Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

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

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

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

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit

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

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

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

Comments (India: A Country Study)

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

The Dispatch – Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I assume you and some other editors are fine with a ban on Chinese state media? Per similar rankings on Freedom House should we also ban media from Cuba (like Radio Havana), Venezuela (like Televen), Laos (like Vientiane Times), North Korea (like KCNA), Saudi Arabia (like Al Arabiya), UAE (like Gulf News), Iran (like Tehran Times), Russia, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Vietnam and several other 'low press freedom' countries no matter what? No, it'd very much be censorship & sytemic bias.

These outlets are good for non-controversial claims supported by Western media & should esp. be allowed for articles where such countries are in dispute with another (often 'more free') country to represent their own viewpoint. Attribution is ofc necessary but they should def. be used in some instances. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC inconclusive, no action.

According to the definition of independent sources, independent sources have editorial independence [...] and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). The explanatory page also says that what matters for independence is whether [e.g. academic journals] stand to gain from it. There is also a relevant essay that might be of interest to users.

There were a few problems with this RfC, one of the main being that independence was conflated with reliability. The "no" side frequently cited the gag order that Xi Jinping imposed on COVID-19-related topics and the general deterioration of already feeble academic freedom in [mainland] China and therefore asserted they are not reliable, to which it was pointed out that there will be a paradox of elevating news reports above scholarship if the "no" answer is decided to be the consensus, and also that we shouldn't be overriding the peer review process of scientific papers that accepted the Chinese scientists' work. That's not a matter of "independence", however, but of reliability, or, in the last argument, of original research.

The RfC is unfortunately more problematic than that. Some of the editors pointed to the vagueness of "Chinese" in this proposal (origin, nationality or just Chinese-sounding names) and that this debate is a proxy argument for whether the Chinese mess with the COVID statistics. Finally, the question concerned all Chinese publications on subjects that the Chinese government has vested interest in, but it was only focusing on one subset of topics that the Chinese government censors. COVID-19, however, is only a small group of these contentious topics - the Three Ts are barely discussed here, although they would absolutely qualify under the RfC question; neither were the history of China topics that the censors quite like to meddle with, too. This discussion has only touched the tip of the iceberg, and in order to make a proper close on the question as asked, hundreds of voices about all topics liable to censorship would have to be solicited with showing of how the censorship impacts the reliability of the academic works. This has not happened here, and I hardly imagine it happening anywhere.

Therefore, my determination, based on this discussion, is that the RfC question is overbroad and a much narrower question must be designed to resolve the underlying content dispute. Closing with no action. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

---

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

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bakkster Man: I don't know why LondonIP didn't answer, so I will. Please don't make this about Chinese authors publishing in English-language international journals like BMJ, because as others here have said, those journals are not under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government, while Chinese nationals - including those abroad - very much are. The Chinese government response to COVID-19, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China, and zero COVID are full of primary sources supporting a Chinese nationalist POV, like "China contained the crisis reasonably swiftly", which is just absurd. The BMJ, Nature and Lancet articles do not even claim what Thucydides411 says they do, so this discussion would be just as home on WP:OR/N. There are multiple problems here, with WP:INDEPENDENT being the main one, followed by WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Perhaps an ArbCom case would be a better solution. CutePeach (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

@Thucydides411: no one cited it anything other than questioning the accuracy of China's statistics, and it can and should be used for just that. LondonIP (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Novem Linguae: if narrowing the question down to COVID-19 still isn't narrow enough, then the !votes calling this question to broad may just look like a certain other WP:STONEWALLING operation in this topic area, which was ultimately unsuccessful. If this discussion isn't closed with a clear consensus on what to do with the Accuracy of COVID statistics section that was deleted by FormalDude [28], who also called for this RSN discussion [29] (which he has yet to participate in), then an ARBCOM case would be in order. I think it'll be an open and shut case, with what RS like The Times say [30], and with what the academic sources don't say. LondonIP (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loaded question and Poorly formed RfC. - Recommend speedy close. We have plenty of examples of mainland chinese citizens courageously speaking out in ways that the Chinese Government would find counter-productive. Li Wenliang [31], Shi Zhengli [32], Zhang Yongzhen [33]. and others. If this RfC were decided as "no," then publications by these individuals would be considered unreliable. Many mainland chinese scientists, if not most, do their jobs for the sake of scientific progress and bold inquiry. Scientists are, by and large, loyal to the scientific process above and beyond the influence of any government actors. This is part of why Mao's cultural revolution targeted scientists, engineers, journalists, etc. Because their loyalty to their craft superseded that of the party. Why would we buy into any narrative that paints Chinese scientists with such a broad brush? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Why do you think the only way to obtain death data in China is to go through the government? Do you understand how deaths are counted in America? It very often isn't done through the government. (E.g. see the public health whistleblower in Florida who was harassed by state officials when her counts didn't match up [34] [35]) There are many ways to estimate covid deaths with varying involvement from government data resources (from complete to very little), and not all of them are equally accurate either: (such as excess death estimates [36], machine learning using GIS data [37], [38]). It's bizarre to hoist these criticisms on China while not looking inward. I would actually call it xenophobic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No. Reasons have been provided by editors above-Note that this refers to Chinese publications, not authors. That would be xenophobic.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, though it may often be reasonable to consider them WP:BIASED in places where the Chinese government has an active stake and is known to exert control. I think BIASED is what many of the no voices above are actually thinking of - WP:INDEPENDENT is much stronger and requires a financial or legal relationship to the topic and which is directly analogous to having a COI. Going down this road would lead to a situation where we consider eg. Israeli sources non-independent on Israel / Palestinian issues (they have obvious legal and financial relationships to their own country!) - and of course Palestinian sources would be as well, and from there it's really only a short step to considering all Jewish and Muslim sources (or any competing faiths!) non-independent on anything to do with either nation or either faith, and since the United States has a heavy political and financial investment in Israel all sources from there cannot really be considered independent and the next thing you know no sources can be used for anything. Being subject to potential state coercion is a reason to be cautious and a potential source of bias to take into consideration, but independence is about a much much closer relationship than that - writing about yourself, your family, or a product that is made or sold by your company or employer or owning or working for a company that represents a competing product's article. Extending that to every single scholar in an entire country of 1.4 billion people subject to the coercive power of its state is wildly beyond those definitions and far outside of anything WP:INDEPENDENT is supposed to govern. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad question with worse implications There's no evidence that those scholars has fabricated scientific data or fact in large. Any publicaion is open to public for review. No scholar wants to ruin reputation. B.T.W. if Wikipedia decides to censor scientific publications, then it's not wikipedia anymore. --Kethyga (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

  @Nableezy: you're assuming that we're talking about a Nature (journal) article that actually says X. I've asked Thucydides411 to quote the exact text from the Nature, BMJ and Lancet articles that they claim counter reports from the BBC, SCMP and Caixin about how China tallies COVID infections and fatalities [39] [40], but so far they haven't been able (or willing) to do that. Since you're taking a stand here, perhaps you can read the discussion and the Nature article in question. LondonIP (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

  You are taking a stand and you are holding up a source which doesn't even exist. The question of this RfC came up when editors brought up sources from Chinese scientists that even WP:FT/N put down as WP:PRIMARY and not WP:MEDRS [41]. Please read the sources that are being discussed here. LondonIP (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Nableezy:, a "Chinese academic publication" in the context of my RFC question is any paper published by any Chinese academic on any subject censored by the Chinese government, and my question is narrowed down further asking if they should be considered WP:INDEPENDANT. Taken alone, "Chinese academic publications" may seem broad, but as Silver seren explains above, international journals are not able to check if a submission has been censored in some way, and as I told to AlexEng above, these journals have collaborated with the Chinese government's 中共中央宣传部 office to censor politically sensitive subjects. Taking all three criteria of my question, this RFC would affect only a handful of papers and how they are used, such as the BMJ article - discussed below - which was used to counterbalance reports from the Financial Times and other HQRS, and even WP:POVDELETE them [42] [43] [44]. Please don’t break the criteria of my RFC question to make it broader than it actually is, or that it would affect any more than a handful of papers, which are being used in the wrong way. CutePeach (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Shibbolethink: the "Chinese academic publications" part of my question is broadly phrased, and it can be applied to any subject to the Chinese government censorship, which obviously includes Haiwai Huaren - and justly so. Overall, it is not as broadly phrased as some would make it out to be - including yourself - as it is one of three criteria and the outcome of this discussion would only restrict the use of primary sources to refute and delete claims found in high-quality secondary sources. This has very little to do with COVID-19 origins as you said above, and I doubt any research from Chinese academics on that subject as the CCP would prefer for this ambiguity to remain. There is no ambiguity with the CCP's failure to contain the virus at its source and prevent it from becoming a pandemic. CutePeach (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not Wikipedia's role - The suggestion goes beyond normal source evaluation expectations. WP already avoids obviously unreliable sources and retracted articles and it is careful with the use of primary sources. It also cares about higher quality sources where relevant like WP:MEDRS. Not about the origin of the participants in normally high quality sources, on the assumption of a conspiracy. The current Indian government is known to promote AYUSH but that's not a valid reason to reject reliable sources with Indian participants. The US government also filters academic publishing to some point for national security concerns. —PaleoNeonate – 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, at least for any publications related to politics, history and COVID-19. Speaking about publications in natural sciences though, this is not so simple. For example, First Departments in the former USSR did not allow certain works to be published, but they did not modify any content of specific scientific publications, simply because KGB censors did not understand any science, unlike politics, history and fiction. So, whatever passed through their filter and was published in natural sciences was generally an independent publication. But the censorship in China with regard to COVID-19 was too serious to ignore [46]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Especially after this whole Covid episode it would be unwise to say otherwise. NavjotSR (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Far too broad "Chinese academic publications" is so open to interpretation as to render any close to this RfC worthless. Recommend speedy close and specification of question per above. BSMRD (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Running tally/summary: As of right now, we have 12 "no" and ~16 "too broad/speedy close" comments. This thread, like many in the lab leak/COVID-19 FRINGE space, has become bloated with multiple concurrent running threads and discussions which become small battle-grounds for various disagreements. The more this happens, the less and less likely a succinct/effective closure becomes. I would suggest to everyone that they take this thread as a lesson in how not to write an RfC that you actually want closed. Narrow questions get narrow responses get effective closures. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Thucydides411:, you haven't shown how these sources are contradicted by scientific sources, and I haven't seen where it was asked that they be used in place​​ of scientific sources, so that appears to be mistruth. In the case of the story about the urns, it is in at least four high quality sources [47] [48] [49] [50], and it is well known that China covered up the early outbreak of the virus, a fact which is not contradicted by any scientific sources. If you have any sources contradicting these sources, please provide them here, so we can see what they say and if they are WP:INDEPENDENT. CutePeach (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Instead of explaining​​ things in your own words, pelase provide the sources​​ and text you say refute these RS so that we can discuss them here. The original Caixin article, including the original in Chinese, [51], gives figures cited by Bloomberg, SCMP and Time in their reports about those questioning the accuracy of the Chinese government's figures. For the benefit of the closer, please keep your response short and to the point. CutePeach (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• Comment do any of the editors saying this RFC is too broad have any suggestions about narrowing it down? The AP reported that the Chinese government ordered CDC staff not to share any data, specimens or other information related to the coronavirus with outside institutions or individuals [52]. How exactly do you want to narrow down "Chinese academic publications" when the Chinese government censorship on publishing COVID data is this expansive? LondonIP (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• "Subjects censored by the Chinese government" is way too broad to be useful. That could stretch from almost anything (Great Firewall) to much less depending on one's interpretation. I do not share the concerns of other editors about clarity in terms of nationality; as I see it, any academic publication published in China would be covered, and any academic publication not published in China, even by Chinese authors, would not be (though the very fact there is debate on this means it can't really be considered clear). That being said, such a blanket ban is just wrong, even ignoring the absence of clarity. The Chinese government is not omnipotent, and editors are responsible enough to evaluate the extent to which a source is influenced by the Chinese government. The vast majority of sources may in fact be influenced by the Chinese government in a way that compromises their reliability, but a blanket ban across a country of 1.4 billion people is just too draconian. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, but we're going to need a much better standard for determining what constitutes a Chinese publication than just: "do these names look Chinese?" Probably going to need a separate RfC to tackle that issue given how heated this one has become. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Bad question — Here's a specific example of why this RfC in its current wording would harm otherwise useful editing, from someone who frequently uses Chinese research in articles. In my current overhaul of the Taiwanese Mandarin article, I make use of plenty of mainland Chinese sources that discuss the differences between that dialect and standard mainland Chinese, (Putonghua). These sources invariably toe the party line on Taiwan, calling it 台湾地区 'the Taiwan area/region'; none ever say that it is, for example, the "national language" of Taiwan, even though it is, because that would imply Taiwan is independent. Saying so would absolutely get them in trouble and would never make it into publication. So there's an example of a specific form of censorship with a pervasive impact in mainland scholarship that should unquestionably not be excluded from articles but very well could be under the wording of this RfC. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• No — Chinese academic sources can be very reliable but they are never independent from the Chinese government censorship. It is a feature of the Chinese publication systems that "All the examinations and approvals from the different administrative levels ensure that journals comply with the national ideology."[53]. China was known to even pressure foreign journals to censor articles. [54] Sgnpkd (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• No — per Sgnpkd's sources, and:

1. ""China denounced over 'grave threat to academic freedom'"", The Times, 29 March 2021
2. ""They Don't Understand the Fear We Have"", Human Rights Watch, 6 June 2021
3. ""How Academic Freedom Ends"", The Atlantic, 6 June 2021
4. ""Chinese Censors Shut Down Popular Science Social Media Accounts"", Radio Free Asia, 16 July 2021
5. ""Chinese Universities Are Enshrining Communist Party Control In Their Charters"", NPR, 20 January 2021
6. ""Hong Kong's Contested Academic Freedom"", The Diplomat, 27 January 2022

Pious Brother (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment:since it was asked by an editor in the ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion [55], I would like to clarify that "Chinese academic publications" does not include off the record statements made by confidential sources who we would have no reason to suspect of tugging the government line. There is a big difference between government officials talking in confidence to journalists about COVID-19 and Chinese academics who are subject to censorship on COVID-19. CutePeach (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem runs deep. Here is an example where we got pretty much everything wrong, not by relying on sources that are under Xi's control, but by using sources that used sources that are under Xi's control. It is a paragraph from the article that eventually became COVID-19 pandemic, from a version[56] dated January 8, 2019: As of 5 January 2020, 59 cases have occurred with seven in a critical condition, 163 contacts commenced monitoring and there were no reported cases of human-to-human transmission or presentations in healthcare workers.[6][8] Affected people have presented with fever and sometimes difficulty breathing, common to several respiratory illnesses at this time of year. X-rays of the chest have revealed signs in both lungs.[6][7] The cause of the pneumonia is currently unknown; however, viruses like seasonal flu, SARS, MERS and bird flu had been ruled out.[8][7][9] No new cases have been reported since 5 January 2020.[10] The outbreak has not shown signs of escalation.[6][7].

Let us count the ways in which this was wrong:

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

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

1) Please provide an RS demonstrating those case counts are suspect, from that time. We cannot judge what they knew then with what we know now. Because much of what we know now, the Chinese govt also would not have known then.
2) I'm not sure any sources anywhere exist to demonstrate this point as true. AFAIK, Liang Wudong was the first HCWer to die of COVID, period And he died on Jan 29. Li Wenliang may have been one of the first HCWers to get infected, and he got infected on Jan 8th. Where do we have sources showing there were already sick HCWers at that time? And do you have any proof the Chinese govt was actively censoring that fact?
3) We had sources showing this from Chinese nationals by then, they just weren't used [57] [58] (and various WeChat posts which would not qualify as RSes). And much of this delay is due to the fact that we didn't have a MEDRS showing this, we didn't have any "true" RSes showing this, which makes sense because it takes time to show the modified Rivers' criteria for a novel virus [59]. It took time for SARS too [60]. I'm not sure I want to be using lower quality faster sourcing for something like that.
4) It's RNA, and the sequence was only verified by Jan 10th [61]. They were still vetting its accuracy with independent samples, a common practice. We actually know there were errors in that original sequence because they rushed it a little too much. [62] (there's actually been 3 revisions)

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

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

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

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

Sounds like you all want a focus on academic sources. Fine. Behold "The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science". The title doesn't say "China", but the content is about Chinese academic fraud mills. And this is before the additional layer of lying imposed by Government authorities. [63] But Nature has tallied 370 articles retracted since January 2020, all from authors at Chinese hospitals, that either publishers or independent sleuths have alleged to come from paper mills (see ‘Fraud allegations’). Most were published in the past three years (see ‘Chinese hospital papers on the rise’). Publishers have added expressions of concern to another 45 such articles. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@AlexEng: it is very hard to WP:AGF with some of the editors questioning the definition of "Chinese academic publications", when they use the same tactics to argue that the Uyghur genocide can’t be defined as a genocide. The Chinese government has complete control over all publishing, so it would not be hard for them to control academic publishing, and they can now even censor Western academic journals publishing in China [64]. This RFC affects only a handful of papers that were debated in the WP:RFCBEFORE] discussions, which I mentioned in my answer to Nableezy below. This is a very unique case, because few countries invest as much as China does in censorship, and according to this report [65], they invest anywhere between $6.6B and $13B in internet censorship alone. We cannot ignore the effects of this censorship on the coverage of censored topics here on Wikipedia. CutePeach (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Chinese Wikipedia community has been informed of this RfC. Milky·Defer >Please use ping 15:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Bakkster Man: you say this source can be refuted/challenged by other sources but do you think it can be used to refute/challenge secondary sources and even omit them? I'm not sure if you read the discussion in the China COVID-19 pandemic page, but that is what this dispute is about. Here are the omissions from Mx. Granger [66] and Thucydides411 [67] and restoration by Encyclopedia Lu [68]. Do you agree with these omissions and use of primary sources, or would you like to change your mind - and your !vote? CutePeach (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No its not, the Chinese CDC is restricted from publishing any COVID data or research without approval from the Chinese State Council and CCP propaganda office [69]. LondonIP (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  China CDC is a reliable source for medical statistics in China, and the study we're discussing was published in The BMJ, which is a highly reputable medical journal. If you have concerns about the data being fake, then I suggest you take that up with the editors at The BMJ. They take allegations of data faking very seriously, and they will certainly issue a correction or retraction should there turn out to be problems with the data. Until that happens, however, this is an analysis by a highly competent medical authority, published in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, after peer-review by five experts in the field and with oversight by scientific editors at the journal. Your vague claims that the data is questionable are irrelevant - go to The BMJ with your concerns. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Alexbrn @VQuakr Here is where the paper is currently used, if you want to give your opinion: [70] [71]. Jumpytoo Talk 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No Not reliable due to pro-fringe background. NavjotSR (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If this WP:PRIMARY source was being cited for ordinary non contentious claims, then perhaps YES​​. However, since it is being used to refute/challenge claims from high quality WP:SECONDARY sources like the Financial Times and the Economist [72], it's a NO. The applicable policy here is WP:BALANCE, which requires secondary or tertiary sources to describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. CutePeach (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  @CutePeach, ProcrastinatingReader, and Shibbolethink: CutePeach, you keep claiming the Foreign Policy article supports the contention that China deliberately under-counted cases and deaths. It doesn't. In fact, the article begins by acknowledging that China's numbers may be accurate. I've responded to you at another location where you made this same argument, so see this diff for a fuller explanation. In any case, we're talking about epidemiology here, and speculation in popular media is not reliable when it comes to questions like: how many people in China have been infected or died of COVID-19? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Thucydides411: you keep giving us your opinion instead of reliable sources, or showing us where your reliable sources contradict what Foreign Policy, Financial Times, the Economist, and others say. Please don't single out the Foreign Policy, as that is just one aspect of the story, and please don't WP:CHERRYPICK one sentence from the article, as the sentence you are referring to is immediately followed by another saying But it’s also possible that the numbers presented to the rest of the world are vastly understated compared to Beijing’s private figures. CutePeach (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  You keep claiming that the Foreign Policy article supports your claim that China undercounted deaths and cases. It doesn't. I quoted the first sentence because it makes clear that Foreign Policy is not making the claim that you're attributing to it. In fact, the Foreign Policy article does not make any firm claims about China's figures. It simply says that there is a new database that could shed light on the issue. There has been no follow-up from Foreign Policy, which strongly implies that this database did not actually contradict China's official numbers - if it did, FP would have written an article on it at some point in the last 20 months.

  On the other hand, there are actual scientific studies of mortality and seroprevalence in Wuhan and China, which have been raised may times in this discussion. For example, this study in The BMJ finds that there were approximately 4,600 excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan, and net zero outside of Hubei province (there were small numbers of COVID-19 deaths, but there was a reduction in flu deaths that balanced them out). This is consistent with the official death toll. There are also numerous seroprevalence studies (just a few: [73] [74]), all of which find similar rates of infection (a few percent in Wuhan, virtually zero outside of Hubei province), which are consistent with the official death toll. These are actual reliable sources for epidemiological claims. Popular media, such as Foreign Policy, are not reliable sources for this sort of information.

  Honestly, claims that China had far more deaths than reported are in fringe conspiracy-theory territory. The death toll and level of infection in China are fairly well understood, and have been for a long time now. Adding erroneous speculation from two-year-old popular media articles adds nothing of value to this subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Claims that China had far more deaths than reported, which is just what they are - claims - have been made by multiple RS, and not just the Foreign Policy, which focuses on a leaked Chinese database. The studies that you have been raised "many times" in the discussion cannot be used to refute these claims, for multiple reasons explained to you here. Between the three discussions on the topic of RS questioning the accuracy of China's statistics, there is no consensus that your primary sources trump these secondary RS, so neither you or FormalDude should be deleting the POV tag. CutePeach (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Um no, CP didn't claim that China undercounted deaths and cases. It is the sources that claim it, as a probability, because it is censored. There is consensus here your primary sources don't refute these claims. Francesco espo (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @ProcrastinatingReader: you said The requirement is that editors don't analyse or interpret the results/contents of the primary source but that is exactly what editors are doing [75] [76] [77]. CutePeach (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

In the three diffs links above, you and two other editors removed content sourced to RS [78], due to this BMJ article supposedly refuting claims of China underreporting the extent of infections and deaths. Do you understand the problem with your edit and why we are here on RSN discussing this BMJ article and other sources brought to refute widely reported claims? CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

@Shibbolethink: this discussion is about a BMJ paper which supposedly refutes the claims of RS which you say aren't reliable [79]. Its really not clear from your answer here why you think these RS aren't reliable if the BMJ isn't a secondary academic journal article. WP:BALANCE requires that sources be relatively equal in prominence, and a primary source is never going to be as prominent as a secondary one. Please can you clarify for the benefit of the closer? CutePeach (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are several secondary academic sources which support the conclusions drawn from the original paper in this discussion: [80] [81] [82] [83] That is also a misreading of BALANCE, which actually requires us to write our articles based on the proportion of those views in our WP:BESTSOURCES. The sources you provide do not trump scholarly work, which is what sets the tone here on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Those sources, secondary as they are, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. They may perhaps support the conclusion of this BMJ paper - whatever it is - but they absolutely do not refute or challenge the claims found in over 20 RS about China allegedly underreporting the extent of COVID-19 infections and deaths. Looking at the dataset leaked to the Foreign Policy [84], I do not see where your secondary sources refute this report. There are hundreds of reports in RS that China underreported cases from the very start. It is a fact we can put in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nableezy: actually, the case here is that this source was used to refute claims in secondary sources in a way that is WP:OR [85] [86] [87], and similar content was removed from two other pages for the same reason. Overall, there are three issues here:

1. Does this primary source even refute the claims in the secondary sources provided. Perhaps this should be posted WP:OR/N, but the other two issues belong here.
2. Can Chinese academic publications be considered independent on subjects censored by the Chinese government? Note the three criteria in this question, and that it pertains to WP:INDEPENDENT, an explanatory supplement to the multiple policies and guidelines, including WP:RS.
3. Should sourcing on epidemiology and public health topics be governed by WP:MEDRS. In the WP:BMI RFC last year, I put it that epidemiology does not draw only from biological sciences, citing a policy paper from Harvey V. Fineberg in AJPM [88]. This is a question of science policy, health policy, and more specifically, ​​International Health Regulations - which require WHO member states to report cases in a timely and accurate manner. Therefore, I think epidemiology and public health topics should not always be governed by WP:MEDRS, and I didn't cite it in my No !vote. If these disputes keep on erupting, we may need to create WP:PHRS to cover public health.

That there is B in BMJ is really not relevant as the Chinese government gag order affects Chinese academic publications, and not the publishers which are obviously not under their jurisdiction. This was explained by Silver seren and Jehochman in the RFC above, and there are plenty of examples of Chinese Ministry of Public Security involuntarily repatriating citizens for thinking and saying the wrong thing [89] [90] [91]. CutePeach (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes but not usable. It is published in a reliable source but as a primary research paper, it cannot be used where there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS. WP:SCHOLARSHIP prefers secondary sources and advises extreme caution with primary sources. Pious Brother (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Use with qualification. While MEDRS, it's primary. While mostly based from China, there's one author based in the UK. Publisher is also outside China. Xi's coordination of publications warrants caution, but it's premature to equate it with unreliability of papers, especially by WP editors without evidence. CurryCity (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Are these sources usable for balancing these allegations?

What do we think about these sources added by Karl Krafft [92] to WP:BALANCE the well-founded allegations that the Chinese government deliberately under-reported the extent of infections and deaths in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China?

1. Koch, Christoffer; Okamura, Ken (2020-11-01). "Benford's Law and COVID-19 reporting". Economics Letters. 196: 1. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109573. ISSN 0165-1765. We find no evidence of manipulation of Chinese COVID-19 data using Benford's Law. [...] Media and politicians have cast doubt on Chinese reported data on COVID-19 cases. We find Chinese confirmed infections match the distribution expected in Benford's Law and are similar to that seen in the U.S. and Italy. [...] Contrary to popular speculation, we find no evidence that the Chinese massaged their COVID-19 statistics.
2. Isea, Raul (May 2020). "How Valid are the Reported Cases of People Infected with Covid-19 in the World?". International Journal of Coronaviruses. 1: 53–56. doi:10.14302/issn.2692-1537.ijcv-20-3376. The results obtained from the analysis based on Benford's Law of infected cases with Covid-19 obtained that China, Germany, Brazil, Venezuela, Norway, South Africa, Singapore, Ecuador, Egypt, Ireland, France, Australia, Colombia, India, Russia, Croatia don't manipulate the information register in the John Hopkins dataset.
3. Zhang, Junyi (2020-02-13). "Testing Case Number of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China with Newcomb-Benford Law". arXiv. In this article, we propose a test of the reported case number of coronavirus disease 2019 in China with Newcomb-Benford law. We find a p-value of 92.8% in favour that the cumulative case numbers abide by the Newcomb-Benford law. Even though the reported case number can be lower than the real number of affected people due to various reasons, this test does not seem to indicate the detection of frauds.
4. Kolias, Pavlos (1 January 2022). "Applying Benford's law to COVID-19 data: The case of the European Union". MedRxiv: 2. doi:10.1101/2021.12.24.21268373v4.full. Previous studies, in different fields, have applied Benford's distribution (or law) analysis to detect fraudulent and manipulated data. Specifically, for COVID-19, it was found that deaths were underreported in the USA (Campolieti, 2021), while in China no manipulation was found (Koch & Okamura, 2020).
5. Idrovo, Alvaro Javier; Manrique-Hernández, Edgar Fabián (May 2020). "Data Quality of Chinese Surveillance of COVID-19: Objective Analysis Based on WHO's Situation Reports". Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 32 (4): 165–167. doi:10.1177/1010539520927265. ISSN 1010-5395. PMC 7231903. PMID 32408808. Was there quality in the Chinese epidemiological surveillance system during the COVID-19 pandemic? Using data of World World Health Organization's situation reports (until situation report 55), an objective analysis was realized to answer this important question. Fulfillment of Benford's law (first digit law) is a rapid tool to suggest good data quality. Results suggest that China had an acceptable quality in its epidemiological surveillance system. Furthermore, more detailed and complete analyses could complement the evaluation of the Chinese surveillance system.

ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Are studies from 2020 even relevant to the discussion going on? Since we're discussing concerns of data manipulation in the past 6 months or so specifically? Silverseren^C 22:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Silver seren: most sources questioning the accuracy of China's statistics focus on the initial outbreak, and the Dec 2020 Associated Press investigation cited by The Times doesn't give dates. I would suggest to replace these sources with this source, but it doesn't counter all the allegations so it shouldn't be given too much weight. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any objections about the sources in particular? Sources 3 and 4 are pre-prints, but the other 3 look fine to me. Jumpytoo Talk 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

My objection about these sources is that they are primary and cannot be used to balance claims made in secondary sources and that they may not be independent due to the Chinese government COVID-19 gag order. The NYTimes opinion piece is a secondary source and more usable. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not usable - WP:BALANCE says when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. I don't consider a WP:PRIMARY sources like these to be equal in prominence relative to the secondary sources alleging deliberate under-reporting of infections and deaths. There is also an WP:OR concern here, as the studies don't contradict the claims as they are made, and the NYTIMES article is an WP:RSOPINION - so also not of equal prominence. CutePeach (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Sometimes Maybe not in intro. Qualified use in body. Although these sources are primary, there are quite a number of them and appear MEDRS. On the other side, sources in intro that speculate government undercounting in one sense or another, while all secondary, are not MEDRS. CurryCity (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Behind the Voice Actors

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

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

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

• I have No opinion on the reliability of the source… but 4 discussions over nine years is hardly perennial. Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• While it’s not as bad as IMDb, I’ve still seen the site be unreliable on a few different occasions, so I personally wouldn’t think it would be a great idea when using it as a reference or a source to back up anything because it isn’t always reputable. Unfortunately because of this, I would have to go with Option 3. SlySabre (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 I scrolled down and read "This is an unofficial site", which is somehow weird. Also too many advertisements and banners and there are no authors, we do not know who says what. I 'd suggest it 's better to avoid. Cinadon36 08:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• I reject such over generalizations. (invited by the bot) But on average, weaker than a typical RS. So e.g. generally strong enough to retain an uncontested contested fact, not strong enough to retain a contested one. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3: Immediately visible is a paragraph describing itself as a "community database", which means it likely is not as reliable as a page with a stated author(s) and preferably some kind of editorial team. Also as per Cinadon36, the bottom states that it is an "unofficial website" which is concerning and raises questions over its reliability. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC) At second glance, it appears my brief, superficial scan of the general website was not accurate. The thorough points specified by Compassionate727 seem to address the points made by Cinadon36 which I originally supported. After doing a little more digging, I'm inclined to lean towards Option 1, but I'm overall still undecided as I don't believe the reliability could span the entire website. I'll replace my past opinion with Option 2. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 12:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 they claim to fact check and there are no examples specified of errors so it could be used for uncontroversial information in my virw, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• Option 1. As already noted, the website describes itself as "unofficial" in the footer alongside a note about copyrights and trademarks, which I interpret to be their attempt to make some kind of fair use claim. The home page describes it as a "community database"; I believe this means community-maintained, because when I navigate to the content guidelines, there is a note that: The BTVA site is run by a handful of volunteers who contribute content in their spare time as a hobby; the FAQ notes that: all the site staff either have jobs or are still in school. It is clear that not everyone can be a volunteer, because site visitors are instructed to request additions or changes to content via forum post, unless they are a voice actor making requests concerning their own content, in which case they are instructed to contact the site admin directly. There is a note in the FAQ that: If you prove yourself a reliable and trustworthy contributor who works well with others, then you may be invited to become a team member. Currently there are only 13 such individuals.[93]

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

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

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

• Option 1 per Compassionate727's detailed review. I may change my mind if SlySabre gives the examples of unreliable occasions. Pious Brother (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 (Summoned by bot) very good report by Compassionate727. IAmChaos 23:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Background. It has been claimed none of the below sources are reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by any of the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier". Further, it has been claimed that citing them is WP:OR, [94][95][96][97]. Discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and WP:FRINGEN#Staffordshire Bull Terrier have failed to reach a consensus.

Sources that directly support the former names

Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. ... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ... Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”. Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811. This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” These sources are further corroborated by almost all kennel clubs that provide an historical summary of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The American Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. "Extended breed standard of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" (PDF). The Australian National Kennel Council. 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier". "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The Canadian Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier... "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Does not really address the issue but the below brochure does. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and its ancestors (PDF) (Exhibition brochure). The Kennel Club Art Gallery. 2014. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier.

The below sources and specific quotes have been claimed to refute the sources above.

Sources claimed to refute the above

Parker, Heidi G.; Dreger, Dayna L.; Rimbault, Maud; Davis, Brian W.; Mullen, Alexandra B.; Carpintero-Ramirez, Gretchen; Ostrander, Elaine A. (2017). "Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development". Cell Reports. 19 (4): 697–708. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.079. PMC 5492993. PMID 28445722. ... when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. Flaim, Denise (8 October 2020). "Bull Terrier History: Behind the Breed". The American Kennel Club. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.” Some ambiguous language used by the United Kennel Club, an explanation is provided here. "Bull Terrier". The United Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England. "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The United Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's.

Question. Are the sources detailed in the top box considered reliable and specifically are they reliable to cite the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes all of the sources are reliable and yes they are reliable for citing the claim the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by all of the various names listed above. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hasn't this question already been asked at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How is this not forum shopping? Damn, I was about to note that Talk:Bull and terrier had not been edited since 2019 and suggest that these discussions continue there, when you started this!! wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, there has been no determination on the reliability of the sources. This is just to seek a determination about whether the the community considers these sources reliable, I believe the discussions have broken down because of a refusal to accept their reliability (or potential lack of). Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Wow - a malformed RfC improperly worded to get the answer you want? The fact that you already failed to gain consensus at 2 other venues over this same issue needs an admin's attention. If this isn't forum-shopping with a splash of TE, then I don't know what is. I've seen editors get t-banned for far less than what you've been doing for over a week now. Atsme 💬 📧 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the sources in the first box are WP:TERTIARY (Atlas, Dictionary, Encyclopedia). These are down-scale quality. Some are also quite old. It may be there are two perspectives: traditional cultural understanding, and scientific/DNA analysis. Thus it is possible both are right, depending on context. Stuff like this is best handled with careful prose. Report what we know including contradictions. -- GreenC 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment(invited by the bot) You basically have wp:RS's saying somewhat conflicting things. IMO your solution isn't going to come from deciding on inclusion or exclusion of sources based on policy. I certainly would not knock out either claim or source based on that. Most likely you'll need to say both with attribution. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that the sources are reliable for saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly called the sundry names given above. This has been hashed out a few times now, and I'm familiar with the arguments out forth. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Trout and close. Why is this RfC even here? It's as if this page didn't have instructions at the top about what it's for` and how to post. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, these appear in reliable secondary sources. There are a few sources that disagree, so they should be referenced as well with their point of view.--Seggallion (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• More or less. Quite a few of these are clearly tertiary sources, including Coile, Jones (both books), Morris, and Wilcox. Beaufoy is probably a primary source. That said, all of them except maybe Beaufoy (depending on whether he has a reputation as an expert) are probably reliable enough for the facts at issue. I agree with complainants here, however, that these facts should not be at issue on this page, after just being discussed on another noticeboard and being subject to an ongoing thread at Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. Cf. WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If the question here is to evaluate the sources, I would say that the first group of sources appears to include more in the way of books about the subject, which is a point in its favor, but the sources on both sides of the disagreement are largely reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, albeit with the caveats about tertiary sources noted above. This is not a decision between reliable sources and junk/deprecated sources. Since the underlying question goes beyond source reliability, to which POV should be reflected by the page content, I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a waste of time. Why can't Cavalryman and Atsme work out a compromise wording that explains both sides of the dispute? Why do Cavalryman and Atsme feel the need to start these noticeboard discussions? The sources are disputing the facts. As others have said, say both with attribution. This is an AN/I thread in the making because neither one of you feels the need to compromise and you are both adamant on your correctness. How hard is it to just write the article acknowledging that there's a dispute in reliable sources? For what it's worth, the dog breed doesn't have to be proven to exist as a separate dog breed to have its own article. Look at the Khorasan group. This group may or may not exist as a separate cell of Al-Qaeda, although many reliable sources have said that it does exist many have said it doesn't. It gets a separate article because many reliable sources have covered it as a separate entity, and then in the article itself we go into detail on the dispute over its existence. Dog breeds should be less controversial than international terrorism but for whatever reason it was a whole lot easier to adopt a compromise wording in that article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Is the Greater Khorasan the parent breed of the Afghan Hound? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, it is certainly not my intention here to recontest the close of the merge proposal, there is a pretty clear process for how to do so and it does not involve this noticeboard. My intention here was simply to gauge the community's views on the sources listed because their reliability has been continuously denied throughout the two other discussions, this noticeboard is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. That being said, if general feeling is this is a waste of time I have no objections to it being closed. Cavalryman (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - in summary, the sources have been assessed as being reliable by the vast majority of editors here. That established, it is now time to close this thread. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International

There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:

2019 - Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?

2021 - Amnesty

• Option 1: Generally reliable for facts
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for facts
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Amnesty International)

• Comment I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the Israel article, it has twice been referred to as questionable. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --Jayron32 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a fact, furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  see here. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I refer you to my reply below.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, with an asterisk. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover should be understood to may reflect a left-wing bias; in particular, they should be considered partisan in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 with an asterisk. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. Pious Brother (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm not sure if the use of AI has been credibly challenged; but they have a long history as a highly respected human rights organization. Yes, they're an advocacy organization, meaning their opinions should be attributed, but factual information does not need to be, and I see no evidence that they're in any way unreliable for factual information. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree with Vanamonde, the very definition of a respected, widely cited, and professional organization. When they make an accusation of such and such being a human right violation it should of course be attributed, and since their views are routinely cited in reliable sources it should not be difficult for a secondary source for their views. But when they report facts, like in the last 20 years there have been X refugees fleeing Y country, an absolutely solid source. "According to Amnesty International" can be found 600+ time on nytimes.com, 469 times on BBC, 352 times on The Guardian, some 5000 results on google scholar, nearly 700 times on JSTOR. A solid source on all counts. nableezy - 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not for nothing, but According to Xinhua appears "according+to+xinhua"+site%3A"nytimes.com over 700 times on the NYT, around 275 times on the BBC, about 280 times in The Guardian, about 580 times by WSJ and over 2000 times in the South China Morning Post. Amnesty International certainly has more integrity than Xinhua, but it's important to note that the way in which RS use Amnesty international matters more than merely the times that somebody says something according to them. Are these uses mostly uses as a source for facts, or because the NGO carries weight even if it is seen to fudge numbers at times? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course and that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. nableezy - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact and there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see scholarly sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label, they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the Pegasus Project (investigation), it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's Citizen Lab [98], which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Pilaz (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribution required for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the bias is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see Amnesty_International#Country_focus). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. - Who said that? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No one. It's a rhetorical question which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. Alaexis_¿question? 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:GREL and WP:BIASED, so attribute the source. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or that Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define WP:RS for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Wikipedia's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to WP:NPOV. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy through its own particular lens. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the legalization of prostitution, opposition to capital punishment, and resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, WP:BIASED keenly notes that sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for certain sorts of information and that 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. WP:BIASED also indicates that a strong bias on a topic may make in-text attribution appropriate. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be WP:GREL where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its detailed reports exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are stating their stances on issues, such as Is abortion a violation of the right to life? No. This sort of stuff is key to WP:NPOV—just as attribution to the ADL that Amnesty’s report on Israel creates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what WP:NPOV calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,' The Forward 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 and dubious discussion start. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of Israel where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted Gunnar Myrdal’s groundbreaking American Dilemma (1944) when its detailed analyses, anti litteram of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation? Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully UNDUE . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Wikipedia, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Wikipedia policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.Tritomex (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As an example, take Forward's coverage where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 Can be used with attribution. As an advocacy organisation, it tends to be less nuanced and more forceful in its descriptions than standard RSs such as when it equated Guantanamo Bay with a Soviet gulag. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Wikipedia article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. Tritomex (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel

14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report

I have sources to support my view, do you? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts Deborah Lipstadt call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. [99]We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism [100]--Shrike (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [101] Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The crime of apartheid was criminalized by the Rome Statute, and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg here) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? nableezy - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the prisoner of conscience title. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Stellar source. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. OtterAM (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What relevance do political declarations by countries have in assessing a scholarly report concerning another country? None.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

• Option 1, as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be attributed in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Of course, attribution for its interpretation of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the torture article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " (Conrad, Courtenay R.; Hill, Daniel W.; Moore, Will H. (2018). "Torture and the limits of democratic institutions". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0022343317711240.) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, et al. seems to be a good summary. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 -- reliable for facts, attribute for opinions; good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Assessments and opinions are best attributed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a WP:BIASED source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information?

In terms of the apartheid analogy, the crime of apartheid has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate, pure fantasy. AI is discussing the crime of apartheid and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is intended to incite or not technically accurate. nableezy - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. Alaexis_¿question? 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, Triangle and Negev regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS. nableezy - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Source saying it is false please.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. [102]. So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Wikipedia (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Spatial Segregation in Israel says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so-

called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021

Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Since all sources have a bias, what does an asterisk mean? If one wants to insist on attribution, one has merely to select Option 2 and say so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sceptre, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

previous close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's clear after just a week that there won't be a consensus to take Amnesty International, as a whole, below "generally reliable (with an asterisk)". However, several editors have noticed that because AI are necessarily partisan on certain issues, it's a good idea – but not necessarily mandatory – that anything cited to Amnesty should be attributed to them (i.e. "According to AI, country X executed N prisoners in 2021") just to cover our bases. If certain publications by AI are questionable (e.g. their Israel report), then those should form another part of the discussion, but GREL does allow for the quality for some of its work to be below the usual standards as long as it isn't habitual (at which point, of course, they'd be susceptible to being knocked down to MREL). Sceptre (talk)

• Seeing as the OP also wants it reopened, I've reopened it. FWIW, I was working on the assumption that AI already occupies GREL, and I don't think there's a likely prospect it'll go to MREL (like I said, the "asterisk" option is the absolute limit downwards in this discussion). I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. (Also, I make no opinion on the Israel report myself; I'm just saying that if it's questionable, then it can be discussed without affecting GREL). Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering the head of Amnesty has a problem with the report should tell you that at the very least we should not be using the report as a RS, but as an opinion. Amnesty’s Israel chief criticizes group’s report accusing Israel of apartheid Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  The head of Amnesty International Israel not the head of Amnesty. Same sort of situation as Amnesty in Germany.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. nableezy - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidu Tieba

We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed [103] to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.

My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Can_we_use_blogs_to_show_that_a_subject_is_discussed_in_cyberspace?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Baidu Tieba is an Internet forum with user-generated content, which is self-published. Tieba is one of the most widely used communication platforms in China. We don't usually blacklist or deprecate popular forums or social networks in their entirety because they are platforms instead of publishers, and because article subjects occasionally use these platforms to publish uncontroversial self-descriptions that can be cited in Wikipedia articles in limited cases. We do typically add these platforms to User:XLinkBot/RevertList, which instructs XLinkBot to automatically revert link additions from new users when the link is not in a citation; this is usually done to address problems with spam or promotion. Tieba is similar to Reddit (RSP entry), Facebook (RSP entry), and Twitter (RSP entry).
  https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7636663652 is not a reliable source for the Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) article, since it does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News

Failed attempt at turning this into an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk
contribs) 20:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Should Fox News' reliability level—for politics, specifically—be changed at WP:RSP? Generally reliable No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply Generally unreliable Deprecated Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC) This discussion has been active since soibangla's 18 February opener, just below. I am just adding an RfC tag and a neutral statement because (a) this discussion could use community-wide input and (b) there are good reasons to doubt that the RSP listing could be changed without an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC) inserting anchor link to original opener 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Because dozens of editors have already responded to the non-neutral statement I believe a new discussion should be opened, as adding a neutral statement now doesn't address that issue. BilledMammal (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I can't agree. Neutral statement's are not a requirement for regular noticeboard discussion, just RfCs. A brand new discussion would be excessive bureaucracy, involving us pinging all prior participants to re-comment, all of whom have seen the non-neutral statement anyway. I am certain that most won't change their minds, and if a few do, they're welcome to strike and re-!vote here anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I've removed the RfC tag. If we are going to do a RfC is should be done correctly and with a neutrally phrased question. It should not take this mess and try to turn it, retroactively, into a RfC. Springee (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I've re-added it. Messiness is a problem, but wasting the community's time on pointless bureaucracy is a bigger problem. RfCs can end in very specific ways, and removing someone else's rfc tag is not one of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I've removed it again. Please create a new, neutrally worded RfC. Springee (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC) soibangla restored the tag. I don't intent to add it again over these objections, but I maintain that re-running the discussion is a waste of community time. soibangla, if consensus develops that a new RfC is needed, I have a list of editors to ping ready to go, so they can (in all likelihood) copy and paste their comments into the new section. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I'm going to link a diff, so much shorter, way of the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I find myself agreeing with Springee here for the reasons they've given, despite disagreeing with them on the matter up for discussion. I will be objecting to any attempt to turn this discussion into an RfC, and I've said as much below; you clearly didn't have consensus for this change, Firefangledfeathers. Note that I would not object to starting a proper RfC later, however, I think it would be premature to start one while this discussion is still in progress. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC) We require neutral statements to avoid predisposing the reader towards a particular conclusion; if substantial discussion occurs while the statement is non-neutral, then this requirement has not been met and the normal consensus decision-making process has been compromised - ensuring that it is uncompromised is essential, not excessive bureaucracy. Further, whether !voting started while the discussion was a regular noticeboard discussion or an RFC is not relevant, as the impact on the process is the same. BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: We can't just slap an RfC tag on top of a discussion after multiple editors below objected to the noticeboard discussion not being an RfC and call it a day, particularly when the discussion is so far along. Both on ordinary talk pages and on RSN, typically an RfC gets its own brand new section (or subsection) so that the discussion that led to the RfC and the RfC itself can be identified separately. There's also at least one editor below who is arguing that Fox News is WP:GREL, so the options atop the RfC aren't entirely an accurate summary of the discussion below. I would kindly ask that you please remove the several days retroactively applied RfC tag from this discussion, since the insertion of the tag itself creates procedural issues. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Mhawk10, I disagree, but I won't stand in the way of removing the tag, as noted above. It's now not my tag to remove. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC) If the RFC tag is to remain - though my objections remain - then based on Mhawk10's comment I believe it needs to be switched to the standard format, both for clarity and to avoid predisposing the reader towards (or away from) a particular conclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Standard options instated. InedibleHulk, sorry I missed your option. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC) @BilledMammal: wouldn't that just result in all of the bolded "support" or "oppose" !votes being made a little less clear? People were responding in a support/oppose manner on whether or not to downgrade Fox News's political coverage from WP:MREL to WP:GUNREL. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I propose that Fox News be deprecated as an unreliable source for political topics on WP:RSP. I will present evidence here that "the news side" of Fox News fabricated a major outright lie, which continues to advance despite significant blowback from reliable sources, to create a false narrative of "Hillary Clinton spied on Trump" that has spread like wildfire as truth across right-wing media. This can get a bit complicated, so if anyone asks for a source to substantiate anything I say, I'm happy to provide it, though the wikilinked articles should be adequate.

Background: John Durham indicted former Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly lying to an FBI official by saying during a 2016 meeting between them that he was not representing a client for the purposes of their meeting. Durham alleges that Sussmann was actually representing the Clinton presidential campaign. Sussman, a cybersecurity law expert, represented the Democratic National Committee when they were hacked in 2016, and his former Perkins Coie colleague Marc Elias represented the Clinton campaign. Parenthetically, Elias almost single-handedly shut down Trump's 60+ legal attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, so it goes without saying some might be kinda upset with him, perhaps to the point of seeking payback.[104] But I digress...

Sussmann worked with internet analyst Rodney Joffe, who analyzed DNS traffic (not communications content) during 2015 and 2016, both at the White House and Trump properties, which his spokesman has said was based on concerns of Russian infiltration to disrupt the election (Russians hacked the Executive Office of the President in 2015 and the DNC in 2016). Joffe's company, Neustar, had a government contract for this work to identify security threats. In February 2017, Sussmann took to the CIA Joffe's findings that a Russian phone was querying the White House and Trump properties networks. Durham asserts Sussmann did this to gin-up intelligence community suspicions about Trump and Russia, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Sussmann denies this. Again, he went to the CIA after Trump was already president.

On February 11, Durham filed a court motion that included a description of Joffe's alleged activities. This is where Fox News comes in. The next day, the Fox News news side ran a story entitled:

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham[105]

and the lede continued...

Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House...

Here's the problem: Durham did not say the words "paid" or "infiltrate" in his motion.[106] Instead, Fox News reveals in the 21st paragraph of the story that those words actually came from former Devin Nunes and Trump employee Kash Patel, who is characterized as a Trump loyalist. But not surprisingly, and likely/certainly by design, the Fox News headline and lede were sufficient to detonate an explosion in conservative media: "Clinton spied on Trump! He was right all along!" It's no accident they used Patel's word "infiltrate," they know their audience will interpret that to mean "hacking." There is no evidence of hacking.

Durham's motion said none of these things:[107][108]

• Clinton campaign was involved
• Payments were made
• Joffe's alleged activity was unlawful
• "Infiltrate" or "paid"

Today, the same Fox News journalist ran:

Clinton campaign lawyer Sussmann files motion to dismiss Durham prosecution[109]

Again, Durham has alleged Sussmann was a Clinton campaign lawyer, which has not been established as fact, and which Sussmann has denied. The reason the "news side" of Fox News has done this is transparently obvious, to misleadingly connect dots to fabricate a false narrative:

"Joffe monitored Trump's internet traffic, Sussmann took that to the CIA, Sussmann worked for Clinton, therefore Hillary was the mastermind behind a scheme to spy on Trump."[110][111]

And of course, the primetime opinion side of Fox News amplifies and blasts that false narrative out to millions, who will accept it as proved because, you know...Durham said so. Except he didn't, not yet anyway. Since Fox News first published this false story days ago and it was ripped apart by reliable sources, they have made no effort to correct it, let alone retract it.[112]

This is egregiously unethical conduct. It clearly demonstrates that the opinion side of Fox News now fully controls the enterprise, and it should be deprecated as an unreliable source for politics. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's already considered unreliable for politics. This wouldn't change anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated". But WP:DEPREC says it requires an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News (politics and science) (RSP entry) has been designated as "no consensus" since the 2020 RfC. Only the talk shows (RSP entry) have been designated as "generally unreliable". The closure and subsequent indexing of that RfC were accurate reflections of community consensus at that time. I don't think a new RfC would be helpful right now, since political content on Fox News that is determined to be unreliable can still be excluded from Wikipedia articles on a case-by-case basis. — Newslinger talk 03:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, in this specific case, its clear that we can document how Fox is approaching the story from far more reliable sources to flag any attempt to use Fox as a "factual" source here as completely inappropriate. --Masem (t) 03:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But is Fox News reporting anything substantially different than the Wall Street Journal or NBC, on this story? It's reasonable to assume that investigative journalists are able to uncover facts that go beyond what a prosecutor is yet willing to divulge their strategy on. So the indictments shouldn't be held as a ground truth to which Fox News should be compared. I don't watch Fox News, and generally only hear bad things about Fox News, but it's not like there's some "fair and balanced" counternarrative among journaists, that paints Joffe as innocent. People who've actually looked into it seem to be reasonably in consensus:

• Tech exec used access to White House computers to look for dirt on Trump

• Who Are Those 'Techies' Who Spied on Trump?

• The Politics of Neustar

And, if you feel like going a little further in depth:

• The Checkered Past of the FBI Computer Contractor who Spied on Trump

So, sympathetic as I'd be with the notion of deprecating Fox News as a source, this seems a very weak basis on which to do so, since it would equally hold against NBC and the Wall Street Journal. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ articles are clearly marked as opinion pieces, and RealClearPolitics articles are usually op-eds, so those links don't have the same issue as there is with Fox News calling these stories "news." The NBC article might be in the "Hillary Clinton" category (I say "might be", because it just links back to the one article), but they're not running a sensationalist headline, and they bury any connection to Clinton deep in the article, where it's only present in quotes or carefully qualified as an unproven accusations. Even if the NBC article was essentially identical to what Fox is running (it's not), NBC still doesn't have Fox's long, sordid history with this sort of thing. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to be careful that the "anti-Fox" stories are talking about normal Fox News reports vs commentary from people like Tucker Carlson etc. The opinions/analysis expressed by the commentators are already marked as unreliable and are separate from the normal news reporting. Also, I think some of the "nothing to see here" sources are basically taking the limited claims of the Durham report and saying they don't prove larger claims. For instance, lets accept as true that a lawyer who does work for the Clinton campaign contacted Joffe to get meta data from Trump computers. That does not mean the lawyer did any of that at the request of the Clinton campaign nor that Clinton herself had any knowledge. This is a simple logical statement that association doesn't equal causation. If CNN runs a story saying as much and saying that this isn't proof even though a Fox commentator is saying as much, well that is correct. However, it doesn't mean a commentator is wrong to say, "this looks like" or "this may mean". This is also problematic because we had many sources who took evidence that was just as limited as this and used it to accuse Trump of Russian associations (a claim that hasn't been conclusively proven one way or the other). Now, let's assume that in a few months more conclusive evidence comes out and it turns out the Fox talking heads are right. Would we then say this is proof that the NYT etc should be considered questionable at least for political analysis? This is really a new source Rorschach Test. We have something that currently isn't conclusively anything. It could be A, it could be B or even something different than A or B. What we probably should report is what the sides claim. We shouldn't assume one side is right or wrong unless they make a claim that isn't supported by the very limited evidence to date. It may not be a bad idea to take a wait and see approach. Sadly it may be many years before the news sources on either side can give an impartial review of this huge mess. Springee (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Fox News article is presented by them as "normal Fox News reporting" and not "commentary", it's not categorized by them as an opinion piece, and the case being made here is that there is no longer any meaningful distinction between the two at Fox News. Also, in this case, your suggestion would almost certainly run afoul of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you would need to show which article they are they refer to. I know in a related discussion I followed a link and saw references to Fox commentators. We should be careful about what is actually claimed vs what other sources claim is claimed. Saying what various sources report is false balance if we have only a few sources on one side vs the other. However, we actually have quite a few sources that are saying things similar to Fox, that this does at least appear to support a claim that the Clinton campaign was attempting something. Yes, a number of those sources are no-consensus on political topics but when so many say the same thing (and The Hill and WSJ are green) we shouldn't just act like there is nothing to see here. Springee (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Wall Street Journal articles ([113], [114]) are clearly marked as opinion pieces, the Fox News article ([115]) is not. The rest of your comment is tangential. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the sum of all articles on the subject. Also, OpEd restrictions dictate how we should use these sources in articles. It doesn't mean we can't point at the arguments made in those sources to say they tend to counterbalance the analysis made by the NYT et al outside of their OpEd pages. Springee (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is Fox News, or more specifically, the article I linked that was also linked above. This is not a general discussion of the topic of that article, we are discussing the article itself. The WSJ articles were presented by BurritoTunnelMaintenance to show that other news outlets were publishing similar reports, but the difference is that the WSJ articles are presented by them as opinion pieces, while the Fox News article appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news reporting. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but if the justification for this subject is Fox News is making false claims based on the claims of a few other sources then we need to show that what Fox is claiming is outside of reasonable. So far you and Soibangla haven't met that standard. As for the OpEd "masquerading as news reporting" part, well that is a big problem with many sources. Many sources that claim to just be reporting include some level of analysis even in stories not marked as OpEds. However, if that is the issue we should zoom out and discuss this as a general topic, not something restricted to Fox News. Springee (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, will discuss Fox News in the Fox News section, and other topics in their own sections, because I view the alternative as being disruptive. I think Soibangla has done much more to support their opinion here than anyone else has, and they've provided enough verifiable evidence to convince me, but you're free to disagree. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing Durham from last night: "It's not my fault some are lying about what I said."

