sivananda and the Transnational Production of Yoga". Journal of Folklore Research. Indiana University Press. 23 (2/3): 221 . Again no link to view.

What are your thoughts on all the above references and especially the ones that have absolutely no link to view. Please share your thoughts on what should be and shouldn't be considered reliable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 10:33, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

As you will see at Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, there is no requirement that a source be viewable online to be considered a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler, what about the rest of the references? Do all of them seem ok to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

• I would like others to please take a look at the references as well and provide your inputs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 21, 2021 (UTC)
• This is a highly important topic for Hinduism, which is widely researched at universities around the world, so I see no reason why we shouldn't limit our sourcing to the best-quality peer-reviewed journals and books from university presses. But it's not clear what the context is: are we to take the "birth+date+of+Vyasa" in the first URL as meaning that your intent is to put Sullivan's factual claim regarding the dating of Vyasa's birth in Wikipedia's voice? It appears to be an "Indian edition" of this book published by Brill, but it's not clear what page you intend to cite as the GBooks preview of said Indian edition, from where I'm sitting, does not include this information. Context is everything here, and you have provided none. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88, Thank you for feedback. One of the content on the page that I added was that "In his own day, he was looked up to as the Gurudeva and the founder of religion." This content is based on this reference. So do you see any issue with this? Do you think this is controversial in any manner? Because one of the other user keeps reverting the changes.

Author B.G. Ramesh -[29]. Section of the page Veda Vyasa Gurudeva states that Vyasa was founder of great religion.

B. G. Sharma was a painter. I guess you are talking about the English translation of a book by B.G. Ramesh. –Austronesier (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, Sorry, you are right, I meant B.G. Ramesh. –AtmaramU (talk)

• This source [30] is reliable from reputed publisher and translated by a professor, Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and written by well known Indian author Sri B. G. Ramesh. Does anyone's opinion differ? –AtmaramU (talk).

@AtmaramU: I have seen that B. G. Ramesh authored several biographies, apparently for a general audience. Can you give us some background information about his credentials in this topic? This topic requires scholarly sources, especially for such weighty statements added to the lead. Additionally, when did the original version of the book appear? Thank you. (And btw, I urge you to stop edit warring in Vyasa). –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand

So, I've been working to expand our coverage of megaherbs and I wonder if things like this are reliable sources for things like physical descriptions of species, their occurrences etc. They have a writer noted but I am not sure what credentials they are expected to have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. They are a production of the Manatū Taonga, New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage, which does tend to argue for reliability, but I don't find any convenient description of their writing, editing, quality control processes. Can anyone describe these? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Source Reliable?

• This source [31] is reliable from reputed publisher and translated by a professor, Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and written by well known Indian author Sri B. G. Ramesh. Does anyone's opinion differ? Would you consider the source reliable?

–AtmaramU (talk).

An unknon author from an unknown publishing house. Not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already mentioned in the talk page that the source is reliable but the question is about the "great religion" content which is very vague. You just needed to remove that. HaughtonBrit (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Simply stating that a source is reliable won't suffice. Chariotrider555 and User:245CMR have also questioned this source. The source in question is Sri B. G. Ramesh (2012, first publ. 2003), VYASA. A biography of Vyasa. Immortal Lights 49, published by Sapna Book House, Bangalore. It's some sort of religious biography, pulled from traditional sources. The section on "Vyasa's Age" concludes that he lived ca. 3000 BCE. That's about the time the Indo-European migrations started, and a millennium before the advent of the Sintashta culture. So, where do you want to situate Vyasa, somewhere at the Ukrainian steppes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Its suffice enough after looking at the references, publisher, author and the translator who translated the book. Based on that the opinion was made. HaughtonBrit (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Press TV's website

The website of WP:RSP-listed Press TV appears to have been seized by the U.S. government. The U.S. has previously seized sites owing to U.S. sanctions, Justice Department documents say.

The seizure hasn’t been covered very much as of yet by reliable sources (all I can find source-wise is Twitter, the website itself, Insider Paper, RT, Sputnik, and Iran International).