If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.:[116]

soibangla (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unnecessary - Fox is already listed as “generally unreliable” for political topics. That is enough. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

To be precise, it is listed as no consensus on the reliability. It isn't listed as unreliable. The commentary shows are listed as unreliable. Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation noting that even after setting the various problems with deprecation as a process aside, it is from a technical perspective not possible to enforce deprecation for a specific set of topics, as the edit filter cannot tell what the subject of an edit is. No opinion at this time on otherwise adjusting the reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support unreliability, oppose deprecation - I agree that Fox News is unreliable for political and science news, and RSP should be changed to clearly say that. But I don’t think it is practical to deprecate for just some topics. John M Baker (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, we can't deprecate a source for just some topics. That being said there is an extremely strong argument for deprecating Fox but that will have to be a holistic argument/discussion because we would be deprecating the whole enchilada not continuing the split opinion.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Update: now that its an RfC with a formal question I would support downgrading to generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" We should have a consensus that the "news" division of Fox News exists to prop up the U.S. Republican Party and related causes. They have been overhyping the Canadian trucker convoy.[117][118] Fox News isn't news, it's propaganda. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Neither of those sources criticize Fox’s news coverage for being factually wrong–they just don’t like that Fox is providing positive coverage regarding the protestor’s goals. But that is evidence that Fox News has a conservative (or I guess in a really narrow sense for those two articles a “pro-protester”) bias, not that it is unreliable. The Hannity and Tucker stuff is already considered GUNREL, since the talk shows are largely commentary, opinion, and entertainment. And Media Matters for America isn’t exactly a WP:GREL source either, per WP:RSP, so it really should not be the basis of downgrading Fox. Fox News, used in a manner that doesn’t put it in Wikivoice for exceptional claims, is generally fine and can provide useful information on politics-related topics when people keep in mind that additional considerations apply. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all just the tip of the misinformation iceberg. So many times Fox News pushes misinformation and disinformation. It's real bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In order, your sources are an WP:MREL source that is actually criticizing the fact-checking on Fox’s opinion-based talk shows or an article that Fox corrected (which is actually a sign of a good editorial practice), an opinion piece ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/ analysis pieces at WaPo are interpretive and for anticipating how events might unfold), a discussion of Fox News’s talk show hosts (who are WP:GUNREL), and excerpt from Brian Shelter’s book that basically criticizes Fox News for airing too many opinion-based talk shows and the effects that the opinion shows are having. I am not arguing that the network in its entirety is generally reliable in the field of politics—what I am arguing is that its straight news reporting is fine to use in the field of politics provided that it isn’t given undue weight or used alone to substantiate extraordinary claims. The name of Thomas Binger’s wife and the number of kids they have is something perfectly fine to cite Fox for, as are his previous roles and the fact that he ran a campaign for DA. To mark Fox News off as something less reliable than the blogs hosted on The Guardian for purposes of politics seems ill-advised. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Short of deprecation, at minimum the Fox News RSP entry should be amended to explicitly mandate that any Fox News reference in politics/science must be accompanied by at least one fully corroborating green source. soibangla (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We should change the results of a RfC that had over 100 participants and a panel closing because you don't like how they covered a recent story? OK. Springee (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no "results" in the last RfC, it was closed as "no consensus". And it was from July 2020, which was almost an entire pandemic ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, after over 100 editors weighed in there was no consensus. Where is the evidence that things have changed? Springee (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence they are referring to is currently being discussed here and now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though this argument is akin to Circular reasoning ie "How can there be a new consensus if there was no previous consensus, and if there was no previous consensus, how can there be a new/different consensus?" I'm not trying to straw man, just asking for clarification. DN (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox overhyping Canadian truck convoy is not a valid reason to downgrade them. Fox covering more about news that are more favorable to the conservatism or Republican Party is not also a cause for downgrading. SunDawntalk 04:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Leave as is: The evidence presented here is not sufficient to show Fox News should be downgraded. Yes, we should always be careful when commentary gets into factual reporting but this is hardly unique to Fox. Springee (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable", without prejudice towards deprecation (via RfC) should the trend continue. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" "generally unreliable for politics" per Soibangla's and Mysterious Whisper's arguments. DN (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to generally unreliable for politics, or full depreciation if a consensus exists for it, though not solely because of this one incident. High-quality sources bluntly describe Fox News as distributing misinformation. Sources specifically note that both the news and opinion portions of the network have worked to intentionally spread disinformation and that almost nothing that Fox News airs meets traditional journalistic standards. In the previous RFC some of its defenders speculated that while Fox's talk sections and opinion pieces are obviously unreliable, it could be possible that the other parts are reliable; however, no evidence has been presented that its news sections actually have a higher reputation or that the problem is confined to opinion, while there is plenty of evidence at this point unambiguously indicating that no such division exists. This is just the latest example; but sources are extremely clear that Fox's news section systematically and intentionally spreads misinformation when doing so serves the network's political processes. Obviously Fox is a WP:BIASED source when it comes to American politics and could never be cited without attribution anyway (many of the sources above use it as their specific example of "partisan media"; many others specifically note that it was created with the intent of being stridently partisan and to advance its owners' political agenda), but the key point is that this institutional bias has led to it introducing intentional misinformation into its news side. This certainly makes its political reporting unreliable, and truthfully it's sufficient to justify wholesale depreciation, especially given that the political divides it both created and exploits means that there will always be people who continue to try to use it as a source for topics directly or indirectly connected to American politics, despite its plain and well-documented unreliability. EDIT: Since people have asked what changed since the previous RFC, I'll point out that, in addition to the incident that prompted this, there is a lot more coverage of Fox's misinformation during COVID, as well as broader coverage sparked by it or reflecting it. Most of the sources I mentioned are from 2021 or later. In addition to directly providing an example of deliberate misinformation by their news section, the significant impact of COVID misinformation has prompted more coverage of ideologically-driven misinformation from partisan sources in general; many sources have used Fox as a prime example for this. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Aquillion, Political Communication in the Time of Coronavirus do not say anything like that on page 83. There is nothing there that can reasonably construed as "not[ing] that both the news and opinion portions of [Fox News] have worked to intentionally spread disinformation." Can you re-check your reference and provide the exact quote? Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It spills onto page 84 and 85 and isn't easily summarized into a single pull-quote. But the key points are The parade of pseudo experts appearing on right-wing news and interview programs helped spread and legitimize claims that Trump had been making since march that hydrochloroquine (hereafter HCQ) was a cure for COVID-19. This false narrative was widely repeated within the radical right media sphere, which we define as a media ecosystem in which a variety of outlets produce and spread a mixture of conventional and fake news, political propaganda, and public mobilization activities (Yang, 2020). A casual observer might conclude that outlets in this sphere, centered around Fox News... --Aquillion (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this isn't equivalent to intentionally spreading disinformation, which would require them knowing that they were spreading falsehoods. In the hindsight we know that, but you can't retroactively charge them with it. As you'll remember, there were experts who quite confidently said that masks were useless for laypeople, and this wasn't disinformation either. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you continue on to page 86, the piece describes Fox as "producing propaganda materials" and part of the "co-production of disinformation." I think it's fair to read intention in to those, at least so far as this article takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. The examples on that page appear are all about the opinion pieces ("falsehoods ... came from Fox personalities", "...Fox news host ... railed about economic shutdown") which we wouldn't use anyway. It looks like nitpicking but Aquillion's claim was that both news and opinion parts of Fox News intentionally spread disinformation and I still think it's not supported by this source. Alaexis_¿question? 06:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Croce & Piazza 2021 are more nuanced than you claim. The full quote is The first objection sheds light on the difficult problem for mainstream media of finding a balance between the duty to report what relevant public figures maintain – including cases in which what they assert is mostly fake news – and the duty to inform their audience, that is, to provide them with high-quality information. This problem becomes even bigger if media outlets themselves are involved in distributing misinformation. As anticipated, this typically happens with partisan media such as Breitbart and Fox News. So the claim here is that "partisan media such as Breitbart and Fox News are typically involved in distributing misinformation", which adds two (three?) qualifiers to your quote, and hence is not their blunt description. JBchrch talk 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

• Comment: If there are going to be !votes, then this should be an RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC is only necessary for a formal deprecation; other sources have been declared "generally unreliable" through informal discussions like this on this noticeboard. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  A RfC is required to change the outcome of such a well attended RfC even if the question isn't deprecation Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was no result at the last RfC, and I see that someone else has already explained that to you. Unlike that RfC, this discussion may yet yield an actionable consensus. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was a result, no-consensus. This discussion with editors who happen to have seen this discussion is not sufficient to overturn a no-consensus at a RfC that specifically asked this question and had over 100 editors !vote and a panel of closers. Springee (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  "No consensus" means no consensus, it's not an endorsement of the source, and it doesn't mean a consensus can't emerge later. Can you cite a policy that requires an RfC when previous RfCs failed to result in a consensus? So far, this discussion is going more smoothly than that RfC, and I think it's more likely to result in a consensus, while another RfC would probably go the same way as the last one. That might seem like a good thing, if you endorse the status quo (because "no consensus" defaults to the status quo, without explicitly endorsing it), but then it would also be a waste of everyone's time.
  Do note the rest of the closing remarks, about bludgeoning and avoiding "parallel discussions" during contentious debates about this topic. You participated in that RfC, so you should already have known better. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural close, per discussion above. When an RFC is opened, I would also suggest using the standard format, as it is not clear to readers what "keep as is" means. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to generally unreliable for politics, or full depreciation if a consensus exists for it as well. CaribDigita (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade per Aquillion above. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Agreed that the !voting, if it happens should surely become an RfC.

Regarding my !vote, neutral about downgrade for politics.

The review of the scientific literature is fairly clear: this paper argues, Fox News is a sui generis kind of journalism, but it doesn't seem very supportive of it; this one summarises an argument that Fox News mixes conservative viewpoints with tabloid journalism). This includes a chart in which a grading of fact-checkers is presented, and Fox News is about as good as the Daily Mail and the New York Post, which, well, aren't.

Looking at the stories they publish, this one reads fairly cringe, and we have the above almost obvious fabrication + we have beating the dead horse about the "lib'ral bias!!1" described on p. 122 of the book. This would make you think that I'd ask for a downgrade. I don't think this should be the case for national politics, though.

I know of pieces such as this, this and this (with input from AP). I'd cite this one too for the fact the lawsuit is out there, however. Looking here, I see that whatever is not labelled "Media Buzz" (opinion rants about lib'ral bias and about-faces of Democrats) and "Videos" seems to be reported either rather neutrally (such as here, this and here) or with some deliberate spin (such as this story - I see no apparent reason to raise fentanyl in this article other than to show disapproval of her policies), but I see in general no policy-based reason not to cite it for facts presented in the articles - the bias is rather obvious (sometimes in wording but mostly in what they select to cover), but there is a mixed bag of plain political reporting mixed with dubious pieces. This leaves me with a very hard choice, as Fox both seems to have some legitimate usage but at the same time is capable of doing "reporting" like this one. Leaving the current grading sends the wrong signal, while downgrading will omit a fair part of what seems to be otherwise fair reporting but with a strong slant, so I ultimately am undecided on that.

I remind everyone that pundits (Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham etc.) have all a dedicated rating (generally unreliable), and most scholarly works understandably, but unfortunately for us, concentrate on pundits, not the reliability of plain news reporting. With the nonsense that Tucker spews, I'd even deprecate it but I'm afraid we won't because there's no technical way of implementing it.

Downgrade for science topics. We should ideally restrict ourselves to scholarly/scientific sources when describing scientific topics per WP:SCIRS (not a guideline, sadly). Fox News is just too bad for lay summaries of scientific articles, and we shouldn't cite it for levels of consensus or non-ABOUTSELF scientists' viewpoints (and, unless we're speaking of Fauci-like jobs where such communication is critical, I hardly imagine any legitimate scientist making an interview for a Fox pundit). Many of the more mainstream outlets also often fail to produce good science journalism, but at least the latter seem to be trying harder. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, downgrading for science/medical topics is unnessesary, as WP:MEDRS already downgrades (all) news media as a source for such content. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The current listing says "Fox News (politics and science)" as a "no-consensus for reliability". This creates the misleading IMHO impression that we can't agree if Fox News is good enough to cover scientific topics, including in lay summaries of scientific articles (there are legitimate uses for NYT or The Atlantic for scientific topics). No, we need to change it explicitly. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is more to Wikipedia than can be found in the RSP list. There is an entire guideline (WP:MEDRS) that deals explicitly with which sources are acceptable for medical and med-science content… it already says that news media sources are “generally unreliable” (See WP:MEDPOP). This applies to Fox, and also to CNN, BBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Guardian… (etc). They are all deemed generally unreliable in this context. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, but MEDRS does not cover non-medical science and thats were Fox has been the most problematic, for example around climate change and pollution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And I specifically remember the Fox RFC talking this in the context of climate change coverage that Fox had. --Masem (t) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Are people proposing downgrading them for climate change/science coverage or for politics? While there is an overlap they are not the same thing so examples of issues in one area should not be used to justify a change in the other. Springee (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

More generally, wouldn't we just be better off using scientific studies for most things climate change? I'm confused as to why we'd use news organizations at all given the robust corpus of academic work on the topic. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to oppose reclassification. Practically speaking, we already treat Fox News as not-so-good for political topics under the current classification, and don't know how much would be achieved by formally downgrading it. The effect would, I think, be more about meta discussions about Wikipedia than any change in the way we source contentious political topics. At very minimum, in order for this thread to go anywhere, it would need (a) an RfC tag, (b) a concise summary of Fox News's coverage outside of the Durham affair (Aquillion gets this started above), and (c) importantly, evidence Fox is still being treated as reliable for political topics. Otherwise what's the point? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Any change we already downgraded FOX I don't see the evidence presented as pervasive to support any change Shrike (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I am curious if the current lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems, which "accuses Fox of trying to boost its TV ratings by falsely claiming the company rigged the presidential election against Republican Donald Trump" [119] should also be added to the pile, here? DN (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• While it's something we can certainly take into account, I don't think it should really have that much sway until final in some way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think not. The original complaint, as summarised by Delaware state judge in his granting the motion for trial of the defamation case, explicitly notes that: Dominion contends that: (i) Fox intentionally provided a platform for guests that Fox's hosts knew would make false and defamatory statements of fact on the air; (ii) Fox, through Fox's hosts, affirmed, endorsed, repeated, and agreed with those guests' statements; and (iii) Fox republished those defamatory and false statements of fact on the air, Fox's websites, Fox's social media accounts, and Fox's other digital platforms and subscription services. The judge later notes that the relevant non-parties in the case, working for Fox News, are: Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro - all pundits and none of them "plain" journalists in the way AP journalists normally are. In any case, the complaint does not refer to plain news coverage about current politics (unless by that we count quoting XYZ as saying "the election was stolen", but then again it's opinions, and WP:FRINGE ones. Unless the website or the prime time news asserted that as fact, but I've missed it (or rather, I don't watch American TV in general, so...) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" in the area of politics I could have sworn this was the result of the prior Fox News RFC but if not, this should enshrined now. Fox is fine when covering elements that do NOt have any political angle but their veracity should be immediately thrown into doubt when politics enters the picture. --Masem (t) 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade Fox News is a propaganda outlet, with no reputation of fact-checking. Why would we trust that Pinocchio will not tell lies? Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, certainly Fox News has a lot of eyes focused on it but where it the hard evidence that the politics news (not commentary) is actually unreliable? This also raises a big bias question. One of the legitimate bias concerns with Wikipedia is that sources that are seen as "conservative" are far more likely to be considered yellow vs sources on the left. Consider a recent RfC where we decided that Jacobin is actually a green source yet now we want to claim Fox is not just "no-consensus", a result from a very extensive RfC, but actually "unreliable". Note that we don't see CNN is problematic even though we have evidence that top people at CNN had not only serious conflicts of interest with regards to coverage of NY Gov Cuomo but that they were coordinating on how to handle coverage of Cuomo's sexual abuse scandal. Aquillion likes to post searches for Fox News in scholarship but is it actually good scholarship and does it say what they are claiming? How often are they citing Fox simply because they have become a target for "all that is wrong on the right" rather than for any specific misdeed? Does it actually provide the hard evidence that Fox is putting out false information. The opening accusation here is not sufficient to show that Fox's report is false or misleading. How would many other sources fair if we looked so carefully at what they claimed when dealing with Trump or other political hot bed cases like Kyle Rittenhouse or George Zimmerman? What about the settlements places like the WashPo and others have had to pay out to the Kentucky Catholic high school kids who were accused of misdeeds in DC? Anyway, it is interesting to look at what we consider green and yellow sources then look at an independent rating site like Adfonts Media. WE consider MSNBC green yet would have Fox as red. Adfonts has them basically equal but opposite left right. We say the Daily Beast is no consensus but want to say the similarly placed Fox is unreliable. We say the Daily Wire is bad but the similarly ranked Salon is just yellow. Sadly this often isn't because one side has the fundamental facts right or wrong. Politics is very often dealing in gray which allows our own bias to help decide a source is bad because we like or dislike their interpretation of the facts.
  As a non-fox example, take these two Rittenhouse related Politifact articles. In this fact check they say Trump was wrong for claiming Rittenhouse was trying to run away and was attacked [120]. That appears to be what was found at trial yet PF still says Trump's claim was false. Why? Because they felt that Trumps statement left out critical context. Well that might be sufficient to say, "True but..." it certainly doesn't make the core of what he said False. Another example is PF fact checking the legality of Rittenhouse having a rifle. PF came out shortly after the crime and said a claim that it was legal for Rittenhouse to have the rifle was false. At trial the charge was thrown out because the court found it was legal. PF updates their statement but leave the assessment as False even though the court disagrees. What does this have to do with Fox? These are exactly the sort of gray areas people use to say Fox (and other conservative sources) are mixed or unreliable yet we overlook them, we over look obvious conflicts of interest at CNN and say they are fine. That certainly creates an inherent bias in what we cover since any time someone wants to add an opposing view, ie this evidence does support a claim that Trump was being spied on in at least some capacity according to some sources editors just say, "not reliable". Fox saying Cuomo was messing up would have been viewed as unreliable while statements about Gov Cuomo from CNN, where there was an actual conflict of interest, are fine. It's one thing to say, we have to be careful how we use political content from sources like Fox. It's much different, and not good for balanced coverage of political topics, to say, we can't use sources on the other side because we don't like their spin (while ignoring the spin coming from sources we do like). I apologies for the length of this post and also note that I can't think of a time I was an editor who originally added a Fox News source though I have defended/restored it when others falsely claim Fox News is listed as "red for politics". Springee (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" where politics is concerned. Their last figleaf of respectability left with Chris Wallace. It's not our job to ensure that citations come equally from all parts of whatever we imagine the political spectrum to be. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" in the area of politics - Fox News' essence is counterfactual political storytelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade, not convinced that there is a problem. There was one editor with substantial arguments for the downgrade (Aquillion). I've reviewed their arguments, to the extent I could get access to the underlying sources, and I don't think they support the claim that the news part of Fox news is unreliable (the opinion part of course is already deemed unreliable) - see above for the details. Also many examples of misinformation are about COVID coverage, for which we would never use Fox News per WP:MEDRS. Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Even though we do not use opinion pieces for a number of reasons on Wikipedia, news organisations are still editorially responsible for the contents of opinion pieces they publish. If they are happy to provide a platform for disinformation even for information related to a public health crisis and pertaining to matters of life of death, why on earth would you want to trust that same platform to behave better when reporting on less critical, but still politically charged, matters. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  By that logic Wall Street Journal must be unreliable because its opinion pieces on climate change and techniques to fight COVID often went against the scientific consensus. See here for an example. Even though their editorial board position has shifted to the right (towards libertarianism?), WSJ is still a newspaper of record. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. Fox News peddles the stuff of pure conspiracy. Here, WSJ published an op-ed from a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine who it would rightly have assumed was a subject-matter expert, but who later turned out to be flawed in their analysis. There is no indication that the professor was willfully peddling misinformation, only that there methodology was off. It is more of a reputational issue for John Hopkins. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  But we don't have the evidence needed. Lot's of people dislike Fox News but, as Alaexis showed, they often conflate Fox News commentary with the news reporting. Fox is one of the major networks and, in large part due to their commentators, they have been closing scrutinized and villainized by other sources. That means it would be relatively easy to do a key word search for an article that is critical of Fox vs Jacobin (a site we have said is green). That doesn't mean the average Fox News political story is somehow less reliable than Jacobin only that more people are searching to find fault. Zooming out, I would question if we really should be dumping sources into these big blocks of Green, Yellow, Red. RS says reliability is context dependent. We really should be doing less blanket banning (which is a bias issue for Wikipedia) and do more case by case evaluations. Springee (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, major =/= reliable. For a case in point, see Telewizja Polska - the most watched outlet news outlet in Poland and yet, since 2015, generally unreliable for political coverage.

  While, as you rightly note, the majority of people tend to scrutinise the commentators, the fact-checker reliability rating as provided in Pennycook [121] seems to show that the criticism has merits despite what you say is "villainising" Fox News (though undoubtedly some of it definitively happens on talk shows of, say, MSNBC and a few other channels). The paper seems to query about news coverage, not commentators.

  Finally, I see RSP as useful. People forget it's guidance, but it is better to have general guidance and query in cases of doubt than to have no guidance and repeat the RSN infighting whenever a more controversial story appears or when a correction/retraction is issued. This has a side effect of people forgetting that RSP is only a guide in sources and not be-all and end-all, still, could be worse.

  If you have any specific issue with Jacobin (such as posted here) that actually reflect on its reliability, as opposed to its opinions, you are welcome to relitigate the RFC, presenting new evidence. But let's remember one thing - Jacobin is more like Reason in that it does not really pretend to make news coverage, it's about voicing opinions based on factual premises. This is different from Fox News, which says it's reporting straight news. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  In response to this false-balance charade, and to add what Szmenderowiecki has written, if we are relying on a source (Ad Fontes Media) that is considered to be "a self-published source [with a questionable] methodology", we should not rely on it at all to prove a point as you did — if it ain't reliable to cite, it shouldn't be reliable to weight in. Instead, we should be doing what Szmenderowiecki said and what Aquillion did, e.g. relying on clearly reliable sources; we may disagree about what they entail (e.g. they are more nuanced, Aquillion's reading was correct, etc.) but not on their reliability, which is not the case for those self-published media charts (I recall one user saying they rated a clearly centrist source as left-wing). Arguments sourced to unreliable sources should hold no weight. For the record, I think the status quo is fine, as would be a downgrade to generally unreliable but still usable otherwise, which is what we do anyway. Davide King (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Davide King I think you missed the forest for the trees. Ad Fontes is self published but, unlike Wikipedia, it does at least use a reasonably consistent rating method while we rely as much on editor opinion as anything else. It is generally respected even if, by virtue of what it is, we don't treat it as gospel. That doesn't mean it can't be a useful reality check. Your "if it isn't reliable to cite..." argument is circular. You say it isn't good because we say it isn't good thus it can't be good. It isn't reliable only because we have said so. But what would happen if we, the Wikipedia editors in the political space, we are biased as a group? How would that impact what we think is OK/not OK over time? A group bias isn't likely to take a clearly bad source and call it good or a clearly good source and call it bad. However, it will tend to take borderline cases and call them in one direction which can create a bias issue over time. Giving the benefit of doubt to sources who's overall leaning we agree with and the reverse when we don't agree. We don't have to take Ad Fontes to be fool proof to illustrate the point that we seem more forgiving of left vs right leaning sources. That is a problem if our objective is to be neutrality. As for Aquillion's research, did anyone check to see if those sources were strong academic sources? I'm sure editors are aware that not all academic sources are created equally [122]. It also appears that those sources were picked for little more than keyword inclusion. Others have shown the sources don't support the discussion here. As a side comment, if you are going to specifically cite an editor's post it is best to include a ping or similar. Springee (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, I get what you are saying but I stand by what I said. I did not ping them because I do not recall who actually said that (a centrist source categorized as left-wing), or were you saying that I should have pinged you? I thought it was unnecessary, but my bad for that.

  I think that you should do what Aquillion did and present sources to support the claim it is "generally respected", when JzG said it is not only self-published but also does not have a "peer-reviewed methodology" (to be fair, it appears they do agree with you that we can rely on them on wiki space; "it is a useful guide for us here to be factored in holistic assessment of a source based on multiple perspectives on its reliability", which is fine when it is uncontroversial and there is no major disagreement among reliable sources), which makes it no better than us, who generally rely on reliable sources when assessing sources, at least that is what I do and what I hope everyone do, rather than just stating our opinions about them.

  I think that you are being too dismissive in our assessment of sources, as if we are all just expressing our opinions without relying at all on reliable sources and what they say about said source. In conclusion, you used a self-published source with a questionable methodology to support your claim that there is a double standard in evaluating left-wing and right-wing sources (many left-wing sources are opinionated sources, while many right-wing questionable sources pretend to be straight news, and Canarin, CounterPunch, and several others are rated as "generally unreliable", while for Fox there is no consensus on politics). What I am saying is that rather than relying on self-published media charts, you should have provided reliable sources that support your double standards assertions. Either way, this discussion is about Fox, and as much as I like consistent standards (a double standard was rating Reason green and Jacobin yellow), the way we rate other sources should not be used as an argument, unless we have not self-published, reliable sources in support of it. As I said, I am perfectly fine with the status quo, like you (?), so we do not necessarily disagree on this, though I think Aquillion's reading of sources was mostly correct but I prefer to be conservative for now. Davide King (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Grrrr… how many times must we say this… WP:MEDPOP tells us not to use news media for medical content… period… whether that’s Fox or WSJ or BBC or etc. We don’t need to say: “Don’t use Fox for medical content” because we shouldn’t be using any news media for medical content. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what people are saying, people are saying “Don’t use Fox for science content” only a small fraction of which is covered by MEDRS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

But the examples they give are mostly medical (such as Fox’s coverage of Covid). Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the example they give most (and this has been consistent for a few years) is Fox's climate change coverage which is not medical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade. Are we really using court documents from an ongoing, high-profile legal dispute to decide things of that amplitude? Everybody here is aware that those are not reliable sources per WP:LAWBRIEF, right? In my view, any change in policy or consensus about the reliability of a source with such a wide readership/audience as Fox News, should be made on the basis of high-quality secondary or tertiary sources. Aquillion has attempted to do something like this, but their sources do not completely verify their claims. However, I would be open to changing my !vote if such sources were to be provided. JBchrch talk 19:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I should note that I oppose any sort of mention of Fox News' reliability for medical claims per Blueboar, which would imply that other medpop/news sources would be more reliable for medical claims, and that is not the case. JBchrch talk 19:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad we found such a quick use for the shortcut, JBchrch :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Demote to "generally unreliable", as per my position in previous RfCs, these >80 sources and other, more recent evidence. François Robere (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Deprecation is for true garbage, and while Fox is a poor source, it's still not a rag. Its no great secret that Fox is a questionable media source when it comes to politics. But when the topic isn't controversial or opinion based, the coverage is actually not atrocious. Certainly a lot better than the alternatives. But what has changed? They published a dubious article? That seems to square with the current "generally unreliable" stance. It remains valuable attribution for opposition statements (which must of course still comport with DUE).

Nor do I think changing our stance based on active litigation is smart. Court documents are supposed to be truthful. But there's no gaurantee that they are. Even if they are, such documents are full of spin: putting the best possible light on the facts to persuade the court (and more likely, the court of public opinion). Court filings lack the context and truthfulness. So let's not use the court documents and instead see what RS are saying. The NYtimes calls the issue "Byzantine" and seems to conclude that perhaps the issue was that journalists tried to tackle such a complex issue to begin with. If we remove Fox as an RS for politics, it will make major news. But this issue is too complex, too "he said/she". Fox should only be deprecated if we have an airtight case, but we do not have one. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – CaptainEek, that seems reasonable. Just one thing, WP:FOX is not listed as "generally unreliable"; it is "generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science", there is "no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science", and is "generally unreliable" only for "Fox News talk shows". Davide King (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Well, CaptainEek, to be more precise, "deprecation", per Wikipedia's definition, is reserved for sources that are highly questionable and which editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources' guideline in nearly all circumstances. This, for you, may be quivalent to "garbage" but I believe we need to be careful about labels when discussing sources. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose procedurally and consequentially. Procedurally, I don't think believe this discussion can (or should) overturn the results of a previous well-attended one without a neutrally worded opening statement and an RfC tag to solicit uninvolved participants. In terms of the consequences, I oppose downgrading and especially deprecating Fox News on the basis of what has been shown here. Telling a news story, at least at a national level, inherently involves the construction of narratives: in addition to whatever happened, you are saying something about what all those happenings mean. Some sources are more explicit in saying what those happenings mean, others less so. Fox News reports, I think, tend to be more explicit in making those claims than the average outlet. For us editors, this has caused divisions in our assessments of them. On the one hand, some of us understand this relationship between coverage and meaning very implicitly; this is why one editor above argues that Fox News is unreliable because it talks too much about the Canadian trucker convoy. Others of us (I think instinctually) sift out Fox News' interpretative claims from its bare factual coverage; hence, a different editor argues that Fox News' coverage of the Durham-Sussman thing isn't substantially different from other sources when you really scrutinize it. I get the impression that the majority of editors are skeptical of Fox News' interpretative claims, especially their bolder and more controversial ones, and with reason. I think that's why they're at no consensus right now. Many (though certainly not all) editors would say that Fox News often says wrong things; few, I think, would say they are often wrong about the basic facts. Personally, I think that's good enough. Anyone who can objectively summarize the RS to write an encyclopedia article should be able to apply a little bit of scrutiny to Fox News reports, pull out the questionable interpretations and attribute them in-line, and treat them as standard RS for basic facts. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on the evidence presented, the key problem is how Fox writes its headlines and its lede, not how the article is written. The problematic statement, while buried in the 21st paragraph, is still written in the article. Deprecating is for news that is obviously lies and fabrication, while the problem articles mentioned are not lies. Yes, burying key details is not showing neutrality in reporting and showing clear bias, but I expect news sources, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox to BBC to show bias. It is human to be biased. SunDawntalk 05:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

SunDawn: The content in the 21st paragraph demonstrates that not only the headline, but also the lede, was false. A false quote. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why when you quote an article you don't quote the headline, which most likely created to garner clicks, but from the content of the article. First of all, this following statement from Fox is factual: 'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.'. And in the lede, Fox chooses to uses the word "infiltrate", note also the use of double quotations mark in their lede. While Durham didn't say "infiltration", mining DNS traffic and other data could be classified as "infiltration", at least according to Fox. In my opinion, this is biased reporting, not a false statement. Nowhere in the article it is shown that Durham said the word "infiltrate" verbatim, a read on the article shows that "infiltrating" is the opinion of Fox and Patel, not Durham. The article did take quote verbatim from Durham, such as 'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.' or the allegations "relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic" that Tech Executive-1 and others "had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider." Both statements are clearly made by Durham. And if we are talking about giving false quote, Fox clearly stated that the "infiltrate" word is used by Patel, a personal opinion from Patel after reading the report from Durham, Patel told Fox News, adding that the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers.. In closing, while it is clear that this is bias reporting as is expected, this is not false quote. And why would Fox state that it is from Patel if they want to put up some fake news? SunDawntalk 02:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why when you quote an article you don't quote the headline, which most likely created to garner clicks which I'm well aware of but from the content of the article which is what I did. this following statement from Fox is factual in the sense that Durham made that allegation. And in the lede, Fox chooses to uses the word "infiltrate", note also the use of double quotations mark in their lede followed by "a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found," which is flatly false. Fox clearly stated that the "infiltrate" word is used by Patel in the 21st paragraph, which demonstrated that they were lying for 20 paragraphs, knowing that few readers would reach the 21st paragraph before exploding in outrage because of the lie in the headline and lede. while it is clear that this is bias reporting as is expected, this is not false quote It is profoundly deceptive, and every credible source knew it and ignored it, causing Howard Kurtz to complain about it on Bret Baier's "straight news" show, until Clinton mentioned the story could constitute actual malice for a defamation suit, at which point Fox News abruptly stopped talking about it, as did everyone else in conservative media. They tacitly acknowledged it was a lie. soibangla (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting other sources don't do the same? Example: NYT article regarding the US Women's Soccer equal pay lawsuit settlement. The article glosses over why the courts haven't sided with the women's team (or that during the 2020 shutdown the women were paid while the men got zero). The NYT's lead and opening paragraphs suggests this is a done deal. It recounts some of the women's complaints but doesn't offer up the solid reasons the courts rejected their pay complaints. Only when you read almost to the end does the article mention a really critical point, the deal is contingent on the men's team agreeing to transfer some of their winnings pay to the women. This is also where the article notes that the core cause of the pay difference is FIA's mens vs womens soccer pay schedules. Why aren't those facts near the top? How is this different than the complaint about Fox News? Springee (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As I stated before, Fox placing it on the 21st paragraph didn't mean that it lies. Fox lies if they stated that "infiltrate" come from Durham, which they didn't. Fox clearly stated what Tech-Executive 1 is doing, and uses the word "infiltrate" in the lede, hoping that the reader will come into their own conclusion that "infiltration" did happen. This is clearly biased reporting, but this is not a lie. This is not something extraordinary, this is something done by other sources. For instance, check this CNN article and compared it with Reuters article. In the CNN article, there is not a single mention about "defamation", which is clearly stated in the Reuters. CNN don't even state what they are being sued with. Is CNN lying? Should they be deprecated to "generally unreliable" because of failure to mention the details of the case? No, because they are not lying. They, like Fox, "buries" the details, hoping that their readers come into a conclusion they prefered. SunDawntalk 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade The OP alleges that Fox's headlines are misleading; I agree. But we don't source information to headlines, we source it to articles. The sources which are critical of Fox do not clarify if they are referring to the talk shows or the news shows, so they are not useful for purposes of this discussion. Therefore, in the absence of solid evidence suggesting serious problems with the quality of Fox's reporting, I see no reason to downgrade. Mlb96 (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Mlb96: Not just the headline. The lede. The body. A false quote. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade The substance of the article in dispute is true but slanted or misleadingly framed information. This is common for politically biased publications, which Fox News is, but it does not mean it is impossible to rely upon them for the facts they take and then frame or spin. "Infiltrate" was a real quote from Kash Patel, and if you wrote in a Wikipedia article that Patel characterized what happened as "infiltration", you would not be adding false information; Fox misleadingly framing that quote in delaying explaining who it came from does not change the fact that Patel really did say it. The issue with including the quote would be a question of why you chose to include a quote from an obviously biased Trump loyalist who is using inflammatory language merely in an attempt to attack the Clinton campaign. I think it will be helpful to compare this to other true but slanted or misleadingly framed stories in recent memory that riled up conservatives, from publications that have a bias but are nevertheless reliable. Conservatives recently got angry at CNN for describing the ivermectin Joe Rogan took as "horse dewormer" or a "livestock drug". Is this true? Technically, yes – ivermectin is often used for deworming horses, though the medication Rogan took was intended for humans, in pill form, and prescribed by a doctor, so this characterization was misleadingly framed (even though the medication was probably not very effective...). Does this mean we cannot rely on CNN to provide us with accurate information that their characterization was based off – that he took ivermectin, and that ivermectin is often used for deworming horses? No. CNN is reliable enough, and those things happen to be true. Fox News is a far worse offender than CNN is in this regard, of course, but framing or spinning true information in order to score political points for your tribe and get people riled up is (unfortunately) a common thing among biased news publications. It is not impossible to rely upon Fox News for the facts underneath the spin, like it would be for Tucker Carlson for example. Endwise (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Infiltrate" was a real quote from Kash Patel that was falsely attributed to Durham, twice, right up top, but the true source was deeply buried. If that was merely an error, wouldn't a credible news organization have acknowledged at least that by now? soibangla (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In the same way that news articles sometimes use quotes in headlines they then explain in the body of the article, they are using quotes in the lede they then explain (unfortunately much later) in the body of the article. Is this sneaky and framed in a biased and misleading way? Absolutely. But the information you'd use from this article on a Wikipedia page – Patel told Fox News [that] the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers – does not have factual issues, just editorial ones surrounding bias and balance. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If burying the factual issues deep in the article was merely an editorial issue, by ten days and lots of blowback later they could easily remedy that by appending "Editor's note: due to an editing error, the original version of this story incorrectly attributed the words "paid" and "infiltrate" to Durham in the headline and lede; they were Patel's words. We regret the error." But they haven't. What are they waiting for? A demand letter from an attorney? One doesn't even need to be an intern in a reputable news organization to realize, "hey, wait a minute, Durham didn't really say that, we need to change the headline and lede before we run this." Even without taking Fox News's history with such stuff into account, and especially after taking their obsession with Clinton[123] into account, there can now be no doubt this was a deliberate smearjob to whip up yet another fake scandal. They have a long history of this, it's their business model, it drives ratings, it propels an entire media ecosystem that makes lotsa money for lotsa people who poison the minds of millions with lies. Lies work, but they shouldn't work here. soibangla (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that quoting Patel in a Wikipedia article – Patel told Fox News [that] the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers – would not impart factual issues onto that article, there would only be issues around bias and balance for us, the editors of Wikipedia, who chose to quote a Trump loyalist making inflammatory attacks on the Clinton campaign instead of presenting things in a less biased way. This article shows evidence of open and flagrant bias on the part of Fox News, which everyone already knew, but it does not show that it is not possible to use them for the facts underneath their spin. Endwise (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" I argued a while back for this, and it continues to show it can't be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad idea at every level. First I oppose all such overgeneralizations and think that the entire overgeneralization list should be deleted. Second, they are the largest news organizatrion in the US, deprecating them would be a large blow to Wikipedia at several levels including content, bias, and our reputation for bias in this area. Third, the reasons given are far from sufficient to justify such a move. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "They are the largest news [organization] in the US"—what does this have to do with their reliability? "Deprecating them would be a large blow to Wikipedia at several levels including content"—such as ...? "Bias, and our reputation for bias in this area"—see WP:YWAB. "Third, the reasons given are far from sufficient to justify such a move"—why? Kleinpecan (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Your questions look more like sealioning my post or try to deprecate my post than asking specific questions for a dialog.North8000 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I would support "generally unreliable for US politics", though.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post for a public figure's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1318772/MMR-doctor-links-170-cases-of-autism-to-vaccine.html The Telegraph gave credence to Wakefield's wild allegations of 170 particular autism-vaccine links in 2001, but I don't think that bad medical reporting is really something we should be holding against news organizations). Many of the sources provided here largely analyze Fox News's commentary television shows, which is generally unreliable for facts and often flargrantly not BLP-worthy, but we have to analyze that separately from its digital news reporting (which is the typical thing cited when a Fox News source used on Wikipedia). The previous RfC actually did find a consensus that there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts, though its headlines are misleading (WP:HEADLINE) and it's used edited photos (I can't imagine that photographs contained within news articles are ever cited anyway?). If folks would like to overturn this consensus, an RfC is the proper way to do so, but I really don't see substantial research presented that Fox News makes an such an extraordinary number of errors in the political area that it's less than marginally reliable for ordinary claims of fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable for politics". Lacks appropriate editorial policies and fact checking.--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, Support Reupgrade Under Bush, CNN and Fox lied about the same, and neither complained about the other. Under Obama, MSNBC joined CNN on the left, and started calling Fox racist liars with gusto, even good reason at times. But since WaPo joined MSNBC and CNN in openly declared and constant Trump bashing, Fox has become the relatively honest and objective mainstream domestic political propaganda outlet. Fox didn't insist George Floyd died of nothing but a physically impossible choke under the knee of a racist cop alone. Fox didn't call the resultant race-based rioting mostly peaceful protests. Fox didn't double, then triple down, on whether racist insurrectionists murdered Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher, bear spray or "all that transpired". Fox didn't accuse Joe Rogan of being a wormy lying horse, Russia of stealing Clinton's preconceived win or the Freedom Convoy of hiring racist insurrectionists (tied to Jan 6, tied to 9/11). Fox didn't punk Ted Cruz. There are many more lies Fox does not echo, despite the pressure from Big Tech, Pharm and Arms. It used to be the worst on TV. Now it offers the only alternative facts in mainstream American politicization. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke? Kleinpecan (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No. But I do find the one CNN pulled on Cruz pretty funny. I'd treat the stricken part as dubious or poorly expressed. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading the facts on the first few pages of the Durham report reposted here [[124]]. From #3 it clearly states that the suspect repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign which to most people means he was paid by the Clinton campaign. From #5 "The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”)." Infiltrate means to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes - from Merriam Webster. I see a lot of POV positions in this post and I see using other so called "news" sources as evidence is not helping. Durham never said which news source was reporting incorrectly. Wikipedia expects us to use reliable sources at all times. Facts are king on Wikipedia. POV is not. This is a waste of time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading the facts which are actually allegations. soibangla (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

True in relation to the legal document but in regards to this discussion the person who started this is challenging the use of the words pay and infiltrate by FOX which are both correct.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am the person who started this and both "paid" and "infiltrated" are allegations, regardless of who said them. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Durham this fact is under the heading Factual Background. These are the facts he is using. "The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations." This is not an allegation but a fact that Durham uncovered. I don't think you can judge anyone at FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc... until this has gone to court and he is found guilty which I think will happen. Durham is not a fool. It is clear to me that you hate FOX and it reflects here that is POV.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Durham is exactly right. He has asserted things as "Factual Background" which the defense has asserted contains falsehoods and moved to have the judge strike them as prejudicial. Because until this has gone to court and he is found guilty Durham's assertions are not established facts, regardless of how he characterizes them in a pre-trial brief. Durham is not a fool We know only about how he has been described by others from the distant past, but we know virtually nothing about who a man appointed by Bill Barr may have become in more recent years. It is clear to me that you...oh nevermind. soibangla (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade - per arguments above. Opposes have not convinced me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons I laid out last time.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Fox news, should be treated like MSNBC news & CNN. Otherwise, we'll have an atmosphere of Democratic-bias. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: unless you're saying that MSNBC & CNN have the same issues Fox does (in which case we can open discussions about their reliability) then treating them the same would be an example of a false balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Fox)

• Oppose downgrade The Fox story looks to me like a good description of Durham's filing. A news story is expected to describe events, and it does. The fact that it does not use the same words is irrelevant. Durham's statement that news coverage has mischaracterized him is also not a reason to downgrade. It is unclear which news coverage he was referring to. Also, I wish people would use more arbitrary breaks like the above. These threads get too long. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's not too late to insert non-arbitrary breaks. Either one in the middle or two at the tropics, same shortening effect. I tried, halfheartedly, but kept zoning out and losing count. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, while Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have said controversial stuff on air, our policies already make clear that we don't allow talk shows like Tucker Carlson to be used as sources of information, regardless of which channel this is on. A lot of the news you encounter every day is biased, our goal is for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Sure Fox News covers different stories than CNN, but then they have a conservative appeal, just as CNN has a more liberal appeal. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 18:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fox News was created with the specific intent of a partisan slant. CNN? Nope. Perhaps consider the possibility that people watch CNN for a reality appeal, rather than a liberal appeal, and depicting it as liberal is part of a strategy to demonize it and normalize Fox News as "centrist." soibangla (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• There are two parties in America, with unaffiliated vastness between them. The idea that one would see the other with a 24/7 channel and not match it is ludicrous, that's career suicide. On the centrist reality channels (NASA, HGTV, MTV...), the idea that a Democrat or Republican is better or worse than the other in some seat simply isn't discussed (or only briefly). There's nothing demonic about liberals, from a centrist's perspective, they're just more likely to vote against something conservatives would likely support, or shit on the other's political commentators. I promise you, as a Canadian, it's as simple as that. You don't have to support the people and ideas CNN or FOX does if you're watching it for a sports, weather or crime story (or just straight voting results), but even those tend to be tilted accordingly lately. Pre-Fox CNN had way more apolitical general interest coverage, it's true, but that ship then clearly sailed against its competition. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wager it more likely that the Establishment which owns both of them planned this divergence a much longer time ago. Neither side exists to inform. Both are to divide, to set people against each other along easily controlled lines. Look at how controlled both of you are being to this end in this very discussion. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So what? A lot of reliable sources are also unapologetically slanted. Wikipedia's policy allows for that because sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. And no - I am not saying that Fox News is centrist, I am highlighting that despite Fox News being conservative and CNN being slightly left-of-center and MSNBC being liberal, they are all ok sources for most facts. See (about Fox News) and (about CNN) and (about general bias in cable news) all published by Vox.com. The key point I am driving home is that biased != unreliable. We should never be using opinion talk shows shows like Hannity or Don Lemon Tonight or anything similar to verify claims of fact. Just like we do not cite the Onion or Stephen Colbert despite how funny they are, we don't cite opinion sources for facts. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia already has a documented, systemic bias towards leftism. The last thing we should be doing is deprecating right wing sources. If you think Fox News is so disreputable, argue the point on the respective article's talk page. Forbidding the use of Fox News as a source regarding politics is a near-admission that your only goal is to control the narrative. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade, support boosting to generally reliable. Firstly, nothing has changed from the previous discussion to say this needs to be downgraded. Not that it matters anyway since editors practically already treat Fox as though it's blacklisted, even in cases that don't cover politics and science. Fox News is a standard WP:NEWSORG with press access to the White House, routine interviews with highly notable people, and normal journalistic practices. Discussions about Fox New's reliability is always clouded with the credibility of their talk shows. The vast majority of the sourcing below is referring to the TALK SHOWS, not the the website. Like most political talk shows (including CNN, MSNBC, etc), the Fox News talk shows are biased to a point where it's misleading and skews the facts, and just like CNN, MSNBC, etc Fox New's website is reliable for factual reporting. We have no reason to believe the contrary. Also the fact that it's biased is not an argument against it being reliable. In fact, we are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia's NPOV policy by excluding practically the only conservative voice in American politics. This has become a major problem on Wikipedia and has led to a left-wing bias, and we all know that. This Allsides source gives a good look into the bias in Wikipedia, including 2 studies from Harvard University supporting the idea of a liberal bias. [125] To not allow Fox News only cements the now prolific issue of bias on Wikipedia and is not based in any concrete evidence of unreliability (again talk shows are different from the website). Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade One (potentially) wrong story does not an unreliable source make. The sacred cows of political sourcing on Wikipedia have all screwed up royally on occasion, and some have as-yet unretracted nonsense still published on their websites. A balanced perspective on issues necessitates drawing from idealogically diverse news sources, as each "side" covers the stories and angles that the other deliberately ignores, downplays or whitewashes. Deprecating/downgrading yet another right wing source would only entrench further Wikipedia's naked cultural leftist bias, which the diktats produced by this forum are in no small part responsible for creating. If Fox is wrong or misleading on a particular story, don't use it on the relevant article. Simple as, end of. 118.211.69.107 (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade for this but for all mainstream media mouthpiece products as well. FOX calling Arizona for Biden early wasn't sound journalism, but Establishment narrative-building (even if eventually officially "correct"). Hyperbolick (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that Fox News incorrectly reported that Trump had lost Arizona to Biden? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and oppose downgrade. Use with attribution as with any WP:BIASED source. CutePeach (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose just this past week there has been Washington Post news of Fox News side, cross-checking Fox Opinion side, but more importantly, our present policies and guidelines handle the issues raised and are not broke: we should be skeptical of all news-of-the-day and cross check, and cross check, and cross check; that's what is required for our DUE NPOV work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" as yes it is unreliable. Mostly propaganda and just makes stuff up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mostly because its not unreliable. People need to understand the difference between the opinion and news side. After reading through all the comments the support comments just don't do it for me, largely focusing on IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. While the oppose seem to give more thought out and reasoned arguments. Honestly given the strength of arguments I could see a promotion to Generally reliable. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have noticed a tendency during contentious discussions of this sort that some editors cast a vote based on an argument they present, then their argument is refuted, but they don't follow up and yet their vote stands, while others concur with their refuted argument and vote accordingly. Cognitive dissonance. It would be nice if we could conduct a more qualitative analysis of the arguments here rather than a straight arithmetic count of support/oppose when we seek consensus. IIRC, policy mentions something along those lines. Anyway, maybe at some future date I'll present some interesting reporting by Bret Baier, host of the network's flagship straight news program.[126][127][128] soibangla (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    It would be nice wouldn't it. Also I would at no point use Media Matters are a reliable source for something about Fox. No no no lol PackMecEng (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Oh sure, yeah. I'm well aware many despise Media Matters for presenting objective video proof that Fox News relentlessly lies. They also don't like that MM has a huge video library of it all going back many years. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Who is this they? This mysterious they that oppose all the things... Whatever. Listen, they are not a reliable source for this stuff. Just facts, they are not. Which is why their RSP entry is the way it is. They are a partisan advocacy group. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    "They" are the people who reflexively dismiss MM, primarily because they've been told to by people such as Fox News hosts, because such people know MM has a vast library of indisputable video proof that "they" are being systemically lied to and the channel is a primary reason our politics are a trainwreck now, to the point people will actually attack the Capitol to stop a legitimate election. soibangla (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    I linked you to the RSP on the subject which shows several discussions and RFCs on the subject. Simply put the community at large disagrees with your assessment and shows you are wrong about the source. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Even for Talk? And the RSP entry is qualified.soibangla (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I've examined the evidence provided by both sides and arrived at a different conclusion. Strength of argument may be more subjective, but I find that many of the comments that seem to align with yours actually stray from the topic at hand, and quite a few are built around fallacies. Can you point out a few specific comments that best show the thought out and reasoned arguments you see in opposition to this proposal? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Fox : Would we grandfather older coverage?

Moving this to its own subsection, as it got lost in the discussion above…

• Question: If we do “downgrade” Fox in some way… should we put a time frame on it? Looking at the examples given in support of a “downgrade”, I notice that they are all fairly recent. But then I think back to the news coverage of the past (from programs anchored by the likes of Brit Hume and Shepard Smith) and things look much better. I would definitely argue that Fox’s straight news coverage was much more reliable in the past. So … if we do “downgrade”, should we include a grandfather clause to allow these older programs and reports? Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My gut would say around 2014-2015 - this is about the time that the current culture conflict started (eg at the time of #MeToo and Gamergate). --Masem (t) 22:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That culture conflict predate Gamergate and #Metoo by a long shot. They were always nutter friendly, but started to embrace it openly in 2008, and by 2016 they were glad to be operating on 'non-liberal/alternative facts'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• 187 signatories of the Professors of Journalism open letter to Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch: "Fox News has violated elementary canons of journalism. In so doing, it has contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic."
• A. J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”
• Yochai Benkler, Law Professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University: “Fox’s most important role since the election has been to keep Trump supporters in line,” offering narratives of the "deep state", "immigrant invasion" and "the media as the enemy of the people". On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”
• Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, [propaganda has] effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News... Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a "Trump bubble" for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times.”
• Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”
• Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”
• Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia: “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV... Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature. It’s a radicalization model. [For both Trump and Fox] fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”
• Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.”
• Patrick C. Meirick, director of the Political Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, states in a study of the "death panel" myth that “...rather than polarize perceptions as predicted, Fox News exposure contributed to a mainstreaming of (mistaken) beliefs.”
• Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".
• Joe Peyronnin, Associate Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University: “I’ve never seen anything like it before... It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.” “No news channel reported on Obama being from Kenya more than Fox, and not being an American. No news channel more went after Obama’s transcript from Harvard or Occidental College. Part of mobilizing a voting populace is to scare the hell out of them... I heard things on Fox that I would never hear on any other channel.”
• Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board: “We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government. The two objects have become one. It's true that Fox is a propaganda network. But it's also true that the Trump government is a cable channel. With nukes.”
• Steven White, Assistant Prof. of Political Science at Syracuse University: “Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans, but in our efforts to come across as relatively unbiased, I actually think we downplay the extent to which it is a force for the absolute worst impulses of racism, illiberalism, and extremism in American society.”

Last updated on June 2020, with one exception. Feel free to add more. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This again looks like a keyword search. How many of these are actual research papers vs just someone's opinion? I note that all but one of these sources predate the last RfC. If these weren't convincing then, what makes them better now? Going down the list:

1. This is an article about Covid and refers to "Fox News hosts and guests" thus the commentary not news reporting. "Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting."

2. This article predates the previous RfC. It isn't clear this is saying the basic factual reporting is wrong even though he is saying the bias etc is clear. It's not clear how this would disqualify given we accept biased sources.

3. This article predates the previous RfC. Again, heavy emphasis on the commentary shows/hosts.

4. This article predates the previous RfC. This appears to be commentary though most of the article is behind a paywall.

5. This book predates the previous RfC. Does the book say the factual reporting is wrong or is it again talking about the commentary part of the mix? Without reading it I can't say. The abstract does not mention Fox.

6. This article predates the previous RfC. This looks more interesting since it appears to be a work cited by others and presumably with actual citations of its own. However, it also is almost a decade old and we can't decide if this is a commentary or news factual reporting concern.

7. This article predates the previous RfC. Commentary/analysis from an ideologically opposed source. This article focuses on claims made by the hosts rather than the news reporting.

8. This tweet predates the previous RfC. It's the opinion of a proof and doesn't make it clear if he is referring to commentary or factual reporting.

9. This tweet predates the previous RfC. Opinion of assistant prof and cites a segment from a Fox commentary show.

It appears the idea is throw up a massive wall of citations and hope that editors conflate the commentary/talk show part of the network with the factual reporting. Since we already say the commentary/talking heads are not reliable this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to my other ~80 references. In the meanwhile - before moving the goalposts, do you have any sources of equal quality of your own? Remember, if you're arguing for inclusion, the WP:BURDEN is on you.

Regarding "[conflating] the commentary/talk show part of the network with the factual reporting": it's the other way around: the consensus among experts is that such a distinction does not exist. To quote the open letter (emphasis mine):

Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting... But Fox News does not clearly distinguish between the authority that should accrue to trained experts, on the one hand, and the authority viewers grant to pundits and politicians for reasons of ideological loyalty.

Neither the network nor its >190 critics make the distinction you're asking us to make. How is it not OR? François Robere (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on you. I'm suggesting we maintain status quo that was decided by a 100+ editor RfC. Since we specifically say Fox commentary is not reliable your concerns regarding commentary reliability are already addressed. Which of your sources say they get the facts wrong vs they get the commentary wrong? Don't just throw up a list of sources, you tell us what they are supposed to mean, that is your burden. Your quote, the extension of the one I included say "authority viewers grant to pundits etc. That is commentary which is already called unreliable. I'm not moving goal posts. You are the one unable to provide sources that support the actions you want to take. I'm sorry I don't have a list, I haven't devoted so much time to this cause. Have you considered investigating some of the other news sources or do you just have an issue with Fox? Springee (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your comment does not address François Robere's point that the distinction between "facts" and "commentary" is original research and that researchers specifically criticize Fox News for this lack of clear distinction.

I suggest you keep your whataboutism and "anti-Fox agenda" aspersions to yourself. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did address it. I went through the list of sources provided and noted when they were specifically critical of the commentary part. If the difference between facts and commentary is OR why do we mention the distinction in wp:RS? Your whataboutism is a pointless comment. When FR asked about my, call them pro-Fox sources, I don't have any because I haven't devoted a lot of time to searching for them. It appears they have. Why would you consider that an aspersion? Springee (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan, Springee, and François Robere: per WP:OR, 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. Arguing that a noticeboard discussion that analyzes a news source somehow violates the Policy on no original research is wholly incoherent. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

For sure - one is allowed to argue whatever nonsense one wishes, but what value does it have if it's not founded on fact? I've gone through many dozens of sources on this, and the consensus seems to be that whatever distinction used to be between Fox's "news" and "opinion" has been intentionally blurred, to the point where a casual observer might find it difficult to tell which is which (which is one problem for us, the mere observers). But more than that, there's strong consensus that Fox as a whole is a "super-spreader" of misinformation which is a threat to democracy and public health (in those words). I can't see how, where authorities on such matters offer such strong condemnations, we could insert a caveat; and if we ought, then we should at least see some sources to support it. François Robere (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What scholars say in response to news media inquiries is not peer-reviewed research. JBchrch talk 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Top ten results from Google Scholar through "Fox News" search, with no preferences:

• Morris, Jonathan S. (July 2005). "The Fox News Factor". Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10 (3): 56–79. doi:10.1177/1081180x05279264. ISSN 1081-180X.
• DellaVigna, Stefano; Kaplan, Ethan (1 August 2007). "The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122 (3): 1187–1234. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187. ISSN 0033-5533.
• Jones, Jeffrey P. (June 2012). "Fox News and the Performance of Ideology". Cinema Journal. 51 (4): 178–185. doi:10.1353/cj.2012.0073. ISSN 0009-7101. JSTOR 23253592.
• Yglesias, Matthew (2 October 2018). "The Case for Fox News Studies". Political Communication. 35 (4): 681–683. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1477532. ISSN 1058-4609.
• Aday, Sean (1 March 2010). "Chasing the Bad News: An Analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan War Coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel". Journal of Communication. 60 (1): 144–164. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01472.x. ISSN 0021-9916.
• Schroeder, Elizabeth; Stone, Daniel F. (1 June 2015). "Fox News and Political Knowledge". Journal of Public Economics. 126: 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.009. ISSN 0047-2727.
• Ash, Elliott; Galletta, Sergio; Hangartner, Dominik; Margalit, Yotam; Pinna, Matteo (27 June 2020). "The Effect of Fox News on Health Behavior During COVID-19". Rochester, New York. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3636762. SSRN 3636762. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Biswas, Shirsho; Dubé, Jean-Pierre H.; Sacher, Szymon K.; Simonov, Andrey (May 2020). "The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Non-Compliance with Social Distancing During the Covid-19 Pandemic" (27237). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w27237. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Feldman, Lauren; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie (2 November 2011). "Climate on Cable". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 17 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410. ISSN 1940-1612.
• Brownell, Kathryn Cramer; Hoewe, Jennifer; Wiemer, Eric C. (1 October 2020). "The Role and Impact of Fox News". The Forum. 18 (3): 367–388. doi:10.1515/for-2020-2014. ISSN 1540-8884.

For broader context, found as the top source citing Morris 2005:

• Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (22 July 2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974086-4.