The seizure may be worth noting on the RSP entry, but owing to the lack of non-primary RS I am not sure quite what to do. What do you all think? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: The AP and AFP have also reported on the sites being seized. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't assess reliability based on a specific Government blocking or seizing. Just as we use sources that are blocked in China, having a domain seized by the US Government does not affect per se our reliability assessment. A different question is whether we are forbidden by law from linking to new domains, but I doubt that is the case at this point. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

presstv.ir (another english language domain) is still online. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Has PressTV been confirmed to be an Iranian government mouthpiece? if that is the case, maybe it could be used to represent the views of the current government in Iran. Barca (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Unclosed RfC

Last year there was a robustly attended RfC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#RfC:_PressTV that to my eye had a firm consensus to deprecate, but that was never closed. Maybe worth putting it at WP:RFCLOSE? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Good find. I think it's worth deprecating. Press TV is currently in over 1200 articles Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming magazine article on this noticeboard and The Daily Mail

I have been working with a reporter from a legitimate publication (yes, I confirmed the identity) on an upcoming article about the deprecation of The Daily Mail. They had this question:

"The editor I'm working with at [publication] made this comment. 'I think around here we need a little more info on why English Wikipedia made this decision. Were there any particular precipitating events? Can you give some examples of times when Daily Mail links were used that pointed to bum info? I think setting up the problem a little more clearly will help!'

Do you by chance know of any examples that precipitated the 2017 RfC? It's hard because I see a number of examples of Daily Mail posting incorrect news stories, but it's hard to show how that damaging to Wikipedia. I would welcome any advice or suggestions you might have!"

I would like to open this up for discussion.

My first thought was to start with discussing the fact that we have always had deprecated sources -- we don't use The Onion or Infowars as a source for anything -- then talk about how for years we have had to deal with well-meaning editors (and a few trolls) trying to use The Daily Mail as a source, how we had a legitimate question about whether they were reliable for some things (Sports scores? direct quotes? Articles published a hundred years ago? Photos?) and how this led up the the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC.

Or should I go back to discussions such as

• 2008's Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Daily Mail
• 2008's Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Is the Daily Mail a reliable source
• 2014's Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Reliability of the Daily Mail or
• 2016's Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#Daily Mail

Or is there one incident that pushed us over the edge? Amanda Knox, perhaps? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• • The 2017 RFC was started by (now banned) Hillbillyholiday, and came after this diff about using DM on an astronomy article (diff on 6 Jan 2017), prompting Hillbillyholiday to start the RFC the next day [32] with a "worth a shot" edit summary based on the comments from that prior discussion. I would argue based on that, we (community) were ready to deprecate it, but just needed someone to kick the formal process into gear, there wasn't any last-straw type thing since it was building over at least 9 years. --Masem (t) 22:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And to that end, I would just point to any RS/N or equivalent board discussion that showed that DM was a bad source and why it should not be used, prior to the 2017 RFC. --Masem (t) 22:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what triggered it was the 2016 U.S. primaries and elections that led to the defeat of the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump. The Daily Mail had run a number of articles that were critical of the Clintons. You might also want to read the discussion pages for the Daily Mail for some insight into how Wikipedia editors viewed it. TFD (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think re-writing history to make it fit into a long-time political agenda is a bad idea, myself. If the journalist is reading this, my advice would be to ignore this attempt to crowbar in a chunk of political spin. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats an interesting take, especially given how there isn’t even a single mention of “Clinton” in any of the five reliability discussions. Perhaps your memory of the situation is faulty? I know you’ve had issues with that in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There *is* something to be said about the political climate up to and predating the 2016 US election (around 2014, so that this would include Gamergate), in which we saw the rise of the alt/far right agenda, having an influence on conservative media, and leading a majority of editors here on WP to start becoming dubious of the more extreme sources like DM in how they handled themselves among all these. Trump + Brexit did not help at all in how conservative media handled themselves in our eyes in terms of losing any respect as reliable sources, and thus by 2016/2017 we were ready to simply wipe our hands with them, regardless of what possible redeeming values had been brought up before. However, this is my own view from a distance and near impossible to point to anything that demonstrates how that all ties together. I would agree we can just say, the political climate in 2016/2017 and its effect both on how the DM behaved, and how Wikipedia became more critical of dubious sources, were all contributors towards that. --Masem (t) 03:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, could you please avoid personal attacks when replying to me. Five discussions at RSN since Wikipedia was set up is not a huge amount. The first one actually has only one person saying it isn't rs based on its publication of the forged Zinoviev letter in 1924. The reason that there was no mention of the Clintons in RSN discussions (and contrary to your insinuation I never said there were) is probably that none of their stories were challenged and in fact often picked up in other sources. I find it interesting too that someone with your political views would be hostile to the Daily Mail.

I note also that none of the discussion were about specific edits, although two were about specific articles, namely, the now deleted "Romanian crime in Europe" and Barack Obama, both in 2008. Can you explain why it came up at RSN in 2016-17, although no one had complained about using it as a source for almost a decade?

Masem, I think that is my point. What triggered the ban was the run up to the 2016 election resulting in the election of Donald Trump. The ban discussion was in the month Trump took office. Whether or not it should have been banned, it's odd that it was the first one.

TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That was why I looked to what prompted the RFC, and it was simply a reaction to "hey, DM's being used on this astronomy article , should it be" and getting back a resounding no, prompting the RFC to see if that is what stuck. By end of 2016, I think we all accepted that DM shouldn't be used, the RFC simply was formalizing that groupmind decision on paper (to speak). It wasn't any specific incident but moves toward that accelerated from the 2014-2016 period and rise of extreme conservative ideological mantras in the political landscape (external to WP). --Masem (t) 15:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Or to add to this (and maybe to spur others) - we as society were dealing with a culture war as well, this prior too but in the formulative years of #MeToo, and before the so-called reactionary "cancel culture" aspects were in place. I recall but am not that well versed here that Daily Mail was rather participatory in that area at that time (2014-2016), coupled with the stuff happening on the alt/far right (Trump, Brexit reactions, etc.) which I think fueled Wikipedia editors' distrust of the work more in this period than ever before. I know from my experience in the Gamergate area that we became very critical of sources that were off the mainstream and into the extremes on Ad Fontes Media Bias chart (or similar) in terms of their use , so I wouldn't be surprised to have seen that replicated in reviewing the Daily Mail in other areas. --Masem (t) 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m merely asking whether or not your memory of what happened is accurate, I have a hard time recalling many of the things that happened site wide during my early years and I’m a post DM deprecation join. Now of course this means that I’ve only ever experienced wikipedia post DM but I must say that I’ve found the more solid reliability lines of recent years to be comforting. You are correct that The Daily Mail and I probably inhabit the same area of the political spectrum, I’ve always worked hard to separate my personal biases from reliability discussions but its obviously not easy. That being said The Daily Mail being too unreliable for our use is not exactly a hard call regardless of their political affiliations, but I don’t wan’t outside observers to get the impression that the Daily Mail was deprecated because it was the worst of the worst (its obviously not HispanTV, Occupy Democrats, Breitbart, RT, or CGTN)... Thats not my understanding at all from my research into the history of reliability on Wikipedia, I think it was a case of right source right place right time and any number of sources could have taken the place that DM now fills. Instead of the DM itself I wish people would focus on the larger deprecation infrastructure and norms that have evolved since then which I think have been an immensely positive for Wikipedia. I don’t think we could have built that infrastructure with a state media or relatively unknown source as our bar, DM works because its so well known throughout the english speaking world and is also clearly on the wrong side of the line. Most of the sources that have been deprecated using that infrastructure have not been sources that look like DM, they’ve been state media, self published, and obscure niche outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Request more involvement/input

There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains quotes from unreliable source directly or indirectly through citation of reliable authors, venue for discusssion [[33]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria

UK Defence Journal

• ukdefencejournal.org.uk  

Is this a reliable reference? Their about us page describes the website as written by ordinary people in their free time, with contributors such as George Allison who has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval defence technology and cyber security matters. George also works part-time for NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde. FDW777 (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The opinion of notable contributors might carry weight but in general I don’t think theres much we can use a rather loosely organized group blog like UK Defence Journal for. This is one of those cases in which everything thats important enough to put on wikipedia will have been covered by a more reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I won't give it much weight especially since it states that its written by ordinary people during their free time. That part itself looses credibility. Just my 2 cents.HaughtonBrit (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Information and sources ok? Can the information be used in Aegean dispute?

Hello. I have added [34] to the article Aegean dispute the following information:

On 17 June 2020, classified documents of the Turkish Armed Forces were leaked to the public amid an ongoing Turkish court's investigation on the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. These official reports revealed that Turkey had developed a plan to invade 131 of the Greek islands. Experts do not believe any tensions and conflicts between the two countries over their disputes will result in military actions. However, according to Albawaba, it is unlikely that Greece would heel to Turkey's calls to demilitarize the islands in light of the newly leaked reports, as that would not be safe. On 20 March 2021, more documents were revealed by the Stockholm-based Nordic Monitor.

References

However even though the sources have been provided, my edits have been reverted by another editor as "rv tendentious nonsense": [35]. Normally, I would discuss the matter in the article's talk page, however, considering that the particular editor who reverted my additions often had shown a valuable insight on the Aegean affairs which is easy to miss if one doesn't learn to read past their chronic WP:CIVILITY problems, and considering the lack of more healthy third-party input in the article's talk page, I am tentative to open another talk page section and argue with them over it - at least not before getting a third opinion about the sources and making sure they can be used.

Also I would like to note that the sources are in English language, but the documents are in Turkish, so I would also appreciate some input about the documents as well. I do not know to understand/read Turkish myself, but if any participants here can, then even better. (If that is not the case, then perhaps fellow editors who are capable of reading Turkish, such as respected fellow editors @Visnelma: and @Buidhe: who actively participated in Turkish topic areas can provide some insight on the matter?) My thanks to everyone in advance! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident failed to notify me of this discussion – given that it was I who reverted them, they clearly should have.