Davide King (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-RFC discussion

Any thoughts on the best way to neutrally open an RfC on this subject? Should we go with the standard four options? My thought is to re-use the format in my now-aborted RfC attempt, which is a very short question with a link to the current RSP entry and the usual four options. Pinging @Soibangla, BilledMammal, Springee, Mysterious Whisper, and Mhawk10: your input would be appreciated. It's possible your advice will be "don't start an RfC", which I'd be happy to hear about but unlikely to agree with. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Standard four options, with a link to the current entry would be appropriate. I'm not sure if we should ping the individual editors in this discussion though; better to let editors join the conversation on their own - a new CENT listing, and a post in the Village Pump, would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks BilledMammal. I disagree about the pinging, but agree about the format. I wanted to let you know so it doesn't later seem like I ignored your comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• What do you hope to accomplish by starting an RfC? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I see that there is community interest in changing the RSP entry. Fox News is a major media outlet, and RSP entries are (AFAIK) only changed after RfCs, so there are at least two reasons to want as much community-wide input in the discussion. Regardless of the outcome, I hope to accomplish a solid consensus that can last for at least a couple years or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so you're operating under the assumption that starting an RfC now will result in more "community-wide input", but there wasn't exactly a flood of new participants after you added the RfC tag to this discussion, even though it was quickly indexed by Legobot, so there's no reason to think this discussion hasn't already gotten comments from most or all interested parties. Then there's the practical issues posed by the above discussion. It's still happening, and it's gotten a lot of responses already. We can't just ignore it, but neither can we just copy everything over to a new RfC, nor can we require or expect that all the participants in that discussion will follow any instructions that accompany a new RfC. Those are just some of the reasons I've suggested allowing the discussion to run it's course, reflecting on the results, and only then starting an RfC. Also, as far as I can tell, an RfC is only required if you're seeking a formal deprecation, anything else (like "generally unreliable") just requires some amount of discussion; judging by the above discussion, there won't be consensus to deprecate at this point, so in any case, I think an RfC would be ill-advised. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Deprecation is definitely on the table, though I don't predict it as a likely outcome. RSP recommends RfCs for this at WP:RSPIMPROVE. Per WP:CONLEVEL, we shouldn't be overriding wide community consensus with narrower consensus. You might be right about no new voices joining, but I'd bet an hour of RCP anti-vandalism work that you're wrong. RfCs are often started when prior discussion is not formally closed. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RSPIMPROVE says "consider starting a discussion or a request for comment" (emphasis mine), and if you follow the links given in the list, many of them lead to discussions at this noticeboard that aren't RfCs. We differ on our interpretation of the concept of "no consensus". I interpret "no consensus" to mean there was no consensus (and thus, nothing to override), you seem to think that "no consensus" is itself a type of consensus. I'd really have to dig into policy and previous discussions to see which interpretation is better-supported. While I agree, in principle, that an RfC would hold more weight, I need to point out that this is not a wikiproject, it is in fact a community-wide noticeboard, and it's the exact place where this kind of discussion is supposed to happen, so I'm not convinced WP:CONLEVEL applies the way you seem to think it does. If you start an RfC now, I predict that it will not achieve your stated goals, and that some of the disruption it causes will carry over to the next RfC. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mysterious Whisper: thanks for your comments. I gave it some thought, and I agree with you about "no consensus" closes. My bad on WP:RSPIMPROVE, which I selectively quoted out of haste and not an intent to mislead. I am more hopeful that the discussion above could lead to actionable consensus than I was at the end of last week. Either way, I'm ok to wait until the close of this discussion before making any big moves. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think it should be very clear what the RfC is attempting to answer. In this case the question appears to be should Fox News reporting (not talk shows/commentary which is already generally unreliable) be downgraded from no-consensus (WP:MREL) to unreliable (WP:GUREL) for political topics. That will help scope what is reasonable evidence and what is off topic. We should also ask if this applies to all of their political reporting regardless of the claim being supported. For instance would we consider Fox acceptable for a statement like Senator Smith said "[quote]" in Texas on 25 Feb. The question needs to make it clear that this is not a question about the accuracy of commentary made by Fox News pundits, guess or hosts as that is already WP:GUREL. Springee (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'll do my best to accommodate your advice on defining the exact scope of what Fox coverage is under debate. The first part of your comment seems to be suggesting a straight yes/no on moving from MREL to GUREL, as opposed to listing all four options. My gut is to do the same, but more editors seem to prefer the standard layout. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• As a side note, I think this sort of broad brush bucketing is a bad idea and goes against WP:RS. Context matters and we should be doing less blanket accepting/rejecting sources and more looking at the actual claims being made and asking if the source is accurate for that specific claim rather than so broadly. Springee (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC

That view of considering context seems to no longer be the favoured view here anymore, it seems to be about deprecating or not deprecating nowadays. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Xinhua for adding any news articles relating to the 2022 Olympics and Paralympics

In the light of the ongoing 2022 Olympics and Paralympics, do we think we should add sources from Xinhua that were related to the 2022 Games? To understand why I opened this is because of dispute between me and Horse Eye's Jack over sources from Xinhua. I tried to find some sources that were not Xinhua or any other websites such as Sina. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a no for me. Per the previous RFC, Xinhua can't be used for topics where the Chinese government is a stakeholder. That definitely applies to olympic games held there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say no as well… if the only source to report on something Olympics related is Xinhua, I would be skeptical. At a minimum, I would want to wait for a second source to confirm the report (and if a second source does confirm it, we can cite that source instead). Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think it could be used for trivial statements (ie. stuff with no propaganda value like who won what), but the definition of trivial generally means that anything like that could easily be cited elsewhere. If you're having trouble finding other sources then that's an indication that something is probably amiss and it shouldn't be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Horse Eye's Back for the background, explains why this was opened. We have a clear consensus on this issue, "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation." and no reason to doubt the numerous WP:RS reporting that the Olympics are an area where the government of China is actively engaged in propaganda *and* disinformation. See for example yesterday's New York Times[129]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  That NYT piece is pretty damning about the sheer range of different tactics used for propaganda pushing in Chinese media during Olympics coverage, and if that is where media resources are being directed, it does not bode at all well for the overall factualness and thoroughness of the reporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Curious: What is the text it is going to reference? CaribDigita (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Please take caution that there are times where all news outlets in China are only allowed (by gov) to copy-paste what Xinhua writes. In such cases, banning Xinhua equals to banning every Chinese media outlet. Milky·Defer >Please use ping 02:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In cases where what Xinhua is writing is deliberately incorrect, such as when the government co-opts the press agency to spread comically bad disinformation as a "fact-check", there are very real reasons to not cite Xinhua. If the government bans mainland China publications from publishing anything other than the Xinhua line, and we know that the Xinhua line is not reliable, then why would we cite other sources that are required to say the same thing as if they are somehow reliable news organizations with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Most information about the Olympics is routine and uncontroversial. For example this article about Britain's gold medal in the women's curling event is currently on the front page of english.news.cn: https://english.news.cn/20220220/b4ed80fc9cc04d20baa232269157f6da/c.html. Is there seriously any information in there that anyone here would find concerning if added to a Wikipedia article? Endwise (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  But then, the question might be with material as well covered as the Olympics, why not just play it say and use one of the no-doubt countless reliable, secondary sources that will have reported on all of the events and covered the victories of gold, silver and bronze medalist winners? What's the benefit? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with sophisticated state disinformation operations like the ones Xinhua is continually a part of is that we generally can't identify what information would be concerning. Thats why we don't use those sources in areas in which disinformation/propaganda operations are believed to be active. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar, in that the Olympics is so widely covered if any fact is solely reported by one source, I would be skeptical. Even if that "one source" was something like NY Times, let alone something controversial like Xinhua. Jumpytoo Talk 18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  But to add to my initial comment, Xinhua would be suitable on an WP:ABOUTSELF basis (for example, for the diff Whiny posted below (to be exact, the diff before it as that has Xinhua removal), Xinhua is fine to cite the claimed meaning behind the mascots) Jumpytoo Talk 22:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a confusing conflict, but what appears to be the core contention is Special:Diff/1071849149 and similar behavior. I have no opinion on the suitability of Olympic sponsorship information or the behavior of editors involved, but from an RS standpoint, I strongly object to the expansive notion of "topics where the Chinese government is a stakeholder" such that coverage by Xinhua is excluded from seemingly any major Chinese event. Xinhua is a completely acceptable and even reliable source for information about things like the mascot of the Beijing Olympics. The 2020 RfC discussion highlights things like COVID disinformation, Tibet, crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, etc., as areas where there is a clear, unambiguous reason to reject it as a source. Horse Eye's Back was a part of that RfC as well. Deleting citations to Xinhua for basic factual information as was done in the above diff seems to be a backdoor way to reach their preferred outcome that discussion — categorizing Xinhua as generally unreliable for factual reporting, period — which did not materialize. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that might be the wrong diff, thats a failed verification on an Axios (website) article. It has nothing to do with Xinhua. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted; fixed, thank you. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• As the official state press agency of China, it isn't suitable for anything contentious, which I don't see here. CutePeach (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: ANNA News

Which of these best describes the reliability of ANNA News? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Survey (ANNA News)

• 2 At first thought this was too soon with only 35 citations on wikipedia, but given their about us statement at bottom of page- https://anna-news.info/about/ they are clearly writing with a biased agenda. Whether its enough to deem them unreliable? Not sure, as didn't see any misuse of the source on wiki or evidence of obvious fake news, though only checked 5 or so uses.Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• 4 – I came across this source being used at Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020), while preparing to contribute to the relevant deletion discussion there. It is obvious that this is a propaganda outlet of the worst kind, which is in no way fit to be cited in Wikipedia articles. Our own article on the outlet itself provides RS-based documentation of numerous examples of fabricated information disseminated by ANNA. Please deprecate this source. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. Propaganda website (questionable source) that repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, as cited in the article on ANNA News. See the discussion section for one of the many examples. ANNA News has a very strong pro-Kremlin bias and any uses (which should be extremely rare per WP:ABOUTSELF, if there are any at all) would require in-text attribution explicitly noting this bias. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 08:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  After reviewing Szmenderowiecki's link to the Russian Wikipedia discussion (below), which concluded that all citations of ANNA News should be removed from Russian Wikipedia, I am going to go further and state that there is no valid use for ANNA News on Wikipedia outside of the article on ANNA News, and that blacklisting the domain is a justifiable option. ANNA News is a jingoistic tabloid that regularly uses phrases (in its own voice) such as "damned America", "terrorists and bandits from the so-called Free Syrian Army", and "frogs" [лягушатниками] (an ethnic slur for French people, see ru:wikt:лягушатник#лягушатник II) to describe anything that can be construed as an opponent to Russia. I don't see how it would ever be appropriate to cite this source anywhere on Wikipedia, aside from the article on ANNA News itself (per WP:ABOUTSELF), since on top of the site's propensity to publish disinformation, it would be unencyclopedic to incorporate the site's crude language into our articles in Wikipedia's voice. — Newslinger talk 15:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, instead of the word invasion like any reliable source, ANNA News likes to use the word "denazification" [денацификация] to refer to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in its own voice (not attributed to any other entity). Examples: [130] [131]. I think this speaks for itself. — Newslinger talk 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 as ANNA News is well-established as an outright disinformation site. - Amigao (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 Either is fine. For writing about self, or for citing the propaganda as propaganda (using as an example), would be fine, but should never be used as a credible source for anything else. --Jayron32 14:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Obviously it's heavily biased, most of the time should not be used on Wikipedia. In rare cases when it's warranted it should be attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 the ANNA News article gives almost everything you need to know about the outlet. Also: who gives them money to pay war correspondents and to maintain a website in 5 languages? I still do not know that. And to use it in rare cases, we do not need to keep it as WP:GUNREL, because a deprecated source can be used if there is a specific consensus to do so. So it is better to keep it as WP:DEPREC to warn inexperienced editors and help in detecting abuse of this source. --Renat 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 as per Newslinger. It is more than just generally unreliable; it has actively promoted classic fake news pieces. My immediate thought was that there's no reason to discuss it here or deprecate as it's so marginal, but if it's cropping up as a citation in the current Ukr/Ru conflict then would be good to deprecate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Newslinger. The Russian Wikipedians don't seem to be enthusiastic about the resource, either, see: [132], (mostly about OR but also touching on reliability). There are certainly better sources than that, including from the pro-Kremlin perspective - use them instead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate This appears to be a site with very limited uses in Wikipedia. It can be handled on a case by case basis and it would be far better to discuss rather than go right into trying to rate the source. Absolutely should not be deprecated because it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate Inappropriate use should be handled on article talk pages, and specific cases (rather than bans of all use) can be brought here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 4 - Per cogent arguments by Newslinger. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (ANNA News)

• I found this peer-reviewed academic publication that covers ANNA News, formerly known as the Abkhazian Network News Agency (emphasis added):

Because these semi-state Russian groups are shadowy and protean, it can be challenging to find reliable information about their activities. They are surrounded by rumors, and some of the prominent individuals involved with them have been caught in direct lies.

[...]

The existence of at least one Russian PMC [private military company] seems to have been completely fabricated, for unknown reasons. Ruslan Leviev of the Conflict Intelligence Team (a group that describes itself as conducting open-source, devil’s advocate, big-data intelligence on Russia’s wars in Ukraine and Syria), demonstrated through comparative photographic evidence that the group, “Turan,” a supposed Muslim Russian PMC in Syria, was fake. A different “journalist,” Oleg Blokhin of two pro-Russian-state news organizations (the Abkhazian Network News Agency, http://anna-news.info/about/, and Russian Spring, http://rusvesna.su/about), who “broke” the news about Turan, actually created an elaborate photo-shopped hoax, starring himself and a colleague in combat fatigues.

Marten, Kimberly (4 May 2019). "Russia's use of semi-state security forces: the case of the Wagner Group". Post-Soviet Affairs. 35 (3). Routledge: 181–204. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2019.1591142 – via Taylor & Francis.

I now see that it's already cited in the ANNA News article, which has more examples of ANNA News's publication of false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Please see these discussions: Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021)#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020). In both cases, editors assert a right to use ANNA News, and ANNA content continues to be inserted into these timeline articles, as you can see by glancing through them. Hence, I opened this discussion. However marginal this source may seem from the outside, it must be properly considered here to prevent further distortions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Please look at the discussions linked above. Attempts to deal with this source on obscure article talk pages have repeatedly resulted in certain editors continuing to place this source into articles. In fact, one editor even claimed that precisely because RSN has not yet deprecated it, it should be considered a 'partisan source, reliable in certain contexts', despite the fact that this source is well-documented in scholarly works as participating in fabrication. Therefore, as I said above, it is absolutely necessary that something be done about this source here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan saw this discussion before "voting" here. See diff. Renat 16:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I posted that because I believe it can be appropriate to notify talk page participants when a thread's subject has been brought to a different forum. I also believe it might be appropriate to ping the "certain editors continuing to place this source into articles" whom RGloucester refers to, but RGloucester hasn't identified them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The goal of opening this RfC was to attract uninvolved participants, not rehash arguments among involved parties (and please note, that discussion is a year old, and I didn't participate in it). I haven't pinged or canvassed anyone to this discussion, no matter their opinion. Your suggestion of impropriety is no less than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Vice on Pornhub

This is about the article Pornhub, specifically, is Vice reliable for following claims:

Far-right Christian groups with white nationalist and neo-Nazi ideologies have issued death threats towards Pornhub managers and sex workers, associating themselves with anti-trafficking and anti-pornography groups. Burnett stated "Unsurprisingly, Alt-Righters more frequently advocate for extreme forms of violence against pornographers, such as shooting them (e.g., @nmm20c, 16 November 2018)."

References

Please chime in.

Namely, Vice is the only RS which names Pornhub. All the other three RS are about far-right extremism against pornographers. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Samantha Cole specifically has done phenomenal reporting on the topic of online pornography, I would say better than any other mainstream, national journalist. The reporting has certainly not had a bias towards the porn industry or tube sites in particular, so the specific article is not hugely coloured by Cole's personal opinion. (As always, we should disregard headlines from the discussion, as they're increasingly sensationalist even in reliable sources.) I would also consider Vice reliable in general for this sort of content—and it's worth noting that we don't need BLP-level sources for this generalised claim about political groups. I'm not sure what Der Spiegel and Psychology Today have to do with this as they do not mention Pornhub (as far as I can see). — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have quoted the three other sources just to bolster the credibility of the article by Cole. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think article space is the right place to cite sources that do not directly substantiate the content in the article. The Der Spiegel and Psychology Today articles do bolster the credibility of the Vice article, but that argument is best made in talk/project space discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not oppose including Samantha Cole's report, if it is properly paraphrased and perhaps attributed (that was my main point when this discussion started in Talk:Pornhub). I do strongly object adding those other articles and studies, which only broadly talk about misogyny and anti-pornography extremism, as a way to reinforce the point made by Cole. That constitutes as WP:Synthesis and has no place on the PornHub article in particular, but other articles such as Opposition to pornography. --DannyC55 (Talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated Friend, the verbatim quote is about pornographers in general. Are Porhub pornographers? Definitely! So it is also about Pornhub. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect they are less likely to constitute due weight there, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

At [133] they have employed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV while the facts do not seem to be uncertain or disputed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Vice is a reliable source for this claim, though it usually doesn't hurt to apply in-text attribution when a single news source is the only reference cited for a contested claim. Vice's sub-publication Motherboard is generally reliable for technology (including websites, software, hardware, information security, etc.), having published many detailed investigative pieces that were then picked up by other major news outlets. I have also found Vice to be generally reliable for its coverage of pornography; it is one of the more mainstream publications to do serious reporting in this topic area, and its content was reliable for Wikipedia's Casting couch article. The Vice article under discussion intersects with two fields that Vice is particularly strong in.

Der Spiegel and Psychology Today are both reliable, but these two specific articles do not substantiate the sentence they are cited for because they do not mention Pornhub at all. These articles should not be cited for this particular sentence. The SAGE journal Men and Masculinities is reliable for the sentence it is cited for (and Burnett's underlying claim), but whether the sentence is relevant enough to belong in the Pornhub article is an editorial decision that does not pertain to reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• It should be noted that we've never really had a discussion on Vice media in general as a reliable source. I've never really found it problematic; they seem to do genuine journalism, they have legitimate reporters and editorial staff and care about getting stories correct. They may pick-and-choose which stories to devote their time to, but that's the same biases that every source has. When I went through RSP, Vice has a yellow entry; but at my count this discussion here is the longest discussion we've ever had on the source, by about an order of magnitude. I think they are a generally credible and reliable source, and people have provided reasons above why they might be credible in this specific topic area as well. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is a difference between being unreliable and undue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yup, the other three sources can be undue. I don't necessarily want them cited. I only care about the Vice source. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Vice is reliable for this, I would just use Vice instead of the three sources which do not specifically name the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source Arbcom has proposed the following finding of fact (FoF):

"Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability. By contrast the most recent [RSNB] discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics."

Does the above accurately reflect the consensus at RSNB concerning this source?

Arbcom appears to be especially interested in use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs. Our Thomas John (medium) BLP and the use of Operation Pizza Roll – Thomas John from Skeptical Enquirer as a source in that BLP would be an example of this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That FoF is about the "historic" case and I think it's correct. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't come up much and when it has it's received support from experienced editors. The recent GSoW dramafest has caused renewed attention but this is mostly centred on what seem to me to be fruitless considerations of it as a "COI source" in respect of certain targeted editors. In my experience there's not often cause to use this source other than for very niche fringe topics (e.g. Thought Field Therapy) and then it may be useful for WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tyler Henry is another example, as csicop.org. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The conduct related to me and other editors has made it difficult for the community to arrive at consensus on this matter, so I would suggest putting a hold on this until the Arbcom case is closed. I will note that a concern that wasn't properly resolved in the past discussion here on SI was that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of facts they published. Me and others agreed that while not an SPS, this does make them a questionable source due to their lack of editorial oversight, although this perspective did not gain consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"they take no responsibility" ← this is not accurate. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. There are esteemed scientific journals (e.g. PLOS One) which make no attempt to verify the accuracy of the research they publish, merely verifying that it's conducted correctly on the surface. Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it (and of course this has become a huge problem). Attacking SI because it does similar seems like yet another example of the special new harsh regime for "skepticism" that some editors seem very attached to lately. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective is a quote from their submission guidelines. Please do not make vague accusations about other editors, Alexbrn, as that will be disruptive towards reaching a consensus on SI. I'll leave the discussion until Arbcom case is closed. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not make "vague accusation", I specifically said a claim you made was inaccurate. So it was, as you showed when you quoted SI's actual position. I suggest what might actually impede consensus is making such inaccurate statements and then kicking sand up about "vague accusations" when those statements are specifically addressed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, what I meant by vague accusation was your last sentence. Describing criticisms as "attacks", describing behaviour or attitudes by editors as a "special new harsh regime for 'skepticism'" and the phrase "some editors seem very attached to lately" reads to me as a vague accusation, Alexbrn. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

SI is not a scientific journal, though. They are a general interest magazine with no fact-checking process. Because SI does not require authors to be academics (unlike The Conversation, which does), there is simply no way of knowing if something published on SI is a reliable source unless it is written by a scientist in their field. How could anything outside that narrow definition be reliable by our standards? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest that it useful for WP:PARITY purposes when there is an existing, unrebutted fringe claim in an article. Apart from that, it shouldn't be used. BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an established generalist journal, and well-reputed: that reputation counts. "Scientific" journals are not automatically trustworthy - huge numbers of them are trash. For a few very niche topics, like Roswell, SI has some seminal content, like this[134] from K Korff, who is an authority on UFO stuff. For pseudoscience, quack medicine, UFOs, etc WP:PARITY often comes into play and in that context SI is a cut above even "alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" such a blogs. I don't think anybody is proposing to use SI for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, or as WP:MEDRS or anything. It's only use is for providing sanity in niche WP:FRINGE topics, and as such its use should be limited and rare. You know: time cube, bigfoot, alien autopsies, morphic resonance. All that kind of stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, but the majority of its uses are outside of WP:FRINGE topics, and within fringe topics it is usually used to both introduce and rebut the fringe claim, when it would be better to not mention the fringe claim at all. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn explained the context of the The authors, however, are responsible quote, for example with Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it. Those journals could write exactly that same sentence, and it would be true for them too. You people's reasoning that the sentence shows that the journal is not reliable is just your personal, rather colorful and one-sided interpretation of that sentence, carefully circumnavigating and ignoring a better explanation of its meaning that had already been given. I don't think you can actually point out a subject SI got wrong and doubled down on, as unreliable publications would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like SI, Nature, Science, and I suspect most if not all other scientific journals have no fact-checking process or, at best, their checks of "facts" presented in submitted manuscripts range from limited (e.g., software to detect plagiarism) to non-existent. Also like SI, those journals do not require authors to be academics. So I am uncertain, Pyrrho the Skipper, about your criteria/standards for assigning unreliability to SI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nature publishes scientific research from academics which is reviewed by exclusively PhD-level editors and only a small minority is selected. That's vastly different from SI which has no requirement that an author is doing actual research, original or otherwise, or is an academic. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nowhere in the author guidelines for Nature (or Science) will you find a requirement that authors be academics. You can confirm that yourself at the journals' websites. FWIW, I will also add that not all of their reviewers are exclusively PhD-level, although by nature of the business that is the common outcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. That statement is false, as evidenced here and here. Your use of the phrase actual scientists is also incorrect, as any number of non-scientists (e.g., journalists, politicians, and even the general public) regularly have material published in those journals. At the risk of repeating myself, having no requirement (your term) that authors be academics/scientists is a feature common to SI, Nature, Science, and an uncountable number of other science journals. Because this is becoming tangential to the main thread, I suggest we move any further discussion to one of our Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right?", Not even close. Amateur scientists have made many important scientific discoveries that have been published in scientific journals. Forrest Mims is an amateur scientist who's work has has been published in Nature.[135] Guy Stewart Callendar developed the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rising global temperature and created the first climate change model. He was a steam engineer. Though he had almost no formal training in mathematics, Srinivasa Ramanujan made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. It was a Jesuit priest who discovered that Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria. It was a retired carpenter who discovered two species of wildflowers growing previously unnoticed just across the bay from San Francisco and published his results in a botanical journal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but SI isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's the journal of a non profit. The farmer's co-op I belong to publishes a quarterly journal written by subject matter experts. I wouldn't compare it to an actual peer reviewed journal though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. The reasoning was, a bit shortened, "SI has no fact-checking process" - "Neither has Nature". The point is that a lack of fact-checking process is not a reason to call it unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would say the problem is that the way WP:RS is written, lack of fact-checking would, in fact, be pretty fatal to reliable status. That said, I also agree that those who say the submission guidelines language indicates no fact-checking at all are overreading that bit, especially when taken in context. Still damned murky to me, but hopefully wiser heads see things more clearly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I shortened it too much. Your response does not fit the longer version because "SI has no fact-checking process" is not in the source, it is a Wikipedia editor's interpretation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to do this it should be a widely advertised, actual RFC. We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think it would also be a good idea to have it broken down into use cases, i.e. for WP:PARITY, in a WP:BLP, making contentious claims about a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like an RFC is needed, but my snap take is that they do not have editorial oversight. Certainly useable for the authors opinion but it would need to be attributed to them and then take appropriate weight concerns. I would be hesitant to use them to make claims about BLPs. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, Skeptical Inquirer now being targeted. There was a similar attack on Quackwatch [136], [137] in 2019. Science-Based Medicine will probably be next. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Its a good thing when less reliable sources are removed or clarified. Why would you be against that? PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am against quackery and pseudoscience. These websites are very reliable at debunking nonsense and have many academics and scholars writing for them. IMO there is no valid reason to remove them from Wikipedia. They have been on Wikipedia for decades and improve many articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above the issue is their lack of editorial oversight. While I will take your word for it that whatever they publish is right, that falls short of the bar set by Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be this persistent misconception that just because a source debunks nonsense/unreliable sources that it is itself a reliable source... Skeptics aren't inherently any more reliable than any other loose grouping of people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said that the reliability is "inherent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that Skeptical Enquirer has a reputation for accuracy and for printing retractions when they get it wrong. They also clearly label opinion pieces.

As for editorial oversight, see [ https://skepticalinquirer.org/article-submission-guidelines/ ]:

"The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript. Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal, although a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer."

IMO Skeptical Enquirer is generally reliable for factual claims, and that some (but not all) of their authors are recognized subject matter experts.

I would also caution some of the participants in this discussion to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. If your new comment basically repeats something you said already, you may wish to skip it. Everyone here is capable of reading the entire thread and we all heard you the first time. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised in previous discussions, so my apologies that I'm probably repeating some things. But in regard to SI:

• I have noticed significant problems with some claims in articles in the past. I think is generally reliable, but as a highly partisan source it should be used cautiously, especially in regard to contentious or serious claims.
• Their editorial process is selective at best. It doesn't give me a lot of faith, but as the authors tend to be experts, I'm happy enough sticking with the generally reliable for factual claims bit.
• The columnists are a different matter, especially as regards living people. Without a clear editorial process evaluating claims about living people, I think columns should be regarded as equivalents to SPS. Viable under WP:Parity in regard to their expertise, but not to be used in BLPs.

There aren't any glaring red flags, but I look at it as a source that requires caution, if only due to being highly partisan, and probably a bit too risky in regards to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point about columns and BLPs.

Let's look at a particular column (I chose the first column in the current issue to avoid cherry picking):

• The Philosopher’s Corner: Science Denialism Is a Form of Pseudoscience

The author, Massimo Pigliucci, is clearly a subject-matter expert in the areas of evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, and pseudoscience. Let's look at a claim in this column that might be used as a source in a BLP:

"My colleague Sven Ove Hansson of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has written an insightful paper about this... Hansson begins by distinguishing two kinds of bad epistemic practices that fall under the broader umbrella of pseudoscience: science denialism and pseudotheory promotion."

I see no problem with using this as a source in the Sven Ove Hansson BLP describing (with attribution) Hansson's paper. To my mind a blanket prohibition of SI columns in BLPs would be too broad. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is "I found a random statement in one column and it is good - therefore it is all good?" Surely you can see the problem with that. - Bilby (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as a mischaracterization, given the last sentence of Guy Macon's comments above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The prohibition on using self published sources in BLPs is not based on whether or not they occasionally make accurate statements we could potentially use. It is based on the idea that without adequate independent fact checking, we need to assume that they are unreliable. The occasional accurate statement in an SPS does not mean that we can use them. That said, we have been able to use them as statements about the opinion of the author - so if Guy's claim was "we could write according to X ..." I'd be much more open to the argument. - Bilby (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So would you say a blanket prohibition would be too broad, and certain statements could be used with attribution? Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, just that is how we would use an SPS without violating BLPSPS. What I'd like to know if there is evidence that columnists are put through a proper editorial process before publication. What they say is that authors are responsible for the accuracy of their own content, and that "technical or controversial matters" may be sent to reviewers. But does that extend to statements about living people made by columnists? In a lot of these publications, online columns are treated effectively as blogs, so I'd like to know if they are treated differently here. - Bilby (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide evidence supporting your claim that SI columns are self-published sources ("online columns are treated effectively as blogs"). WP:SPS says this:

"Anyone 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, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

That is quite different from a column by a subject matter expert that goes through the usual editorial review that pretty much every printed periodical goes through before being sent to the printing press. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Many of these are online-only columns, so what happens with a printed periodical may not apply and there is nothing to suggest that they are reviewed. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support the characterization of Skeptical Enquirer as generally reliable for factual claims. Evidence for SI being de facto unreliable is lacking and, as evinced immediately above by Guy, a broad-stroke prohibition on using SI for BLPs would be harmful to the encyclopedia. That said, the use of SI for any content within BLPs, whether "positive," "negative," or "neutral" in nature, should always be done with care (as a matter of course) and explicit attribution. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source for facts?

1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact;
2. Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply;
3. Generally unreliable for supporting statements of fact; or
4. Should be deprecated.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Skeptical Inquirer

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to pseudoscientific claims, fake products, and fringe theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• 2: Other considerations apply - Articles in the source can be suitable for WP:PARITY statements, but due to their strong POV, and lack of editorial control (The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective - from SI's Submission Guidelines), editors should be cautious of their use outside of those areas, particularly regarding BLP's.

The columns should generally be avoided, with the only exception being when the author is a subject-matter expert and the article is not a BLP, given the lack of evidence of any editorial control, and the fact that some columns have been written with the intent of them being used as sources for Wikipedia BLP's.

I would note that while the articles are suitable for parity statements, editors should be cautious when using the source to both introduce and rebut fringe claims; in such circumstances, mentioning the fringe claim is likely to be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and blacklist via the WP:Spam blacklist. The fact that it specifically makes no claim to fact-checking or accuracy makes it useless as a source, even for WP:PARITY purposes - anyone trying to cite parity to argue for this source needs to actually read what parity says; it is obviously inapplicable. Parity allows us to use non-academic / non-peer-reviewed sources and sources of somewhat lower quality in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source, but it doesn't allow us to totally ignore WP:RS, which would be necessary to use this source at all in any context; since Skeptical Inquirer performs no fact-checking, it is comparable to eg. Forbes contributors and provides no reliability beyond a WP:SPS. On its own that would just get a red / generally unreliable rating, but it has also been systematically spammed, and there's no reason to think that that is going to stop. The spamming of an unreliable source means this is a case for the spam blacklist, which exists precisely to prevent that sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI's article submission guidelines don't say that they don't fact-check anything. The full quote is The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. The Editor checks it, and if they need help they'll get another reviewer. The author is responsible for not wasting the editor's time with poorly researched junk. That's how more or less every non-peer reviewed publication works. If we were to disqualify SI on this basis I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It states "will often"; we can't determine from that when the editor decides to send it off to reviewers, or how often they decide to do that - all we know is that they place all responsibility for accuracy of fact and perspective on the author. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is one of several comments that led me to add a comment to the discussion saying that I think we need a resource educating Wikipedians about the realities of how oversight at publishers work. You are generally a well-informed editor, but I find this comment naive: publishing venues with any substantial momentum are regularly going to put their editors in difficult situations. We should not bring a narrow box-ticking mentality to assessing publishing venues but decide what level of trust we should put in the venue based on its fruits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. Any examples? Honest question. JBchrch talk 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a peer reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. Their manuscript guidelines include: Authors are responsible for accuracy of their manuscripts, so ask colleagues to help review your draft before submitting it. National Defense Magazine is currently cited hundreds of times on Wikipedia. Their contribute an article page includes the text Authors are responsible for accuracy of all material reported. As User:Alexbrn notes in the discussion section, much is being made of a boilerplate phrase that can be found in the policies of many publications. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, and SI isn't. If National Defense Magazine publishes unreviewed texts by non-subject matter experts, then they should be booted off Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a non-sequitur. Are we going to discount the New York Times because its editorial processes rarely involve peer review? — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. See my support comment in the previous section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• 3: Treat as self-published. Per their Article Submission Guidelines, which indicate that they publish articles from outside authors with no review or fact-checking in many cases as a matter of principle (see "Categories, Topics, and General Information") correction JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC). As a result, it's essentially equivalent to a group blog or, rather, one of those "academic blogs", which feature shorter works by subject matter experts—but, crucially, not only subject matter experts. Examples in my field of interest include the Columbia Blue Sky Blog or the Oxford Business Law Blog. In all of these cases, many works published on these websites are citable because they are written by authors who fit the WP:SPS criteria. But that determination has to be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who the author is, whether they are a subject-matter expert, and with respect to what field they are a subject-matter expert. JBchrch talk 04:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked the link and looks like what you say ("no review or fact-checking as a matter of principle") is simply untrue: in particular, "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers". Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Read the sentence you're quoting: The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. So, in principle, no review. Maybe "as a matter of principle" was not the correct language, but this sentence says all we need to know: most of this stuff has not been reviewed. JBchrch talk 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Alexbrn Since you have accused me of saying "wrong things" below, I've made the correction that you pointed out. JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. I generally concur with MrOllie here. The idea that it has no editorial control whatsoever is not borne out by their statements, and I've yet to see a pattern established of them being, well, factually wrong. Nor does a source having been used inappropriately on Wikipedia translate to unreliability. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There were a few examples in the previous discussion, but this article demonstrates the lack of editorial control. The underlying premise and conclusion is fine, but the issue is the method used - the author decided to invent a new field called "forensic caricaturing", which involves proving that two images are of different people by caricaturizing the photos, allowing differences to be more readily perceived. The issues with modifying evidence through subjective methods to prove a point are obvious, but were not identified by the editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The real procedure here was to look at the photograph and the sketch produced by the psychic and observe that they don't look much alike (anyone can replicate this part). The 'method' you are concerned about was just a means to make a graphic to go with the article: I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. I finally decided to create a new field, “forensic caricaturing. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The method was the means the author proved it, and that is the issue. The fact that they could have proven it through dozens of ways that don't involve modifying evidence through subjective methods is not relevant. Moved from here to try and make the conversations possible to understand. MrOllie, please move back if you believe that location is more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It is not "clearly wrong", and you did not "explain it above". Dorothy Allison is not a psychic, and the two pictures do not depict the same person. Nickell just used a way of emphasizing differences to make them clearer. As he wrote, I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. He could have done that, and the result would have been the same. SI is not "wrong", let alone "clearly wrong", it just used a didactic tool you did not like. You are grasping at straws, just as you are grasping at straws with your "imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Let me just point out that the author of the article being criticized is Joe Nickell, a formidable investigator and forensic expert. And this is not an example of lack of editorial control, or of a bad method. As a forensic expert myself, I have to say that his use of caricatures is just a clever, as well as amusing, tool to make the differences between the two faces more easibly distinguishable. There is nothing wrong here. The comparison with "using dowsing rods to figure out the shape of the Earth" is completely bogus.VdSV9•♫ 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Modifying evidence through subjective methods is wrong. It might be entertaining, but publications that seek to be entertaining rather than correct typically have reliability issues - see the opinion content of Fox News, which has the same intent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

              Have you ever read the data-driven reporting from The Economist [138] [139] [140], FiveThirtyEight [141] [142], The Atlantic [143] [144] [145], etc. etc. Such pieces often "modify evidence through subjective methods". One must choose the reporting bounds, the resolution, even the color scheme.

              Data categorization, visualization, and interpretation are inherently subjective endeavors. Journalism is an inherently subjective endeavor [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] that strives to be as factual and objective as possible, but acknowledges its failure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

              SI changed the data to make their point, while the examples you provided did not. If 538 had changed the educational rate of voters in counties to better indicate the trend, then it would be equivalent - but they didn't, and if they had we would be questioning their reliability. Alternatively, if SI had cut out parts of the images - such as only showing the jaw lines, to emphasise the differences between the two - then it would also have been equivalent, and we would not be discussing this example as there would not be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Additional considerations apply. I don't feel we can give this publication a blanket pass. It does seem to mix opinion and fact and lack a clear cut editorial policy. However, it does not appear to publish false information any more frequently than, say, The Times. Individual articles should be judged on their merits, which can be discussed at the relevant talk page. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ok for some facts per WP:PARITY, although better sources are preferable. Not ok for BLPs. Fundamentally, this is a highly partisan site aimed at beliefs, actions and individuals they disagree with. As such, I do not believe that it is reliable when it comes to living people, much as is the case with other highly partisan sites. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. Too much emphasis is being placed on peer review. Here are over 20 peer reviewed journals on homeopathy Here is a peer reviewed journal on cryptozoology. Here is a peer reviewed journal of 911 Studies. The question is does SI publish recognized experts saying true things? Yes, yes they do. Have they published misinformation, or lies? I haven't seen any compelling evidence. Is their track record as good as other reliable sources? Geogene complains above that SI is used when other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact This is not how sourcing policy works. Citing a random personal blog for "the sky is blue" in Rayleigh scattering is worse than not sourcing the statement at all. There is no reason to use low quality sources when better sources are available, see for example WP:BESTSOURCES. Problematically, SI often strays into high profile areas, into geopolitics, where better sourcing is available. Havana syndrome is another example of this. What if, hypothetically, one of SI's dubious experts decides tomorrow that Novichok isn't a real chemical weapon and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was a mass hysteria? Recent experience has shown that editors will go to that page to try to use it as a source, to "counterbalance" mainstream sources. Geogene (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Any source may hypothetically publish something daft. I'm interested in actual examples. Again, what is this "review of a cancer researcher's book" in SI you mentioned above? Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  What are you saying here, Alexbrn? That since any source can publish nonsense, they're all of equal quality? Surely not. Geogene (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, but a source isn't unreliable because of what it might do in your imagination. Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others. Again, what is this cancer review you invoked above as an example of SI problems? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others I agree with this point, but SI's contributors' field(s) of expertise needs to be defined. I view it as a usually reliable, but low prominence Parity source. Geogene (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which is why your cancer example is of interest. Link please! Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  (...Sound Of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable wrt to facts. Opinion pieces still need to be cited as opinions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact As others have been saying above, their main articles are fine to use as is, but any opinion pieces need to be attributed to the authors. The good thing, also as many have noted, is that their opinion pieces are almost always done by a notable expert who also often already has a Wikipedia article anyways. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to SI that I've been seeing taking advantage of the source's admission of negatively covering pseudoscience are those who would want said pseudoscience to be positively covered and are using this as an opportunity to try and remove one of the primary sources of debunking WP:FRINGE topics out there. Silverseren^C 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren, LuckyLouie, and Shibbolethink: I believe most editors who question its reliability support its use for WP:PARITY statements, but have concerns about its use beyond debunking fringe topics. As your response appears focused on its use in fringe areas, is this a position you could agree with; can be used for parity, but should generally be avoided outside of fringe areas. Pinging LuckyLouie and Shibbolethink as well, as their comments were similar. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. SI actually describes itself as focused on "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" — which is the bulk of its content. And most Wikipedians agree (me included) that opinion pieces should be attributed ("According to John Smith..."). Here's the latest issue [151], can you indicate which content is unreliable, should be avoided, etc.? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It is what it is primarily focused on, but use of the source often goes beyond that, and given the issues with the source it seems likely that this shouldn't be happening. In response to your question, I would recommend avoiding content that is not being used to rebut fringe statements. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Their "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" sync with mainstream scientific thought. Obvious caveats are that unambiguous SI opinion pieces should be attributed, especially in the context of BLPs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. As with many GREL publications, there are also opinion pieces published here, and those require additional considerations such as attribution, closer scrutiny for evaluating DUE, etc. As others here have said, the reporting standards of SI are not very different from most other publications in this area, or in popular journalism in general. It checks facts which are contentious with external review, it has standards for who it allows to publish, and it has an editorial process. I want to emphasize, the factual reporting of SI makes it an essential source for matters which have serious parity issues, such as pseudoscience, charlatans, the paranormal, hoaxes, and the occult. Many wiki articles about these subjects are overly laudatory, and lack a skeptical perspective to achieve NPOV balance in due proportion to reliable sources. They are overly reliant on in-universe content, because of a very common problem: The more FRINGE a topic, the more polarized the sources, and the more interested editors may be biased in favor of the subject. This is similar to Brandolini's law, or its sub-corollary that proponents of a fringe topic will almost always know more about it, and in more detail, in-universe, than critics of that fringe topic will know negative content. In order to maintain DUE and BALANCE, we need more reliable independent sources like SI to counter that common bias. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. All the reasoning above about no fact-checking is crap, and it has already been refuted in the section above the survey. To repeat: Even scientific journals do not check all facts. Peer-review, for example, does not mean that the peers go to the lab of the authors and check all the records. So, there are unchecked facts in scientific journals! Deprecate them all! There has not even been one single example given about anything SI ever got wrong. I am not saying there isn't - there must be, it is unavoidable that it will happen at some time in 40 years, even if you extremely careful. But the fact that not one of SI's detractors has named such a blooper tells you that its supposed unreliability is just hypothetical, not real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • First, you could have referred to this better, for example, by saying "08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)". (I guess that is whyt you meant.) Then I could have searched the page for that instead of for your name or XOR'easter's. Thank you for unnecessarily wasting my time.
    • Second, you found an example of something you disagreed with, not an example of something where SI clearly got it wrong. If someone wanted to quote that one in an article, they would fail because it would be WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except it is clearly wrong, as I explained above - I would even go so far as to call the chosen method pseudoscience. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        BilledMammal, I would implore you to re-read the article you link again. The 'forensic caricature' which gives you so much pause (and understandably so) seems obviously to me to be (1) tongue-in-cheek; and (2) a description of the method for illustrating differences--not in fact a heuristic for coming to the conclusion. You can certainly take issue with the conclusion or actual method by which it was reached (which seems to have been "I see differences"), but I think your description here is a bit off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        • I am responding to this above, where the same discussion is duplicated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I haven't seen anything published in SI that has been so egregiously incorrect as to call into question its reliability. Of course, such honorifics can be taken to extremes. I've seen people argue that obvious typos need to be accepted at face value because a reliable source printed it. The word generally is the key term here. jps (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable and worth noting that scepticism (sometimes spelled skepticism) is merely a public reflection of mainstream science, something ARBCOM would do well to acknowledge. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Of course it's generally reliable for supporting statements of fact within its topic—the authors and the publication are generally good and suitably credentialed. Is there evidence of any substantive and incorrect information in Skeptical Inquirer? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to Shame on Shamus Sham? That mentions The Mystery Chronicles: More Real-Life X-Files,^details with publisher: "The University Press of Kentucky (UPK) is the scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth of Kentucky". You might argue that someone with no qualifications in examination of faces is not a reliable source to point out that two faces have marked differences and are obviously not the same person. But to claim that conclusion is incorrect would be absurd—have a look at the photos. The question of whether SI is reliable of course depends on what fact it is being used to verify but if WP:PARITY were being used to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer, the source would be perfect. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The conclusion is correct, but that isn't enough for a source to be usable; the method the conclusion is arrived at also needs to be correct. An equivalent example would be someone proving the earth is round using dowsing rods; even though the conclusion is correct, the method means that we cannot use the source. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you did not read my question which asked for an example of incorrect information. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Can you explain what the difference is? It doesn't matter why the source is unusable - incorrect method or incorrect conclusion - just that it is unusable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • A lot of time has been wasted (see Arbcom proposed remedies) mainly because participants have been unable to respond in a logical fashion. I asked if there is an example of SI publishing incorrect information. Your response implied that such an example can be found above. I hunted for it and found the article to be 100% correct. Now you are shifting the goalposts to say that this example is correct but is unusable as a source. Did you see where I pointed out that the article would be reliable to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer? Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that the article is correct. In the future, if you're going to respond, please make it logical. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
              • Sorry, it appears I was not clear. The example provided is an example of SI publishing incorrect information, as the method the conclusion is arrived at is not correct. This means we cannot use the article, even as a parity source - just as we could not use an article proving the earth is round using dowsing, even as a parity source, as it would be incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                • Regarding simple logic, are you aware that "the method the conclusion is arrived at" is totally irrelevant for whether this is "an example of SI publishing incorrect information"? I might conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow by consulting a psychic. My method is bogus but the conclusion is correct. After all these replies you still have not identified any substantive and incorrect information published in SI. And you fail to respond to the point that the SI source would be suitable to counter a claim from a psychic. Please either answer my question with an example of incorrect information, or agree that no such example is known. After that, we can debate how SI authors arrive at their conclusions and whether a particular article would be suitable as a reference for a particular assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall - would you really consider an article claiming that the sun would rise tomorrow because a psychic told the author to not be incorrect? And I have responded to that point; per my !vote above, SI would generally be suitable as a WP:PARITY source. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall This is your opinion of how "correctness" should be determined. It is not wikipedia's. See, for example: WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    This definition of correctness is widely held; for example: do you consider a person proving the sun will rise tomorrow with the help of a psychic to be correct? I also don't believe WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant to a discussion about whether a source is reliably "correct". BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    I think you have completely misapprehended Joe Nickell here. The claim he is debunking is no more solid than the method he is using, and that's rather his point. He is meeting the argument on its own terms and thereby argues that the entire premise is quite ridiculous. This is rather like when cynical commentators use the methods of creationists to "prove" evolution. The point of such exercises is not to say that such methods are the way things should be done. The point is to show that they don't even do what they claim to do. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Which is the issue. Neither the claim, nor the rebuttal, are reliable, and publishing either raises questions about the publisher, and suggests that at best they seek to entertain, rather than inform. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable due to it being a self-admitted biased publication that has a problem with issuing corrections. I don't have the entire collection of SI handy to provide issue dates, so I am relying on my memory, but there was an Editor's note some recent years ago where the magazine proudly proclaimed its content was non-neutral. It also once falsely claimed as a puzzle answer that the source of the quotation "Everyone who believes in telekinesis raise my hand" was writer Kurt Vonnegut (It's a one-liner by comedian Emo Philips). They never published a correction, so it makes me wonder how many other errors they wouldn't correct over its publishing history. I also note famous skeptical writers Robert Shaeffer, Gary Poser, and much earlier Marcello Truzzi quit their association with its publisher for similar reasons over bias. Its use as a source should be considered on a case by case basis. 5Q5|^✉ 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They admit to bias, and so do we. What is the issue here? Why admiting to one's own biases would not be a good thing? I thought we were discussing reliability. Do you have any evidence to the claim that they have a problem with issuing corrections? I have yet to see a publication that never makes a mistake, and I don't expect them to catch and publish corrections to all of them. The one you caught may have slipped by, I have seen other mistakes they've made, but that's a long shot for claiming a publication has such a bad record as to be "marginally reliable". VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "They admit to bias, and so do we...": Who exactly is we? WP:GOODBIAS links to a user page. GretLomborg (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - It seems strange to again have a thread about this source. It's often useful for WP:PARITY. If the recent ARBCOM case was an excuse to repost this, it doesn't have to do with if this source is reliable or not... —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - No meaningful evidence has been presented by the other side. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - Surprised this is even up for discussion, SI is an absolutely irreplaceable tool in the coverage of fringe. Obviously, it has to be used with a certain amount of care, because they're advocates not journalists, but absolutely meets RS. Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable—on top of the issues discussed above, the biggest queries I often have is—can this be replaced with a better source? And if it can't, is the topic actually something we should be covering? Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with topics that should be receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. We're not Quackwatch or a place to relentlessly catalog frauds and hucksters and pseudoscience just because it's pseudoscience. It's a different remit. If you can't find good coverage of a topic besides SI, I'd question whether the topic is actually notable in the first place. And if SI is the only place "rebutting" another POV, that implies fringe POVs. It should be used sparingly, and generally treated as a SPS and looking to the author given its lack of editorial controls.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Shibbolethink's point about the importance of this publication for maintaining DUE and BALANCE is well made. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1/2: - Reliable but considerations apply for opinion pieces. I also don't think we should lean on skepticism magazines for statements of fact in scientific subjects. We have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for that. CutePeach (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how to count a "1/2" !vote. Some considerations apply for all opinion pieces, even those that we determine are generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. And nothing in WP:SCHOLARSHIP in any way implies that other sources (WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED) are unreliable or marginally reliable -- just that we should "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent". Could you please make your !vote clear so we can get a clean count that nobody can dispute? Suggestions:

• "1 with the usual cautions about opinion pieces and bias",
• "2 [list of considerations as to why certain claims in this source aren't to be trusted in specific situations]",
• "1 second choice 2",
• "2 second choice 1".

Any of those or something similar will be easy to count and hard to dispute --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact - I have spent a long time thinking about this and looking for secondary sources and other mentions, but there's a funny issue insofar as it seems the magazine occupies a very specific niche. It is largely hegemonic in the kookier pseudoscientific field--you don't get scholarly journals which spend time debunking interdimensional bigfoot, to put it crudely. That largely means its existence is sort of unexamined; when it comes up in major news sources, it tends to be noted and quickly ignored (from what I can tell). That said, I would obviously be open if anyone has found better sources than I have (which is certainly possible). Still, I think there is a general reputation for accuracy, without implying perfection, and to me, the fact-checking concerns are overwrought (though it would be nice to know more). So, this is where I stand, though I reserve the right to change my mind as new information is adduced. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 It looks like they have sufficient editorial controls; while they take submitted articles they do send them for review and generally have a policy against publishing obvious falsehoods. The boilerplate "authors are responsible for their own content" is not particularly problematic for me. --Jayron32 16:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of factOption 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply, with the usual opinion caveat. With that said, I have two specific concerns about it's use. First is it's use in BLPs, as it is clearly biased, and columns written with the aim to get negative information added to Wikipedia and search results is a real concern for me. Generally, I would treat any stings and the like as primary sources, and would not include them unless they are covered by additional secondary sources. Second is to make sure information sourced to SI is WP:DUE. If there are no other secondary sources covering something, especially in a BLP, it likely should not be in the article at all. If the only reliable source that says Subject A believes interdimensional Bigfoot faked the moon landed is also the source debunking dimension shifting yetis pulling hoaxes, it's probably not due for inclusion. While I'm less bothered than some others by its use when better sources exist, it should generally not be used far outside the topic of skepticism, i.e. in Anorexia nervosa. Also, I believe Dumuzid puts it best, Reasonable minds may differ, of course. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been giving this a fair amount of additional thought, and have decided to adjust my !vote. Firstly, there are many comparing SI to a journal. If this is true, it does not have a peer review process, and per WP:RS, Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. All mentions of using journals as sources hinges on them being peer reviewed or a well regarded academic press, which SI is not. WP:RS also says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. SI is not "high-quality" when compared to other high-quality non-scholarly sources. They do not have a strong, established editorial policy, or a team of fact checkers reading and vetting articles. High-quality non-scholarly sources, like the New York Times, have teams of fact checkers that verify facts in articles. They have strong editorial processes, and a published standard of ethical journalism.[152] They have a reputation for fact checking and correcting errors.
    There's also the bias and advocacy issues. Again, using the New York Times as a benchmark, review the tone of [153] and [154], While consultations can feel very therapeutic, he said, these online marketplaces are full of fraudsters, looking to trick vulnerable clients out of their money... This exchange is a gift to critics looking for examples of how Gwyneth Paltrow’s wellness media empire peddles expensive quackery in the name of self-care. They clearly state the issues with psychics and quackery, and call such things out, but they don't refer to people as grief vampires, or write in an overly sensationaist tone, Maybe I missed the press release and the Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded to Henry for breaking the natural laws of the known universe. Possibly the smoke from the burning of all the textbooks that now need to be rewritten has polluted the atmosphere to the point that I forgot when this discovery was announced. That kind of writing is fine and good, but it's not a high quality source for an encyclopedia. This Guardian article on the ethics of stings in journalism puts a large emphasis on editorial oversight, and again, that's not something we see with this source.
    WP:PARITY usage is fine, but usage in BLPs and making contentious statements should be limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply: it's a self-declared and heavily WP:PARTISAN source that covers scientific topics from a non-academic, popular journalism perspective. Just on this score it would be easily recognized by everyone as generally unreliable, if not for two facts: (1) for some aspects of some fringe topics, there is no other and better source, which makes it usable under WP:PARITY, and (2) there are quite a few editors who are specifically here on WP to fight fringe, and they have no qualms with applying different standards to sources which they regard as useful in 'fighting the good fight'. In particular, the !votes for "option 1. generally reliable" that cite WP:PARITY as a rationale should be discounted because, apart from the fact that WP:PARITY does not automagically render a source generally reliable, a source that is truly generally reliable in and of itself would never need WP:PARITY in the first place. Instead, the fact that WP:PARITY applies shows that additional considerations apply which in some cases may legitimize the use of an otherwise marginally reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality, and that we ought to find sources that are neutral and balanced in the debate between Swiss watchmakers and time cube proponents. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And we've had some discussions before about "we can never know anything" philosophical statements (that may well belong in a philosophy article but that is by no means appropriate in practice for Wikipedia)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Indeed, if "Universal Skeptic Inquirer" exists, I am sure it is NOT reliable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks for illustrating my point, y'all? Anyway, as you know, I take the view that we're WP:NOTBIASED, and that as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to always look for the best sources. This of course doesn't mean something 'between' an anti-fringe magazine and fringe magazines, but academic, peer-reviewed sources. The magazine can be cited when nothing better is available. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Headbomb that is a false equivalence, and a particularly hyperbolic one at that. SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact. It is not unreasonable for atheist, skeptical, or "free thinker" publications to be criticized as biased (similar to the way new atheists have been criticized as evangelical and militant). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2:Marginally reliable Apaugasma put it best. Parity doesn't grant a source reliability, nor should we take a popular science magazine as equal to journalism with a proven track record or peer reviewed academic journals. It would be mind-boggling to me for the community to accept History (American TV network)'s magazine as reliable for statements of fact. Additionally, their strong partisan point of view in their coverage of living people as well as their publishing of opinions by non-medical professionals in medical topics is highly problematic when using it on Wikipedia. I have little confidence in their editorial oversight. That's not to say their contributors aren't usually experts, but I think that's better covered by attribution than trusting a marginally reliable source. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  One of the issues is how widely the source (or parent company) is being used for areas where the contributors don't have any experience. For example, Benjamin Radford is cited for his experience in avalanches, suicide-by-self-immolation rates in the developing world (40%!), antisemitism by the Nation of Islam, short-term memory, and organ transplantation procedures. Massimo Polidoro is cited on Roman persecution of Christians and medical side-effects of chastity belts. They are frequently cited in areas that demand tertiary sources or as gratuitous fancruft, such as in articles about law, the immune system, and opioid addiction treatment. I haven't even looked at the claims they make in BLPs, but the issues I show above are already enough for me to not support the source as generally reliable (especially the MEDRS violations). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is high-quality popular press and particularly useful in its niche: coverage of WP:FRINGE topics. Not WP:MEDRS, and any use for biographical content should be cautious. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact is i think inline with most of WP:RSNP, tho also think that the green color and "generally reliable" gives too much license and editors should be more critical of sources across the board. Problematic usage of the source:

• Does not meet the WP:BLP requirement to adhere strictly to WP:V's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. There are most likely very reasonable usages of the source within a BLP context, but it's hard to look at for example: ...applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia and find good guidance for that. I think if a source is reasonable in criticizing a persons ideas rather than attacking the character of that person, and has some reputation as a publisher we can rely on, then that should meet the BLP burden. But there is no support for that view in the policies and guidelines.
• "America's Longest and Costliest Criminal Trial" an expert author and used for non-controversial statements in McMartin preschool trial and Paul and Shirley Eberle, but the content of the article at SI is beyond the competence of the publisher. Even though it is just a book review, this source should be used nowhere near this topic.
• Elizabeth Loftus and Taus v. Loftus, another instance of SI going beyond its competence and here the publisher is not an independent source.
• Stephen Novella's "It’s Time for Science-Based Medicine" in Science-Based Medicine, marginally promotional YMMV.
• Strategic lawsuit against public participation#Germany WP:UNDUE and promotional
• CVS_Pharmacy#Sale of homeopathic remedies publisher not independent for topic
• Criticism of Walmart publisher not independent for topic

Count my vote as Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply if the limited fact-checking, BLP concerns, and restriction to areas of competence for the publisher aren't strongly reflected in the closing summary. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the history of the articles where CSI is involved in lawsuits and the editors making those changes there is evidence of blatant misuse of the source. Combined with the inability of some taking part in the discussion below to take on board criticism and acknowledge the limitations of the source i think a much stronger warning and much higher burden for usage is appropriate. I realize this is an editor problem and not a real problem with a source, but if WP can't count on good judgment from those wishing to use articles from this publisher then more forceful warning in the RSPN entry is probably appropriate. At least Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply. fiveby(zero) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - leaning option 3, They admit to not having editorial oversight of the articles they publish. Full stop! Maybe they check some, who knows which those are? What we do know is they specifically say they do not on all their articles. That said, if it is by an expert in a field then considerations apply there. I would not use them for BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. My view of the magazine matches Guy Macon. SI has a good reputation and reports on topics that are important to Wikipedia. I haven't seen anyone offer strong evidence that they routinely publish inaccurate information.Talrolande (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Skeptical Inquirer

• Are there any actual examples to be considered? Or is this another case of WP:RSP-itis? Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that there's a discussion above on an ArbCom finding of fact, the point of this is to try to more explicit gauge community consensus on the reliability of the publication. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The FoF is just that, and not up for debate. But even arbcom seem to think the idea of a forced RfC for an RfC's sake is daft. What evidence are you bringing to the table here that would give "the community" something to chew on? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment is it understood here that a GREL consensus means within its area of expertise? SI's area of expertise is in proving that Sasquatch isn't real, and that kind of thing. But I've seen editors try to use it outside that area, including for a review of a cancer researcher's book (no connection to FRINGE) and a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals). Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually fake explosive detectors are in the same realm as proving Sasquatch isn't real in my opinion. Both are based on magical thinking. I assume you are referring to dowsing rods and such similar things. Debunking these has been the venue of SI authors since its inception. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, SI was citing ABC News for their info about the dowsing rod devices being fake, so the Wiki article, Explosive detection should have directly used ABC, or any better source than that, and not SI. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Geogene could you gives links for those two specific cases? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My intent in linking WP:GREL is to indicate that, though discussion on its area of expertise might be helpful if you think that there are some areas where it is more reliable and some where it is less. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Above, Geogene mentions SI's coverage of "a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals)."

This appears to be in reference to The Legacy Of Fake Bomb Detectors In Iraq.

Here is the BBC's coverage of this: The story of the fake bomb detectors

And here is Jame Randi on same: A Direct, Specific, Challenge From James Randi and the JREF

And here is our article: ADE 651

This is exactly the sort of thing SI writes about and is expert in. Skeptical publications regularly cover things like laundry balls, fake bomb detectors, magic cancer pills, etc. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly -- this was well covered by world-class journalists, including the BBC. So was a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters the best possible source for that? Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices? It's weird that SI was the source for that, and not Foreign Affairs [155], The Atlantic [156], or The Guardian [157] or CNN [158]. This was not a WP:Parity situation. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I get that you don't like SI, but "a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters"??? Evidence, please. A quick look at https://skepticalinquirer.org/ clearly shows that SI covers a much wider range of issues than you imply.