These claims are sourced to "Nordic Monitor" [36], a single-purpose web outlet run by some exiled Turkish opposition journalists associated with the Gülen movement. The sole purpose of this website is to criticize the Turkish government – which is fine, of course, but I'd argue it's not a reliable source. Some other newspapers, mostly Greek ones, have picked up this report, mostly just uncritically reprinting it.

The report is based on a leaked presentation from a Turkish military event, which indicates Turkey has is some kind of military planning regarding possible conflict scenarios with Greece, just as it has other contingency plans regarding possible conflicts with other neighbors. The report cites one page from that presentation that contains a list of "islands of questionable sovereignty", evidently implying they might be focal points of potential military crises (just as Imia/Kardak was 25 years ago). The existence of these "disputed" sovereignty claims is old news; it's an issue that has been around for a quarter of a century; the only noteworthy thing is that the military is now apparently keeping a concrete list containing a specific number of geographic formations, something that the official government line has never publicly committed to. In any case, spinning this into a claim that Turkey was preparing a concrete "invasion plan" for these islands is nothing but speculative interpretation on the part of the Nordic Monitor authors.

Even if there was something worth reporting about this, these claims would obviously have to be hedged – since they are not reported facts but somebody's opinions. Plus, the material is blatantly misplaced, as it has only the most tenuous, speculative relation to the topic of the section where it was placed, the legal status of demilitarization of the Greek islands. As such, it's a rather crass instance of "WP:COATRACK" editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be dubious as no reputable (third party) source seems to have picked this up. Not sure if Nordic Monitor fails RS (what is their reputation) but it may well fail wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident failed to notify me of this discussion – given that it was I who reverted them, they clearly should have. Future Perfect, I am sorry you had the impression that I had to notify you but I came here for an independent, third party opinion on the sources; not about discussing the dispute or your reverts. None here cares about the disputes behind sources. For that, there is the article's talk page and/or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Simple as that. After all, it is your past insight into the Aegean dispute affairs that have caused a doubt -by me- to my addition (info and sources), as you can tell from the fact I didn't rush to revert your revert nor open a new discussion in the Aegean dispute's article talk page (yet). However I appreciate your analysis on the information nevertheless. If the others here agree with what you said, then I will accept it and save you from the trouble of ever discussing about it in the article's talk page or something. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Visnelma

• I have never heard about this before. I did a quick research and saw that Turkish media almost never mentioned this with some exceptions. What storke me was that an Islamist, pro-government newspaper mentioned this event as "...the website named Nordic Monitor published military plans of Turkey against Armenia." Although it is pro-government, the news site did not deny the claims and actually said that these were the plans of Turkey.[37] The event was also mentioned by pro-Armenian newspaper Agos. However it states that the Greek media interpreted the news as "sensational".[38]

• In conclusion regardless of whether it was published by people linked to the Gülenist movement (which is likely) and it is "sensationsal", it seems to have a factual basis.--V. E. (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Important Add: The sources I shared were published in late 2019 and cover the military plans of Turkey against Armenia whereas sources published by Silent were published in 2020 and 2021 and mostly cover the Turkey's plans against Greece. I'm a little bit confused right now. Did they revealed Turkey's plans twice? Even if so, since the earlier claims were not denied by Akit newspaper, we can assume that these claims have factual basis too.--V. E. (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I know about the 2019 revelations against Armenia too. If my memory does not fail me, none had disputed or challenged the leaked information, not even the pro-government media in Turkey, nor the Erdogan government. The contrary - the Erdogan government-controlled courts appear to have asked from Twitter to censor the tweets and block the account associated with them, for leaking the classified documents regarding Armenia and Greece: [39]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

rulers.org

Hello, RSN,

I searched the archives and there isn't a definitive answer about whether rulers.org is considered a reliable source or not. I've found pages, like List of rulers of the Bariba state of Paraku and List of rulers of the Bariba state of Kandi, where this is the only source of information. The website information is extremely detailed but no sources are provided for its tens of thousands of entries, at least not for the few pages that I looked at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing a random entry on that website to the corresponding Wikipedia article (Ma Fuxiang), I find it quite likely that the website's entries are actually derived from Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that's true, that's problematic for the articles I mentioned where rulers.org is credited as being the only source for the information in the articles. Much of the information the site contains is very obscure, they'd need an extensive reference library to track down these local leaders. It might be worth an email to the website owner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Per startpage, it seems like a one-guy thing. Does this [40] or this [41] help at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)