Re "Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices?", the author is Benjamin Radford, and it doesn't take an expert on bomb detection devices to determine that dowsing rods don't detect explosives. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they are asking why we want to use SI for such an article, given there are many better sources available - more reputable, more neutral, and with stronger editorial controls? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re, Look, I get that you don't like SI no, I've found that SI has its uses [159]. Radford's BLP you linked to says he's into psychics, ghosts, exorcisms, miracles, Bigfoot, stigmata, lake monsters, UFO sightings, reincarnation, crop circles, and other topics, so I don't think what I said about SI's content is unfair. I agree with your point that it doesn't take an expert to prove that dowsing rods don't detect explosives, but I would take that argument a step further, and say that scientific skeptics are generally not "experts" at much of anything for that reason -- you don't need experts to refute obvious nonsense. Your typical scientific skeptic is just a self-taught hobbyist with a blog/podcast/YouTube channel. And that lack of expertise is why SI shouldn't be used anywhere Parity doesn't apply. Again, I don't have a problem with using it to say that Sasquatch isn't real in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is jumping the gun a little bit. The issues that have been brought up with the source deal with columns by non-experts, saying operations, contentious statements about BLPs, and parity. The discussion should be focused on those, rather than a general RSP style RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying there are additional considerations might well apply to the source regarding BLP? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  They normally do. A source can be good enough for some statements, but still not meet BLP standards. That's more-or-less the argument regarding WP:PARITY - you can use poorer sources on fringe topics as there aren't always high quality ones, but BLP still applies and takes precedence. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I pointed this out above, but since it seems to be at the crux of the discussion - WP:PARITY does not generically allow "poorer" sources. The only thing it does is allow us to use non-peer-reviewed (but otherwise WP:RS) sources in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source. (More specifically, as it explains, it exists to allow non-peer-reviewed RSes to be used to balance out low-quality peer-reviewed sources, which are common in certain fringe areas like creationism and homeopathy. It's not intended to let us cite a complete non-RS.) If a source has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy or exerts no meaningful editorial controls, PARITY does nothing to allow it to be used. The issue with Skeptical Inquirer is not that it lacks peer review, it is that it lacks any sort of fact-checking and accuracy at all, which is way, way beyond anything PARITY can heal. --Aquillion (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Because columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs. Also the tone and writing in many columns and articles shows disdain and outright hostility towards people. We shouldn't be importing that into an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Evidence, please. That's a serious charge, and goes way beyond any evidence presented at Arbcom. Also, it would be very entertaining watching you try to create a policy of rejecting sources because you don't like their tone. You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people who get rich selling ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure.[160] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision#Susan_Gerbic's_writing_for_Skeptical_Inquirer this finding of fact also links to evidence. As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? Not helpful, SFR, and possibly an aspersion. I suggest that we all remember the basketball strategy of playing the ball, not the man. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you take a peek at what I was responding to, You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people... I have that same hostility and disdain as well, but I wouldn't use me as a source when I told a friend of mine from years ago that she wasn't "starspawn" or an "indigo child." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between...

• "Susan Gerbic has written articles in Skeptical Inquirer, and has stated an intent of having those articles be used as sources on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living people. GSoW members have edited BLPs to include negative material sourced to Susan Gerbic's articles. This has created the appearance of collaborative editing to create negative BLPs."

...and...

• "columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs."

The first, which seems accurate to me, implies a COI problem -- the person who wrote the column should not add it to the article, either personally or by proxy. It does not imply that the column was in any way inaccurate or that it should or should not be used as a source (but it has to be used by someone with no COI). The second, which I don't believe happened, implies deliberately creating negative material for the purpose of the negative material ending up in a BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

...and in fact, one of the voting arbs made this specific point (that the source being unreliable isn't the problem but the COI is):

"This isn't a self-published blog, it's (to the best of my knowledge) a reliable source which is clear about which way it leans - indeed, it is something we should be considering as a source when writing an article. However, subverting the content building process by co-ordinated pushing of these sources, especially in a way that can cause real world harm to living individuals, well, a line has been crossed." (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Watch some of the videos linked to in the evidence. She explicitly says she writes articles so negative information does up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how evidence works. You are the one making the claim. Either post a URL of a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that she writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles, or apologize and retract your claim. I have already identified a case (see above) where your paraphrase completely twisted the meaning of the original statement, so lacking a specific time stamp to a specific video I have to assume that you are doing it again. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the videos is here: 10:36 In effect, a subject was targeted who was largely unknown at the time, with 7+ columns then published in Skeptical Inquirer as part of the campaign. This helped to give the target, Tyler Henry, just enough notability for an article, which was then developed into a hit piece [161] with a heavy reliance on articles produced for the campaign. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not true Bilby - listen to what I said again. Tyler Henry was already notable - he had a TV show that was very popular. The articles written about Henry did not give him "just enough notability" but they did add to the article. I did not tell anyone what to say, I just asked if they would "write about Tyler Henry", if the articles they wrote were critical then that is what they discovered. I was talking about Google Rankings, I very clearly state that in this talk. "Someone" created the Wikipedia article, that was NOT me nor GSoW. This is all moot anyway. ArbCom has made it's decision and we are all starting fresh with a clean slate. GSoW and I have learned our limits and will be moving forward. Drop the stick please and be done with this. Continue bringing this up over and over again is not helping anyone. I hope this is the last time I will have to respond. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not revisit this, but this is about the reliability of SI, and it wasn't an issue I raised. But no, he wasn't already notable - your specific words in the linked talk were "I have done a lot of writing about Tyler Henry, and I did that because Tyler Henry was brand spanking new - he had no criticism, nothing was known about him". Other than that, sure, you didn't create the article - but it was then taken from 300 words to criticism to over 2000 words of criticism, heavily sourced to you and SI. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This IS about the reliability of SI but somehow Tyler Henry keeps being mentioned. He was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What you quoted I said had nothing to do with Wikipedia but everything to do with Google rankings. I started writing about him after his TV show came out, he was brand new but there was enough coverage in RS to create a Wikipedia article about him. The person who did create the Wikipedia page, started with two articles that were already in the public, my article was third. Of course the Wikipedia page grew from 300 words to over 2000 words, he had a TV show and was brand new, the media was writing about him and it escalated. If the majority of the content of the Wikipedia page was critical of him, then that is what the media and RS wrote. If the RS found when they wrote about him to be genuinely communicating with dead people, then they would have written that, and that praise would be on the Wikipedia page. The content is the content. Along with his rise in fame, was the rise in RS writing about him. I wrote seven articles about Tyler Henry, why would they not be used on a Wikipedia article? If you are challenging my expertise then say so. Look Bilby - I am giving a talk - I am not reading a script written out and fussed over by lawyers I am speaking at a skeptic conference, this is not a talk at a Wiki Conference, I am having to speak in broad terms. I'm not psychic, so I didn't expect that in 2022 I would have someone picking apart every talk I've given, and analyzing every phrase. Don't read more into a talk than is really there. Please drop the stick. Again this is all moot anyway.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link. The problem is that you are playing the wrong issue - I don't really care if you wrote about him before or after the first show. I do care, when evaluating the use of Skeptical Inquirer, whether or not it has been used to run campaigns against individual people, which have then been used as the basis for hit pieces in WP. The answer is yes, on at least one occasion. Which suggests to me that there are problems with the publication. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link", yes, you did, fixing the problem that ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond when asked for a link and a timestamp. Good work.

Watching the video, it becomes obvious why ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond. I specifically asked for "a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that Susan Gerbic writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles"

That's not what the video shows. It shows Susan Gerbic writing an article and hoping that that will rank well on Google -- a perfectly normal and allowable activity -- encouraging other authors to write about the same topic -- another perfectly normal and allowable activity -- and noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based upon what gets written on a subject by various sources. This is bog standard behavior. What author doesn't want to be on the first page of the Google results on a topic? I don't know how many times I have told someone "Write an article about X and get it published. Encourage others to write about X. When there is enough published material, the topic may pass WP:GNG and the article may survive WP:AfD."

What the video does not show is any wrongdoing by Susan Gerbic. None. And even if it did that would be a matter for Arbcom or ANI, not RSNB, and would be totally irrelevant to the question of whether SI is a reliable source. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we watched the same video. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's a certain amount of mystification about what the best publishers actually achieve in terms of ensuring publications are accurate that is misleading some participants in this discussion as it has done in the past in other discussions of source reliability. Confidence in the reliability of publishing venues arises from three kinds of second-looks made in publishing: desk decisions made by the editor who has the final say on publication, peer review by experts, and fact-checking done by copy-editors. All of these are scarce, skilled labour and there is a big difference between the ideal and common practice at even the best publishers. I think we could do with some raising of our documentation of what is really going on in the publishing process. I'm concerned that there is a common tendency to think that having "high standards" in what we consider to be reliable sources improves the quality of our sourcing without enough awareness risks coming from narrowing our range of sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is a lot of confidently-stated rubbish about publishing in this thread based on an imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI. It is quite usual for a publisher, be they ever-so-eminent, to say that "responsibility for the factual accuracy of a paper rests entirely with the author".[162] (This doesn't necessarily make it true). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Such disclaimers are typically written by lawyers in an attempt to avoid lawsuits. It's a lot like the "Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental" notice you see on TV show that are obviously ripped from the headlines. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI is exactly what this is. Very well put, and worth repeating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Interesting how all the talk about peer review and editorial standards goes out the window once it's people "my side" who are concerned. We truly live in a postmodern world. Perhaps all these critical theory publications about the concept of reliability [163][164] are not as wrong as I thought. JBchrch talk 22:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is called projection. It's more that you've been caught saying wrong things, and most editors prefer to deal in fact. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    "Saying wrong things" is a very personal interpretation of our discussion above. JBchrch talk 04:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    When your false statements are refuted by evidence, that's not "very personal interpretation". Again, you are projecting a postmodern take onto the situation. I suggest, if you want to contribute usefully here, it would be better to stick to the matter at hand rather than engaging in pathetic sneers about how it's "funny how" the other "side" supposedly thinks things you imagine they think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I corrected the wording of my !vote based on your suggestion, nothing more. JBchrch talk 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    That's a start, now if you could accommodate how material that undergoes a third-party editorial and production process isn't "self-published", and correct/delete your !vote accordingly, you would be in danger of stumbling towards the sort of competence which is actually useful at this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I didn't say it was self-published, I said we should treat it as self-published. JBchrch talk 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, I reject any argument based upon "SI's area of expertise is X" or "There are better sources in area Y" that lack any evidence that the person making the argument is correct about SI's area of expertise or reliability. A claim in SI about, say, fake bomb detectors in Iraq, is as reliable as a similar statement in The New York Times and is a better source than the NYT if said fake bomb detectors turn out to be dowsing rods. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on what they were writing. If all they did was summarise an article from a more established source, then no, they are not adding anything more. If they are commenting on the unlikelihood of dowsing rods actually detecting bombs, then I don't see that you need any expertise to make that claim. If they were making the claim that dowsing rods were being employed by Iraqi military, then certainly no - I'd like a source that has some expertise and journalists on the ground in Iraq that could confirm that this was the case. Perhaps an in-depth discussion of dowsing rod physics? In the article raised previously, all they did was summarise an article from established mainstream media. In such cases, the original source is always preferable than a summary that may or may not be accurate. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to have the expertise of SI article authors judged by Wikipedia editors who think that the mechanism of dowsing rods belongs in the area of physics. The Carpenter effect is psychology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There you go then. I hope they write that article, instead of claiming to be reporting on what is happening in Iraq. I promise to read it should such occur. - Bilby (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? Is this special report or this one by an investigator, host of the podcast The Devil in the Details, and a member of the Church of Satan opinion, factual reporting, or both? How about this one, which states One example demonstrating this point is our scoring for the prediction: “Australian cricket team does very well on tour this year” (Heather Alexander, 2009). We scored that as correct—but clearly there was a 50/50 chance: the team would either do well or they would not. If every prediction was like that, the average for correct psychic predictions would have been 50 percent. The more of those types of predictions that psychics make, the closer to 50 percent correct their average will get. And they make a lot of those. That's an incorrect statement for a number of reasons, a team could do neither well or poorly, some teams are just better or worse than others, and regularly perform well or poorly. Does that make the statement false, or an opinion? Reading further, you can see that the entire true, false or too vague is entirely subjective categorization. Does that make the entire article opinion? Basically, if there is no clear line between fact based reporting and opinion/editorializing, it makes it very difficult to use the source for any statements of fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Another example, used in Bigfoot is this, to support American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot, does not appear to be an article of fact, but rather an opinion supported with arguments. Per the article, I am merely pointing out, what should now be obvious, that many of the best non-hoax encounters can be explained as misperceptions of bears. The statements of fact in the article are all pointing to other sources, that would likely make better sources. It seems if there's support for using the source for statements of fact, we'll probably need consensus on exactly how far that reaches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. And I can just see some zealous (pseudo-)sceptic editor inserting into the WP Bigfoot article, in wikivoice, something like "Most Bigfoot citings are in actuality American black bears" with a citation to that article ("an RS"!) that "verifies" that claim. (Note: my reason for calling those that might engage in that kind of behaviour "pseudosceptics" is for the reason that, anyone that would blindly accept any claim printrd in SI, no matter how shoddy, cannot, by definition, be a true sceptic, unless "sceptic" has a secondary definition as the name of a dogmatic religion in which its adherents unquestioningly accept anything their authorities tell them to. I am aware of the term's unfortunate use by wingnutter climate change denialists etc and categorically state I have no sympathy for nor anything to do with those people.) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot cannot be derived from anything the source. So, Wikipedia editors attributing a statement to a source that does not justify using it is now a reason to call the source unreliable? I just corrected the faked sentence, which any of you two could have done. Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor seems to think I make some improvements. Please try to make fewer personal attacks, and instead address the lack of any clear line between factual reporting and opinion with the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to laugh at asking Hob to do "fewer" rather than no personal attacks. Modicum ad hominem, if you will. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

In what way is it a "personal attack" to note that someone saw an error in an article, did not fix the error, yet still used it to score a point in a RSN debate? In what way is it a a "personal attack" to note that not fixing errors when you run across them calls in to question your commitment to improving the encyclopedia? I am with Hob on this one. If a Wikipedia editors attributes a claim to a source that the source does not support is in no way a reason to call the source unreliable. Not even close. In fact it looks a lot like grasping at straws. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Guy Macon Alternate Account, accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia is a personal attack. Hob has had extensive interactions with SFR before, mostly in the fringe noticeboard iirc, and a cursory look at SFR's contributions shows a strong commitment to the wiki. The fact they failed to correct a mistake on an article when using it as an example in a discussion is impossible for me to see as a valid reason to imply their motivations for editing, as a whole, are not aligned with Wikipedia. It's just petty piss-fighting at that point and more of an indication of the battleground atmosphere in this discussion than an appropriate reflection of an editor's contributions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It was not an accusation, it was a question. Its goal was to give the user a small shove to make them question their current focus and behaviour. Believe it or not, the same people can do right things and wrong things at different times, and telling them what they do wrong is not a personal attack and cannot be invalidated by the same person telling them what they did right in another case. Do I really have to start an RfC asking, "When someone misrepresents a source in an article, what should I do?" with the following options?

1. Correct the article,
2. Use the incidence to try to have source declared ureliable,
3. Start an Arbcom case to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them?

And then another one: "When you made a bad argument, such as using the misrepresentation of a source as an argument about the reliability of the source, and someone calls me on it, what should I do?" with the following options:

1. Admit the mistake,
2. Complain about perceived personal attacks?

Maybe we do need rules against that sort of shit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I didn't say telling someone what they do is wrong is a personal attack. I said that accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, which you did (making it a rhetorical question is not much of a defense in my opinion), is a personal attack. I would appreciate if instead of implying the Arbcom case was started (btw, not by SFR or myself but by GeneralNotability) in order to punish editors and their family/friends, you would try and de-escalate the situation. Our discussion here is doing nothing more than disrupting the actual discussion above on the reliability of SI. I understand if you are infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source, but your incivility is entirely unwarranted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, @2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40: you contributed nothing to the discussion except empty polemics, and you are in the wrong place. And words do often not have One True Meaning. Read the top lines of Skepticism: For the philosophical view, see Philosophical skepticism. For denial of uncomfortable truths, see Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"International Committee In Search of Justice" (ISJ)

Is a report "International Committee In Search of Justice" (ISJ) a reliable source, particularly when it makes allegations about (presumably) living persons? Google Drive link (not uploaded by me)

I have seen this report used in multiple articles. At Talk:Camp Ashraf it is being used for the claim that US officer stated that Batoul Soltani is an Iranian agent. Batoul Soltani is a woman who, in an interview with The Guardian, said she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi between 1999 and 2006 (at this time Rajavi was the leader of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)). ISJ is lead by Alejo Vidal Quadras. Its not clear who authored the report, but Quadras wrote its introduction. Quadras has financial links to the MEK[165], and according to LobbyFacts, ISJ is a paid lobbying group[166]. In other words, the same source that tries to discredit an alleged sexual abuse victim just happens to have financial links to an organization lead by the man accused of abusing her. That's a clearly not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. Besides that there seems to be no evidence of reliability or reputation for fact-checking here.

Previous discussions: [167][168] VR _talk 02:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• I can't find any information on Wikipedia about the ISJ, beyond its connection to Alejo Vidal Quadras, which is a red flag for me. It is not a journalism source, it is not a research organization, it's at best an advocacy group, and one with very low profile, which raises questions as to its reliability in regards to factual statements. A basic google search turns up almost nothing outside of its own website. I would say that it shouldn't be used for anything in a BLP at all. If it says something which is corroborated by an actual reliable source, I would just cite the reliable source. If it says things that aren't corroborated, they should not be used. --Jayron32 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. It's basically Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca's organization and not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

f-16.net

Is www.f-16.net a reliable source? –FoxtAl (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

for what? Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've left notifications at the Military History and Aircraft Wiki projects.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For what is a pertinent question but looking at the page, there is no "About" page. There is nothing to indicate that there is an editorial board exercising editorial oversight. Without further information, it would not appear to meet WP:RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content like this does not list an author or sources. Listing pseudonyms like "TheRipper" in a "special thanks" section does not inspire further confidence. News articles like this have bylines, but as observed above, there is no indicia of editorial policy/board/oversight. Gives the distinct appearance of a militaria enthusiast/hobbyist website that should not be used as a source in Wikipedia unless a specific piece of information can be explicitly attributed to a known and established subject matter expert per WP:SPS. The news articles might contain useful links to more reliable source, which in turn could be used in Wikipedia. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A site like this does not list RS sources, nor have editorial oversight, which would rate it as an reliable source. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats a hard no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it's just a fansite. An active one, but a fan site all the same. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah

Investigating the use of the book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muharraqa as a source in the article Hadith Manzalat.اوهریش (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGE MATTERS aside, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is a WP:RS for his own views. However, is it WP:DUE to include his views? In WP-land, it would be preferable to cite a reasonably modern WP:RS scholar who comments on Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's views on Hadith of position. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think the age really matters. It is about a historical event and it is not like new "evidence" is popping up about it, only analyses, evaluations and the similar. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• @اوهریش: works by 16th-century authors like Ibn Hajar al-Haytami are what we call primary sources. They are only considered reliable on Wikipedia for verifying their own content, i.e., for verifying that they indeed say what other sources say they say, for example by literally quoting them. Analysis and evaluative statements in articles should be strictly based on these other sources, i.e., what we call secondary sources: modern scholars who have studied al-Haytami's and other texts and whose interpretation of these text is reliable. Quoting primary sources to imply things for which no secondary sources exist is called original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. There's some guidance at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. However, my advice is to simply avoid the use of primary sources entirely until you get a lot more experience here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RS for Board Games- Board Game Quest, Ars Technica, Kotaku and TechRaptor

I am currently working on the board game article Scythe. Should the following be considered RS for articles covering games: Board Game Quest (which seems somewhat unreliable), Kotaku, TechRaptor and Ars Technica (the latter is an RS but for 'tech or science related' articles)? Many thanks.

Note: In error, I originally and accidentally placed this in an archived noticeboard page (337). I have reverted it now myself and corrected the mistake. Apologies- VickKiang (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're listed as an RS at WP:VGRS, they should be usable for board game articles as well. Mlb96 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Kotaku and Ars Technica are listed so, but TechRaptor is not listed as so and Board Game Quest is merely an article pertaining board games. Could you please inform me more about your opinions on those websites (I think that the latter might likely be unreliable)- VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

VGRS is not applicable since you’re talking boardgame, not videogame. I think any publisher second-party account is reasonable to use as RS. A publisher-run view is at least somewhat professional and going to be around for the cite to work. If it’s a SELFPUB review, I’d say not really usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Boardgames and videogames are close enough that I would assume good faith if someone attempted to use a source commonly used in one in the other. It is not like they are trying to use an astronomy source to discuss zoos or something like that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, there is lots of crossover between the mediums (board games that become video games, video games that become board games), and design principles piggyback off both. Any VG site reliable for VG should also be for boar games. --Masem (t) 21:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

About Board Game Quest lists most of its staff as "reviewers", which I think makes it clear that they are mostly in the business of publishing subjective opinions about games. The website could be a reliable source for the reviews published by its staff, but it's not clear to what extent a mention of their review would be WP:DUE. The home page shows that the site publishes some "Board Game News", but all of the news article are written by Tony Mastrangeli, who is also the publisher. I could not locate any editorial policy, so I think the news articles are not reliable to source factual claims. JBchrch talk 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help and suggestions. I will list these as either reliable or unreliable in the referencing section for the Wikiproject Board Games once this is archived. VickKiang (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pak (creator)

Source: "The Crypto Times"

Article: Pak (creator)

Content: On September 3, 2021, Pak launched the Lost Poets project and NFT strategy game which sold out in 2 hours and generated $70 million in sales by selling approximately 58,000 NFTs. Lost Poets consists of 65,536 NFTs available for sale and a further 1024 Origin NFTs given away during the project. Lost Poets was planned as a year-long project and consists of four acts, Act 1: The Sale, Act II: The Reveal, Act III: The Explorer, and Act IV: The Twist. Pak partnered with Manifold, a smart contract developer, to launch the project.

---

Another editor has been persistently adding this content to Pak (creator), and is specifically keen to have the $70mil figure added in. I find that "The Crypto Times" is not WP:RELIABLE and that "a16z" is not WP:INDEPENDENT, and suggest removing the $70mil figure until better citations are found -- I have been unable to find any other articles which include the $70mil figure beyond these two. Cheers, and thanks for a second opinion. SiliconRed (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

SiliconRed (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cryptotimes has all the hallmarks of a press release regurgitated as an article especially the about statement often attached to press releases. 2nd source is not independent.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct @Siliconred. JBchrch talk 18:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

fighterjetsworld.com

Is https://fighterjetsworld.com/latest-news/aircraft-crash/russian-air-force-mil-mi-35-helicopter-shot-down-by-ukrainian-armed-forces/27678/ a reliable reference? Currently being used in List of aircraft losses during the war in Donbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and othe articles probably elsewhere if I check. The about us page lists nothing useful, and consindering they claim to be one of the world’s most popular and reliable military aviation websites they have a surprisingly low 3,667 likes on a Facebook page that's supposedly been active since 2015. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not remotely a reliable source - see this ludicrous photoshop image on another page [169], and note that the website is asking their 'fans' whether it is real. Clickbait trash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're going to photoshop stuff like that, make sure you know how shadows work. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Simple common sense would help too. Almost twice the weight. Three engines instead of four... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable in any way. Looks like a combination of a fan site and a spamfarm. No way. --Jayron32 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard no on this like on other fan sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruptly, subsidiary of RT (Russia Today)

Should Ruptly, a state-owned subsidiary of  RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), be treated as part of RT and be considered to inherit the reliability status of RT? There are approximately 41 citations of ruptly.tv   across Wikipedia article space at the moment.

As concluded in the 2020 RfC and affirmed by academic consensus, RT is a propaganda outlet (sources) with a reputation for publishing disinformation (sources) and conspiracy theories (sources), especially about geopolitical matters. Many of the 41 citations of Ruptly are for geopolitical or military claims (e.g. in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership article), and should be reviewed. — Newslinger talk 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Renat 12:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's a bad source for a few reasons. The fact it is a Russian propaganda outlet which publishes fake news is clear in our article. But also its footage is mostly essentially user-generated content that it uploads without any real checks, so is almost a SPS platform like YouTube (example here) so not the sort of source we should use even if it weren't biased. At best, we should handle it as we do primary sources like YouTube videos. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I would say that it's even less reliable than RT because of the reasons Bobfrombrockley outlines. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Pretty straightforward conclusion. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Note Added Ruptly and Redfish to WP:UPSD as deprecated, same as RT. Will change the classification if this discussion closes differently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, even without the RT ownership it still wouldn't be a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment. What untruths are being aired? Only what Reuters says? Seems like a rush to Russian Xenophobia over what a small section of government did. Welcome to the revived Cold War. When I look at the 41 citations they're things like "A protest against COVID happened in Russia. Or Russian troops were involved in a Syria war. Is that untrue? CaribDigita (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not "Xenophobia" to recognize that the subsidiary of a disinformation outfit is unreliable; as you can see on the perennial sources list, questionable sources based in many other countries have also been designated as unreliable. I can't find any evidence that Ruptly is somehow more reliable than its parent organization, RT. Also, see this excerpt from the peer-reviewed Politology journal that explains how RT, Sputnik (RSP entry), and Ruptly share the same objective of disinformation:

Today, disinformation and propaganda are a component of Russia’s “soft power” and a part of its security policy, including hybrid warfare. In 2012–2013, after being elected for his third term, Putin began using cyberattacks and disinformation to counter the “soft power” of the West and to compensate for the weakness of Russia’s own conventional strategy. Russia’s disinformation and propaganda strategy works on a trial-and-error basis and is clearly developed separately for each country or group, focusing on those narratives and unfortunate news that work best in a particular environment. The main goal is to discredit politicians, experts, institutions, and media of the target countries and to create a one-sided pro-Russian reality. Tools of such influence involve the media outlets RT, Sputnik, Ruptly, TASS.

Karpchuk, Nataliia; Yuskiv, Bohdan (February 2021). "Dominating Concepts of Russian Federation Propaganda Against Ukraine (Content and Collocation Analyses of Russia Today)". Politology. 102 (2). Vilnius University Press: 116–152. ISSN 1392-1681 – via CEEOL.

— Newslinger talk 18:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment:I hear you what's an example that source gives? I always hear the accusation but never see anything ever quoted as a clear-cut example of the "propaganda". Like with CGTN from China, they give as an example the forced confession. CaribDigita (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example. Since Ruptly is a service offered by RT, a source that the community has already determined to be unreliable in almost all cases, the burden of proof is really on those who want to use Ruptly to show that it is reliable despite the limitations of its parent company. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: So that New York Times said the "Bible burning" occurred at the protest and says CBS showed it too but their problem was Ruptly didn't show that someone came thereafter to put the Bible out? And that's their claim of misinformation. CaribDigita (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Deceptively editing a video to manufacture a scandal, as Ruptly did in this example, is a negative indicator of reliability. The US-based disinformation operation Project Veritas (RSP entry) uses a similar strategy, and is also considered unreliable for this reason.

Responding to your comment about CBS, the article states that the local CBS affiliate (unlike Ruptly) presented the information in a non-deceptive way: "Apart from the Ruptly videographer, only one other journalist — a local television reporter — heard about the Bible burning, and noted it with a single sentence in a lengthy report on that night’s protests. The story, by KOIN, the local CBS News affiliate, also reported that a group of women calling themselves Moms United for Black Lives Matter attempted to put out the fire — a detail not included in the Ruptly video, which was edited to string together a number of clips from the night." — Newslinger talk 10:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I don’t know that there is evidence to suggest editorial independence from RT. For completeness sake, I would also support deprecating Redfish <redfish.media>, which is owned by Russia as a subsidiary of RT. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I also support assigning Redfish the same classification as RT and Ruptly. Georgetown University's Gnovis Journal published an article confirming that many Redfish staff members migrated from RT, Ruptly, and other Russian state media outlets. Combined with the fact that Ruptly owns Redfish, it is undeniable that Redfish is repackaging the same questionable propaganda of RT/Ruptly in a different format under a different brand. — Newslinger talk 17:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I want to note that ANO TV-Novosti is a shell organization founded by the Russian state-owned RIA Novosti (RSP entry) that holds the assets of RT, RT's subsidiaries, and other organizations that are closely associated with RT. Organizations that operate under ANO TV-Novosti have shared resources (including employees and office space) and objectives, and should be treated similarly since the dividing lines between these organizations are minimal. ANO TV-Novosti organizations include RT, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick, and any other brands that are launched in association with ANO TV-Novosti. — Newslinger talk 10:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Surely there's no need for a separate depreciation discussion given that these are literal subsidiaries? Just need to be added to the RT rsp entry and added to the edit filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Since these sources are politically sensitive, and because these sources have previously claimed to be editorially independent of each other (a dubious claim), I thought it would be better to err on the side of caution and get community consensus first. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruptly denies that their organization is a subsididary of RT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RT, Ruptly, et. al. sometimes deny connections to each other, but both primary sources and reliable secondary sources contradict Ruptly's denial. Please see Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § Ruptly and, in particular:

• RT's Russian language about page (archive link; translation of first sentence: "The RT television network includes nine news and documentary channels, information online portals in six languages, as well as a global multimedia agency RUPTLY, offering exclusive materials to the TV channels of the whole world.")
• RT's 2013 press release "RT Launches ‘Ruptly’ – Full-service Global Video News Agency" (archive link).

— Newslinger talk 19:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RT including Ruptly in their network broadcasting would be consistent with Ruptly being a sister company as they claim. The US government puts it thus: "RT was established by TV-Novosti, which was founded by RIA Novosti. RT’s network also includes a sister news agency Ruptly ..." So the title of this thread, which presents "subsidiary" as if it's an undisputed fact, doesn't appear to be consistent with WP:TALKHEADPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The heading is consistent with the content in the RT (TV network) and Ruptly articles, consistent with the consensus that determined that content in those articles, and consistent with the reliable sources that the consensus is based on. Therefore, the heading of this discussion is consistent with WP:TALKHEADPOV; feel free to obtain consensus for your view on the respective article talk pages if you disagree.

Additionally, the United States Department of State report linked in your comment explains that the ownership claims made by RT, Ruptly, Redfish, and Maffick are logically inconsistent:

Redfish claims Ruptly is its parent company and officially it is registered as belonging to Ruptly, however RT has also called Redfish an RT “digital content project.” Both Ruptly and Redfish are located in Berlin, and until 2021 when Maffick closed its Berlin office, Ruptly, Redfish, and Maffick shared the same address. Ruptly’s website states it was founded “to act as an independent commercially funded organization and sister agency to RT,” while Redfish’s website states that Ruptly is “a news agency owned by RT.” On RT’s website, Ruptly is described as “RT’s video agency.” This discrepancy could be an indicator of a lack of organizational independence.

"RT and Sputnik's Role in Russia's Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem" (PDF). United States Department of State. 20 January 2022. p. 22.

Thank you for sharing this report, which shows the lack of transparency among these media outlets and supports the understanding that Ruptly, Redfish, and Maffick inherit the unreliability of RT. — Newslinger talk 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were a reliable source then its statement that "ANO TV Novosti ... is the principal shareholder in both Ruptly and RT" would further reinforce the idea that Ruptly is a sister company, and of course your further quote of the US government doesn't say otherwise, it says sister. My !vote is that the question is bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The source that was cited for the statement doesn't mention Ruptly at all, so I've amended the Ruptly article to remove the unverifiable content in Special:Diff/1075062354. Please see the citations at Ruptly#cite_note-subsidiary-1 that establish that Ruptly is a subsidiary of RT. And finally, RT (the company) marketing Ruptly (the channel) as a sister channel to RT (the channel) does not preclude Ruptly (the company) from being a subsidiary of RT (the company). — Newslinger talk 18:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What about TASS? Is that one better, or still hot garbage? It has a much longer history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There was consensus to designate TASS (RSP entry) as a situational source because it is the flagship news agency of the Russian government, and it is considered usable for the government view when appropriate and accompanied with in-text attribution. Because it is a major news agency, content from TASS is heavily reused by other domestic publications.

This is different from RT, which is a TV network that primarily targets non-domestic audiences and has a reputation for propagating disinformation. RT adapts its message for each market it operates in to most effectively "encourage conspiracy theories about media institutions in the West in order to discredit and delegitimize them". RT, Ruptly, and Redfish also have a pattern of misleadingly portraying themselves as "independent" of each other and of the Russian government, when reliable sources confirm otherwise.

As an analogy, TASS is like Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry), while RT is like China Global Television Network (RSP entry). (In fact, CGTN was modeled after RT.) — Newslinger talk 22:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Missed the TASS entry in the list, thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That is apparently its WP:RSP entry. My personal opinion is that all sources owned by or otherwise under the effective control of the Russian Government should be treated together. Therefore, since RT is deprecated, TASS should be too. But that's just my opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that TASS is a reliable source for the position of the Russian government (i.e. if TASS says the Russian government believes "X", we can be sure that the Russian government does indeed believe X) which is due in some situations (e.g. in disputes to which Russia is a party). It might also be reliable for facts relating to situations the Russian government has no political position regarding (this is true of at least some state-owned media, I've not looked to see if applies to TASS). RT is not reliable even for those limited uses. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to considering both Ruptly and Redfish as equivalent to RT in terms of reliability. Not to mention, its UGC aspect makes it unusable even if one disregards the Russian disinformation operation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The source contains nothing but Russia propoganda and misinformation. It should not be trusted at all, especially with the situation with Ukraine, a lot of misinformation and fake news is going around. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrayinska Pravda)

I have been working on Russian–Ukrainian information war, which came into my hands tagged as “needing cleanup after translation” and while the mangled machine translation is now approaching readability, it had a host of other content problems that I am now beginning to try to address. So please don’t write me letters; I know and am working on it. There is currently however no dispute or edit war on this page.

My specific question relates to the Ukrainian-language version of Pravda, which is frequently cited as a reference and which the original author appears to believe. I did not see a discussion of it at Pravda and the archives here heap scorn on Pravda in general, but archive 114 apparently contains a comment from somebody who thinks the Ukrainian version is “definitely reliable”. I may have some other source questions shortly, but that one comes up quite a bit. Btw, if anyone can point me to a list of Ukrainian sources that are reliable for the topic, that would be useful.

I am primarily working on the theory that most of these events probably have English-language sources, but as part of that I am also attempting to verify the existing sources, which are almost all in Russian or Ukrainian, and tagging the dead links or RS questions that I encounter Elinruby (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

PS - Before somebody gives me the speech on context - it is used at least a dozen times for different statements. Granted that the whole article is about different versions of the truth, my question is whether statements of fact in a news story, claiming that Politician X says Y on date Z, for example, are likely to be accurate. Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, just to clarify. Do you mean Pravda as in the CPRF controlled one or Pravda.ru or Ukrayinska Pravda (pravda.com.ua  )? The latter is not a version or edition but an unrelated organisation. It was founded in Ukraine in 2000 whereas the other two are splits from the original Pravda. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrayinska Pravda is the one I am asking about. The article also uses the Russian one as a reference but looks like this is usually as an example of something “Russian media” were saying about something. Since that one *is* Russian media, ignoring those citations for the moment. So does the fact that the ua publication is different than the Russian Pravda mean it is ok as a reference for uncontested news events? Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to research this source and report back. The new page patrol source guide (WP:NPPSG) lists only 3 sources based in Ukraine at the moment, not including Ukrayinska Pravda, so you may have to fall back on the WP:NEWSORG guideline, which states that "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", if there is no evidence that the source has significant reliability issues. — Newslinger talk 15:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda, as a lot of sources in the conflict, even including TASS, RIA Novosti or Ukrinform, will be reliable for "Politician X says Y on date Z" statements, though it is better to use Russian sources for Russian politicians and Ukrainian sources for statements by Ukrainian politicians (or, better still if available, use non-Ukrainian and non-Russian sources if possible). This is quite a low bar and a lot of marginally reliable sources are OK for direct quotes of politicians, as it is usually uncontroversial info.

In general, Ukrainska Pravda is a Ukrainian RS. The media watchdogs have generally uncovered few problems with the source: [170] [171] [172] [173], and the ownership transparency for the media outlet was OK but not brilliant (may be outdated, as the outlet was sold in 2021 to some other company, though I did not see any signs of deterioration of coverage since Ukrainska Pravda changed hands).* I occasionally notice typos à la Grauniad but they do not influence the quality of coverage, which is generally fine. They also have a forum, which obviously is unreliable per WP:USERGEN, as well as blogs, whose reliability depend on authorship. ТАБЛОІD section is, as the name suggests, tabloid-like, which is OK but won't be usable in vast majority of circumstances.

Istorychna Pravda (історична правда) publishes history-related pieces, which will have to be attributed to the author, as it publishes historians' pieces but also those who don't necessarily have relevant expertise; DUE concerns have to be taken into account (for example, Volodymyr Viatrovych, former head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, is a nationalist historian and has been accused of whitewashing UA's history. You know, Eastern Europe seems to love to toy with its past - see the more (in)famous example of the Institute of National Remembrance in Poland. So it will depend from article to article, and it's best to use scholarly sources anyway whenever possible.

Tl;dr: yes, it is generally fine, at least the news you read on the front page (pravda.com.ua) are perfectly fine for our purposes. Most of the news on the front page will also be translated into English, though they don't seem to update the news afterwards as they do in the Ukrainian and Russian versions.

*All links in Ukrainian, sorry. I hope Google Translate will help you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kyiv Independent

I'm seeing some use of The Kyiv Independent in a number of articles relating to the Russo-Ukrainian war. The English language outlet, which was founded in November 2021, is composed of the former staff of Kyiv Post after a bit of turmoil at the Post. I'm not quite sure how to approach the source; WP:NEWSORG notes that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, but it's unclear to me at this time if that means the source is relegated to WP:MREL or WP:GUNREL territory as it pertains to the day-to-day events in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Is there a general precedent on how these sorts of sources are treated? Also, is there anything specific about this source that would make it more or less reliable than the typical three-month-old newspaper? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)+

I think this is a really good question. In terms of the outlet I see no reason to doubt it's reliability. It has a substantial and experienced editorial staff and its coverage is being regularly quoted by other reliable news outlets. However, we are seeing The Kyiv Independent's twitter feed being used a source. This for me is less reliable and probably not fact checked. Their twitter account is being used to give immediate updates and, in the chaos of war, may not be able to be trusted. But even the twitter feed is being used by other news outlets as a source. With these fast changing events do we really have much better in terms of an independent Ukrainian English-language source? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should be somewhat careful, as bombastic claims coming from the outlet are obviously going to have a slant, but it's actually more or less reliable so far. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Better to use the website than the Twitter feed but in general this outlet is also fine (it's more or less like the Moscow Times) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kyiv Post, before its 'demise', had a stellar reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and the quality of its reporting. I don't know if that reputation can be said to carry over to The Kyiv Independent, however, even if the staff are the same. It's a good source, but it should probably be used with attribution for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Given their staff all have good reputations, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Kyiv Independent, but in the context of an ongoing war it would be much better to use third-party sources. Zero^talk 03:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate sources repeating citogenetic claim (discovery of alcohol & sulfuric acid)

There are a number of sources out there which claim that the Persian physician and chemist Abu Bakr al-Razi (c. 865–925) discovered alcohol/ethanol, as well as sulfuric acid. There's for example this paper by Amr & Tbakhi 2007, this one by Modanlou 2008, and this entry in the New World Encyclopedia. As I will try to show below, these two last sources were copying from unreferenced claims in Wikipedia itself, while the first is also likely based on Wikipedia and in any case not reliable in context. Since every once in a while someone shows up at the Razi page to add these sources, insisting that they're reliable, I would like some input from other editors.

First note how our page on al-Razi looked c. 2004–2006:

10 March 2004: Inter alia he discovered alcohol, the use of alcohol in medicine, and he also discovered Sulfuric acid.

20 April 2005: He is credited with, among other things, the discovery of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering; and also of ethanol-alcohol (in addition to its refinement) and its use in medicine.

19 April 2006: As an alchemist, Razi is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering. He also discovered ethanol and its refinement and use in medicine.

Note that none of these revisions refer to a source to verify these claims. Then compare:

Modanlou 2008, p. 674: He discovered and purified alcohol (ethanol) and pioneered its use in medicine. Also, he is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid, the “work horse” of modern chemistry and chemical engineering.

New World Encyclopedia: As an alchemist, Razi is credited with the studies of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering. He also wrote about ethanol and its refinement and use in medicine.

New World Encyclopedia is an internet encyclopedia produced by the Unification Church that selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values, so the fact that they copy from Wikipedia is not a surprise. But Modanlou 2008, who is writing for an academic journal ("Archives of Iranian Medicine"), should not be literally copying from Wikipedia. Yet that's undoubtedly what he's doing, and since he does not even refer to Wikipedia, he is actually plagiarizing. He has in turn been cited for this on Wikipedia at least from 16 June 2017 until 15 February 2021 (the other source removed there, Schlosser 2011, actually does cite our Wikipedia article for the claim the discovery of alcohol, first to produce acids such as sulfuric acid on p. 4). Unless the 2005 Wikipedia article and Modanlou 2008 were somehow drawing from the same unnamed and unknown source, this must be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS.

That leaves us with Amr & Tbakhi 2007. They only mention Among his discoveries in alchemy, he is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid and ethanol. Again no reference whatsoever. The "he is credited with ... the discovery" is literally the same as the 2005~2006 Wikipedia article, but more conspicuous is the way in which sulfuric acid and ethanol are mentioned together (these are very different substances with very different historical trajectories of discovery). It seems more likely than not that Amr & Tbakhi 2007 too were drawing on the Wikipedia article.

Given all this, I think that no source which just passingly mentions that al-Razi discovered sulfuric acid and alcohol/ethanol, without itself detailing these discoveries in primary sources or referring to some more specialized source, should be considered reliable for these claims. The fact of the matter is that the sources which do discuss the details of the historical developments which led to the discovery of ethanol and sulfuric acid, as described in Ethanol#History (e.g. al-Hassan 2009) and Sulfuric acid#History (e.g. Karpenko & Norris 2002), do not at all attribute the discovery of these things to al-Razi.

What I propose is to deprecate Amr & Tbakhi 2007, Modanlou 2008, and any other source passingly mentioning that al-Razi discovered sulfuric acid and alcohol/ethanol without itself giving primary evidence or references for this, as support for these claims on Wikipedia. Thanks for reading, any input is very welcome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

These claims didn't originate in Wikipedia, here's an example from 1983 [174]. I think it's likely that those better references that mention primary sources exist. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting. However, the blurbs shown from the 1983 source are also just making the claim in a rather grandiose way without providing any evidence, and the nature of the work (Islamic Scientific Thought and Muslim Achievements in Science, published by Ministry of Science and Technology, National Hijra Centenary Committee, and Organization of Islamic Conference) does not suggest that it's very likely to contain evidence of that sort. In any case, with regard to that source considerations of WP:DUE apply, given that its claims are not repeated and in fact contradicted by later reliable sources such as Karpenko & Norris 2002. Perhaps this thread, which is about reliability as affected by citogenesis (the loud reinforcement by Wikipedia of an unreferenced claim made on Wikipedia, regardless whether the claim was original to Wikipedia or not), should be restricted to sources published after c. 2005.

But more importantly, note that I only propose to deprecate sources that repeat this claim without giving primary evidence or references. If it can be shown for any source that it does give evidence of any sort, the proposal does not apply. Even only specifically deprecating Amr & Tbakhi 2007 and Modanlou 2008 would already be of help. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If the 1983 source is making the same claims, how are we sure that any of the sources were citing Wikipedia? Couldn’t it be that they just took it to be a well-accepted fact that didn’t need to be explicitly cited? It feels difficult to reduce it all to citogenesis. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I found this source which cites Islamic Technology, Ahmed al-Hassan and Donald Hill, 1987, Cambridge University Press. Also this source which is published in 2002 makes a similar claim but it doesn't cite any source, however judging from its publication year it is probably not from Wikipedia.Premitive (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The attribution of these discoveries to Al-Razi is quite contentious, and the repeated use of this "workhorse" phrase is certainly a bit off with these particular sources. On a broader note, there is quite a lot of information that needs setting right on Wikipedia on the subject of medieval Arabic/Persian scientific discovery. Here alone, there is quite a lot to unpack. Really this subject is a bit of a Pandora's box. Some sources attribute the discovery of sulfuric acid to al-Razi, while others attribute it to the Geber (also known as pseudo-Geber, not to be confused with Jabir Ibn Hayyan).[175] While encyclopedia.com is hardly authoritative, it is interesting to note that while it separately, actively attributes the discovery to Geber,[176] there is no further mention of it on the dedicated page for al-Razi.[177] The first distillation of an alcoholic beverage to produce something close to pure ethanol is quite firmly attributed to Al-Kindi, who wrote an entire work entitled The Book of the Chemistry of Perfume and Distillations, and who lived about two generations before Al-Razi. This is also noted in the Hassan 2009 source @Apaugasma mentioned on Ethanol#History, which itself refers back to an 1893 work. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• We don't generally depreciate sources (or even treat them as generally unreliable) for a single mistake or error unless the error is so overwhelming that there's reason to believe it has completely destroyed the sources' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (or drew our attention to the fact that it never had such a reputation.) If you want to change their status it would be more useful to put together a general summary of how (or whether) they're covered elsewhere and how they stand up to our WP:RS / WP:V policies overall. At a glance I would certainly not expect the New World Encyclopedia to be a WP:RS based on how you described it - a source that mostly just copies Wikipedia is not an RS for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is that our text is WP:USERGENERATED - but that's not just a matter of this one incident. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a pertinent prior discussion on the New World Encyclopedia - seems to fail as a reliable source on several levels. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Promoting exaggerated claims about early Islamic discoveries has been an industry throughout the internet (for example, an August 2007 edit with "precursor to the later theory of relativity"). A lot of work done by people like Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi was remarkable but we should not accept sources which make sweeping claims with no description of how the information came to be known—I support deprecation. In case it helps, some diffs showing the development of the current text follow. • 8 November 2002 by 64.228.248.17 added "He discoverd Alcohol, the use of Alcohol in Medicine and he also discovered Sulphiric Acid." with no reference, and included "By Alireza Hashemi". • 11 April 2003 by Alireza Hashemi added a little more, again with no reference. • 16 May 2004 by Jorge Stolfi tweaked the text and added "work horse" with no reference (work horse is certainly correct, but there is no reference regarding the discovery). Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• These claims definitely precede Wikipedia. To give some examples, all from Google Books—
  • "Just who discovered sulfuric acid, whether it was al-Jabr, ar-Razi or some other Muslim chemist, remains a matter of dispute" (1992)
  • "Al-Razi lived and worked between 850 and 925 A.D. He is known for his discovery of Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)." (1992)
  • "Geber discovered nitric acid, and Rhazes sulphuric acid." (1935)
  • "Al-Razi was the first to discover the use of alcohol for medical purposes." (1980)
  • "There is also evidence that sulphuric acid was discovered by El-Razi (14). They used to distil alcohol by treating it with sulphuric acid." (1980)
  • "Moreover, Razi was the name of a famous Iranian chemist who invented alcohol" (1967)

So at any rate not a case of citogenesis. --Andreas JN466 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some further comments and answers to the above. @Mhawk10: for Modanlou 2008 the the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering phrase leaves no doubt he was copying from WP (phrase added to WP in 2004 here). Amr & Tbakhi 2007 also have the he is credited with ... the discovery phrasing. At the very least the fact that Modanlou 2008 was cited for c. 4 years on WP is a case of circular sourcing, if not citogenesis.

But yes, it's established now (thanks for all the input! ) that the claims are much older, per the evidence of Premitive, Iskandar323 and Andreas (Jayen466) above. Among the more serious sources, it occurs in this 1983 work and apparently in al-Hassan & Hill 1986 (for alcohol). However, it's important to note that these claims are not well-accepted facts. The attribution of sulfuric acid to al-Razi directly contradicts the authoritative account of Multhauf 1966 (The Origins of Chemistry, pp. 141–142) as accepted by, e.g., Karpenko & Norris 2002 or Newman 2006 (Atoms and Alchemy, p. 98) –for an account of the mainstream view of the historical development of the mineral acids, including al-Razi's role in it, see Hydrochloric acid#History. The attribution of alcohol to al-Razi contradicts the authoritative account of Forbes 1970 (A Short History of the Art of Distillation) as accepted, e.g., by Moran 2005 (Distilling knowledge, p. 12). Even one of the two authors of al-Hassan & Hill 1986 (pp. 133–149, which I fortunately don't have access to), al-Hassan 2001 (Science and Technology in Islam, vol. IV, part 2, p. 60) admits that al-Razi's works do not explicitly describe the production of sulfuric acid, pointing instead to two Arabic manuscripts which he says date from before the 13th century (which is significant because the mainstream view of Multhauf et al. is that mineral acids date from the 13th century). In his description of the history of alcohol, al-Hassan 2001 pp. 65–69 does not even mention al-Razi, nor does he in his 2009 recapitulation of this.

If one adds to this that even al-Hassan's views are not followed or accepted by any other scholar that I know of, one may get an idea of how fringe the unreferenced claims attributing these things to al-Razi really are. Some of the confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that the production of some mineral acids is described in the 13th-/14th-century works of pseudo-Geber (who certainly also knew alcohol), which used to be attributed to the 8th/9th-century Jabir (al-Hassan is the only scholar still defending this latter view). Exaggerated claims based on religious or national pride is probably also part of the story.

In any case, these claims are circulating extraordinarily widely, ever without proper references, and have for a very long time been promoted on Wikipedia (c. 2004–2021). Perhaps 'deprecate' is not the right term (I only call for disallowing the use of evidence-less sources for these two specific claims), but it would really be nice to have consensus about that here which we can point to in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Ajrocke, who notes on his user page that he is professional historian of chemistry, to this discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Any sources claiming to be able to definitively attribute either of these discoveries to Al-Razi cast considerable suspicion upon themselves, as the evidence for all of these sorts of claims is pretty debatable. Declarative statements without the qualification of phrases like "may have" or is "widely though to have" are clearly doing any injustice to the inherent ambiguity of peering this far into the past. The strongest of all of these claims is that Al-Kindi was the first to distill wine into ethanol, as evidenced by information in his book which yields detailed diagrams of the equipment used (thanks @Apaugasma). There are also multiple sources asserting that Jabir Ibn Hayyan was also familiar with the process in principle and certainly carried out experiments to the point of producing an ethanol flame. We can therefore pretty much definitively ignore sources claiming that Al-Razi was the first to distil alcohol - though I believe part of the confusion here may be the fact that it is possible that he may have been the first to apply distilled ethanol to medical applications (TBC). The sulfuric acid claims appear to be murkier still, as the details are this are far from clear and the wildly varying origins stories for this range from Jabir Ibn Hayyan, to Al-Razi and on to Pseudo-Geber in the 12th-13th century. All in all, very ambiguous. As @Apaugasma notes, the sources mentioning the discoveries of 'sulfuric acid and alcohol' together in the same sentence as if both are an unambiguous fait accompli without explanation expose their own poverty. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So, now that it has been positively established that the claim did not originate on Wikipedia so forget that. Forget deprecation also; that is a severe degradation of a source for most uses and no such case and can be found in this discussion. The way to deal with uncertainty and disagreement between sources is attribution. "AUTHOR1 attributes him with XYZ,[cite] but AUTHOR2 considers that unlikely.[cite] AUTHOR3 attributes the discovery to ABC.[cite]". Stuff like that, this is basic wikicraft. Zero^talk 13:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Standardly using attribution where multiple POVs are found in the sources is a perfect recipe for creating a false balance. Some POVs are repeated and repeated by poor sources without any evidence whatsoever. The relevant policy is RS/Context matters: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. So how do we weigh these sources? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:GOODRESEARCH and WP:TERTIARY. For instance "Alchemy" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World , and "Chemistry and Alchemy" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam and following the bibliographies. "...also managed to produce mineral acids, although it is doubtful whether he recognized them as isolated substances" looks like a good starting point for sulfuric acid. fiveby(zero) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here is a doc on the history of sulfuric acid from California State University, Los Angeles, saying,

• 8th century c.e. - Jabir ibn Hayyan became the first recorded person to produce mineral acids including sulfuric acid
• 9th century c.e. - Al Razi used iron sulfates and copper sulfates under distillation to produce small quantities of sulfuric acid.
• 13th century c.e. - Albertus Magnus, perhaps the most widely read author of his time, wrote several influential books in medieval Europe describing Al Razi’s method of producing oil of vitriol [= sulfuric acid]

That document lists further references at the bottom of page 2 that may be helpful. Maybe it's more correct to say that al-Razi invented a method for manufacturing sulfuric acid. (That would tally with what Hunke says on p.170 of her work cited in The History of Anaesthesia, published by the Royal Society of Medicine.) --Andreas JN466 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I am usually against this deprecation (or depreciation as some seem to think it is) system, but if nobody can prove this isn't citogenisis then it seems like the best move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources produced above prove that the essential claims predate the existence of Wikipedia. Zero^talk 03:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is no need to formally deprecate. Sources that are based on (or, worse, copy) Wikipedia can simply be declared unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wow, thanks for all these sources! This combined heuristic power is really awesome, we should be asking each other for sources like this more often! Unfortunately, however, I'm not learning anything new from these sources about the history of alcohol/mineral acids, though I am gaining a deeper insight in the 20th-century history of tendentious claims about early Muslim chemists, so to speak.

See the problem is this: above I cited respected authorities in the field of the history of chemistry, like Multhauf 1966 and Karpenko & Norris 2002, whose primary source based-accounts (concluding that the discovery of sulfuric and other mineral acids dates to c. 1300) are accepted by top scholars like Newman 2006 (Atoms and Alchemy, p. 98). But apparently already in 1960 someone like Sigrid Hunke, a religious studies (!) scholar allegedly influenced by Nazism (!), published a work called Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland, "Allah's Sun over the West" (!), in which she already made these same seemingly omnipresent claims about al-Razi being responsible for the discovery of sulfuric acid and alcohol (p. 170), without referring to any primary source or to any other form of evidence whatsoever. This is a really problematic pattern: unqualified scholars repeating unevidenced attributions of alcohol and various mineral acids to early Islamic chemists, often with some apparent religious or national axe to grind, who are completely ignored by actual historians of chemistry who actually deal with the primary sources on the history of these things.

When Nomanul Haq in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World writes that al-Razi managed to produce mineral acids, although it is doubtful whether he recognized them as isolated substances, he seems to be referring to the well attested fact that Jabir and al-Razi were experimenting with the heating of alums and salts, in which they must indeed have produced gaseous substances like hydrogen chloride and mercury(II) chloride, the study of which was in turn essential to the later discovery of mineral acid-based substances such as aqua regia (it's actually hydrogen chloride, itself not a mineral acid but forming fumes of hydrochloric acid upon contact with the water vapor in atmospheric air, that went unrecognized by al-Razi: see Multhauf 1966 pp. 141–142, 160–163; cf. al-Hassan 2001, Karpenko & Norris 2002). But how would we know what Nomanul Haq means, since he does not refer to any source for his claim? Abdul Mujeeb Khan in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam is even worse, attributing the whole gamut of nitric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and other acids to both Jabir and al-Razi, giving us only the name of a Jabirian work and of the medieval historian al-Mas'udi (edition? page number? secondary source on this?). No, we don't need tertiary sources, quite the opposite: we need a secondary source that actually comes up with some hard evidence in primary sources for all of these claims.

I should perhaps emphasize that I personally would be very happy if someone here would find such a source. I want to learn, and to get it right. But in the meantime my request is actually much simpler. I was wrong to ask for deprecation, not fully understanding what it means. Despite the fact that Modanlou 2008 literally copied a whole sentence from WP and was later cited for that very sentence on WP for c. 4 years (I'm rather amazed at the lack of concern for that! ), citogenesis is not really the most relevant thing here either. Rather, there's a problem we've discovered goes all the way back to 1960 of unreferenced claims being ever again recycled, which despite the fact that there is no evidence in sight, have become almost part of the 'common wisdom' about the accomplishments of early Muslim chemists. To deal with this problem, I simply propose the following:

Can we agree that sources which merely claim that al-Razi discovered alcohol and sulfuric acid, without providing primary evidence or a full reference to a more specialized source, are unreliable in context for this specific claim?

I'm already seeing some support for this here and there above, but it would be nice to have a full-flung consensus. We have for almost twenty years been on the wrong side of this (cf. also the massive amounts of misinformation removed from the Jabir article here), so let's make it very sure we stay on the right side now! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought the Oxford works were helpful in not giving prominence of a discovery for balance. For tracking down the evidence i have been searching for H. E. Stapleton; M. Hidayat Husain (1927). "Chemistry in Iraq and Persia in the Tenth Century A.D". Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 8: 316–417. which i am led to believe may be helpful, but no luck so far. fiveby(zero) 03:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Grey Zone

Thoughts on this? It is interesting though idk how much to believe it. Purpose would be for use in articles related to current events in Ukraine, if I dare try to edit those, and also for use in further research outside of mainspace. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSP. The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. Renat 21:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wasn't familiar with the Greyzone or Max Blumenthal. I tend to want to use stuff if knowledgeable editors think it looks credible or if it has secondary RS attention, but for something like this, yeah, more confirmation is needed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Help resolving contradictory sources

Hey, I need help making sense of some of the sourcing problems in this article I just created on Juan Pablo Cárdenas. The article currently relies heavily on primary sources, namely shortish biographies of him published by the University of Chile School of Journalism for which he works and, to a much lesser extent, one by his alma mater, the three of which substantially corroborate the content of one another, insofar as they overlap (the School of Journalism bio is by far the most detailed). I would have thought that I could count on these being reliable for basic facts concerning his life, but I have now found several places where they are made to seem outdated or outright contradicted by other sources:

• His University of Chile bio claims that he currently manages that school's radio station, while his short bio by a press agency he currently writes for implies this is outdated
• His School of Journalism bio claims that one of the magazines he founded operated from 1077 (presumably a typo of 1977) to 1991, a total of fourteen years, while a twelve-year-old article about him by the International Press Institute claims it operated fifteen years
• His School of Journalism bio claims he was press attaché for the Chilean embassy from 1994 to 1999, while the IPI articles claim it was February 2000
• All three affiliated bios describe him as "founder and director" of a certain online newspaper, Primera Línea, while a 2002 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) describes him only as "director" and strongly implies that he had assumed control of an existing publication. Moreover, Cárdenas himself describes being fired from that position by the board of directors of La Nación (Chile), who I rather doubt would have controlled the paper if he had founded it himself.

This number of contradictions in a three-paragraph biography is just ridiculous, and I don't know which side to favor. The University bios are more recent than the two articles (both of which have rotted, I might add), but in general my impression is that the articles are more trustworthy. I am wondering if the connected biographies might be exaggerating his accomplishments for their own sake, but I have no reason to suspect that apart from the contradictions I just documented. Thoughts? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's a topic of significant controversy or contention, when sources disagree I think it is best (WP:NPOV) to just report what the disagreeing sources say, instead of choosing sides. E.g. Joe was born in New York (source 1), or Paris (source 2). 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If they were equally reliable sources, that is what I would do. However, I am not sure how severe to consider the University biographies' conflict of interest and to what extent that should affect things, especially with regard to the last point. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)